The Rhetoric of Supreme Court Appointments- Brittany Ellexson

Trump vs. Hilary: Supreme Court Style 

• In the heat of this election, the issue of choosing the next President comes along with who will choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump obviously have very different views on how they would run the country if elected by voters, and with their very different views comes very different nominees for the current vacant Supreme Court Justice seat.
• Hilary wants a Supreme Court Justice who has a real understanding of every day life and someone who can relate to voters and their needs. According to The Los Angeles Times, “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose,” she said, “and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.” 
• On the other hand, Trump favored past Supreme Court Justice Scalia and how he held up conservative views. Trump has released a list of 20 possible candidates that he would pick from if he was elected President.

Words are Just Words People 

• In regards to the rhetoric surrounding this election and the issue of who will be the next appointed Supreme Court Justice, both candidates have deployed very different uses of language and how they choose to impact their voters.
• The rhetoric that Hilary has used throughout her campaign has been centered around conveying the message that Donald Trump is unstable and unfit as a candidate. With this, Hilary has pointed out that Trump is derogative of women and not respectful. A recent video leaked of Trump exploiting women has become a center of attack for Hilary. In the last Presidential Debate, Hilary pointed about that the video shows who Trump is as a man and the quality of his character.
• In defense, Trump has deployed the rhetorical strategy of the Apologia Discussion. He apologized for his, “locker room talk,” and that he is not that person. He asked voters for forgiveness and is trying to move on. He also is quoted saying, “words are just words people,” in response to Hilary’s ability to lead and he points out how she has unkept promises about change in her past positions.
• This recent issue brings up the question of Donald Trump’s character and his fitness ability of being President. With the Presidency, comes the responsibility of choosing the highest judge in our country’s legal system. Can a man like Trump responsibly choose the justice, or does his character and actions hurt his ability to lead as a public figure?

 

Historically…

Historically, if a left leaning Supreme Court judge passes away, the president will still replace him or her with a left leaning appointee in order to keep the balance in the system, even if the political views do not coincide with that president. By President Obama appointing Judge Merrick Garland, this goes against what politicians have historically chosen. This is why conservatives do not believe that Obama should have the authority to appoint Garland. Since he has entered a lame duck period, many believe that the judge should not be appointed until after the election. Conservatives particularly do not want Garland to be considered based upon the overt list that Donald Trump has recently released.

 

Rhetoric Surrounding Trump’s Supreme Court Appointees

Recently, Donald Trump released a list of appointees he would consider to replace the late Judge Scalia. The rhetoric Donald Trump used was unlike the methods that most politicians use, especially as a presidential candidate. It is representative of his unorthodox campaign style. He explicitly named the eleven judges he was considering, which is unusual for a candidate to do, as they typically speak in general terms of what they value in the position or qualities of a person in order to appeal to the masses of the party and voters in general. However, by using this blatant tactic of explicitly naming rather than generalizing, it enhances Trumps style of being “upfront and honest” as stated by many supporters. Through naming each of the eleven candidates, Trump was able to reassure conservatives who perhaps doubted him, and gain support through satisfying their taste for who should be a supreme court justice regarding what the values should be. Donald Trump had to pay close attention to the rhetoric of what conservatives desired in order to maintain party support, since in the past many Republicans did not side with him. By strategically choosing those who appealed most to his party—judges who are law-abiding conservatives, strict to the constitution, and less politically motivated, he was able to get more people on his terms.

 

The Appointees

The people on the list that Trump composed consisted of eleven strict conservatives, many of which chosen by the Conservative Heritage Foundation. The judges are people who are strict interpreters of the constitution, and are young, which acts as an advantage. However, the contenders are the complete opposite of President Barack Obama’s replacement choice, Judge Merrick Garland. Since Trump had very much outside help for his choices, the appointee options are apparently very well accepted by Conservatives who were skeptical of Trump’s devotion to the Conservative Party.

