//  12/21/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, it's all judges, all the time. Charlie, Jason, and Easha take a closer look at a number of the President's judicial nominees—confirmed, pending, and withdrawn—to examine what might happen to Versus Trump cases in years to come.

Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin the discussion with a quick overview of the structure of the federal court system and talk about the importance of Trump's nominations to the Court of Appeals and District Court. Charlie then starts off the discussion of individual judges by talking about confirmed appellate judges Joan Larsen and Stephanos Bibas, whom Charlie believes are fairly mainstream conservatives. Jason then brings up Matthew Peterson, a district court nominee who withdrew after being unable to answer basic questions about trial court procedure. Next, Easha offers up commentary on the confirmation process of former Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, before the group turns to the other two withdrawn nominees, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley, and