 

Rhetoric Surrounding the Democratic Party

Although Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee choices are extremely appealing to conservatives, they may not be as glittered with gold to the Democratic Party. Through choosing judges who are strict interpreters of the constitution, that deems social issues which may be interpreted differently at a risk for rulings that do not consider outside views such as liberals and moderates. The choices and rulings made will affect generations to come, and the future of our country. By having far right leaning supreme court judges, that may not exactly balance the system, since liberal views would not be taken remotely into consideration.

 

What’s Next?

The choosing of supreme court appointees is perhaps one of the most important decisions a candidate faces as their selection largely impacts the future of lawmaking and future generations. Although Trump’s rhetoric reflects the values of the conservative party, judges in that arena will very much displease liberals based on lawmaking that would pertain to abortion, women’s rights, gun laws, etc which is why democrats so badly want to take advantage of the opportunity to fill a seat of the supreme court with a liberal. However, it is important to keep the balance in the Supreme Court after a judge passes, so it could be detrimental to the harmony if a liberal judge was seated. Furthermore, the rhetoric Trump put in place regarding his exact choices for supreme court nominees posed as an advantage for him in the future of his candidacy as he chose candidates which are appealing to his party, benefitting him immensely with regard to future trust in policy.

Mary Claire McClellan

Rhetoric Around Supreme Court Appointees

Comm. 4320

10/6/2016

What you Need to Know

The Supreme Court is missing its ninth justice. Okay, but so what? It also happens to be an election year, so the stakes just got a heck of a lot higher in the fight for the White House.

Less is not More

With the death of Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the Supreme Court is down one player entering into a new term. This vacancy has the Court in deadlock, because there is not a ninth vote to break the 4-4 tie.

Upping the Ante

This empty seat on the Supreme Court ups the ante in the race to the White House, to say the least. Come November, our country will have a new Commander-in-Chief and subsequently, a court that leans in his or her favor.

Let’s break this down. Greg Stohr, of Bloomberg Politics, lays this out pretty clearly.

As Stohr so eloquently points out, if Hilary wins the race, the Democrats will have the majority BUT if Donald takes the cake, the Republicans will have the 5-4 majority.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-28/supreme-court-on-verge-of-historic-shift-stuck-in-limbo-for-now

Have your Cake and Eat it too

So basically, it’s Donald vs. Hillary: for the Presidency AND for the majority in court.  With the court majority, it’s looking like whoever wins the election will have his or her cake and eat it too.

It’s easy to get caught up in the drama of the election- the email scandals, tax return madness, the pant suits and the social media fat shaming – but let’s not lose sight of how important this election is. Our country is about to undergo an extreme transformation and the power is ours to elect the agent of that change.

The rhetorical nature of supreme court appointments has always been incredibly fascinating. To begin with, essentially every presidential administration has at some point referenced supreme court decisions in their comments to the public. Reelections, policy goals and legacies all have to do with exactly when and how these comments are made. Obviously, the frequent referencing of these supreme court decisions has to mean something. Administrations keep going back to this which is why we have to take a look at the rhetoric, especially when it comes to the appointments themselves.

The language of court opinions is without question one of the most important components of the legal process. With that being said, what does the language mean when it comes to supreme court appointments? Well, in my opinion, the appointment process can be broken down into a few parts. First, the nomination stage is where we see the rhetoric take shape. Presidents typically nominate those who share their ideologies and beliefs. However, this is not always the case. During the nomination stage, the rhetoric is crafted to reassure those who support the president’s decisions and convince those who oppose the decision is plausible. That’s the goal.

After nominating appointees, confirmation takes place. This is where the rhetoric changes slightly. The rhetorical goals don’t change but the delivery of information does. After the appointees have been confirmed, the president will likely draw on the appointees past successes and from there, the president will point towards hope for the future. Although the rhetoric of supreme court appointments often goes overlooked, that certainly doesn’t make the process unimportant.

Brittany Ellexson

COMM 4320

The Rhetoric of Supreme Court Appointments

10/4/16

Politics around Supreme Court Appointees

• In recent months, the rhetoric surrounding the Supreme Court has been a large topic of discussion because of the up and coming presidential election this November. Supreme Court Appointees have the highest power of deciding the nature of laws and oversee the most important cases in the United States today.
• The vacant seat on the Supreme Court due to the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has left the court deadlocked on major issues. The appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice could be a drastic turning point for our country politically and this uncertainty worries many politicians.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deadlocked-supreme-court-became-leading-campaign-issue/

Supreme Court: A Battleground Issue In This President Campaign?

• The Supreme Court has become a frontline issue in this presidential campaign due to the nature of who will be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.
• President Obama recently nominated Merrick Garland, a Democratic nominee, but this was shot down in the senate. This brought up the issue of Democrats trying to regain control of the senate.
• Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump have mentioned the Supreme Court during their campaign speeches but public opinion still shows that the issue does not remain a top priority for voters.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495960902/the-supreme-court-a-winning-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign

Who Can We Really Trust In This Election?

• The issue of trust has been brought up once again in this election because of Trump’s release of a list of potential Supreme Court justices if he was elected President.
• The list has been declared as solid by most conservatives, but the ultimate question of will Trump actually stick to his word if elected has been brought up for discussion among voters as well. Can we actually trust Trump? Can we even trust Hilary because of her own email crises?
• The nature of appointing Supreme Court justices will remain a hot topic on the campaign trail because of the rhetoric surrounding the Supreme Court and how it is centered around defending the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justice typically is appointed to uphold the agenda of the President and his staff. The agendas of Trump and Clinton vary drastically, as we have seen so far during this campaign. Which means the United State’s Supreme Court could be shifted towards one party, Republican or Democrat, from its neutral deadlocked position currently.

Emily Funk

Rhetoric Around Supreme Court Appointees

COMM 4320

10/2/2016

 

Party Influence of Appointees

Historically the rhetoric surrounding Supreme Court Appointees has been focused on candidates’ beliefs and how they impact future lawmaking in the United States of America. This candidate is a Liberal or Conservative, so while seated they will impact laws depending on what their political views are. Following the death of Justice Scalia, the focus has shifted from the candidates’ political beliefs to the timing and nature of the candidate’s appointment.

Judge Merrick Garland 

Most recently, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland because he believed the focus would be on Garland’s political leanings. Obama chose Garland because he was viewed centrist, and figured Republicans would be more open to his nominations. Despite expectations, the Republican party has refused to hold a hearing for Garland for the past 6-10 months. Instead they have chosen to wait to appoint anyone until after the 2016 election in hopes that Donald Trump will win and appoint someone more favorable from their point of view. By gambling for Trump the party was in high hopes that they would have a more favorable candidate to review.

Based upon this evidence, it has been demonstrated that currently the most important part of elections tends to be based upon timing.

200 Days!– Lame Duck?

Based upon the timeline above, it is evident that the appointment of Judge Merrick Garland has not been reviewed for over 200 days, whereas the average timeline for appointees is approximately 90 days. The hearings for other candidates are based upon the political affiliation of the President, as well as the party that is in charge of the House and Senate at the time of nomination. Currently Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate. Instead of being willing to review Garland and his centrist views, they are gambling that a more conservative candidate may emerge following the presidential election. The contentious presidency of Barack Obama has helped lead to this unique circumstance, but his suggestion of Garland was generally seen as a bipartisan move. The Republicans have argued that since Barack Obama is approaching his exit of office, he is a ‘lame duck’ and should not be eligible to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. While the legal precedents for this situation vary, the partisan rhetoric surrounding Garland’s review (much less his possible appointment) reflects the currently deep divide between Democrats and Republicans leading up to the November elections.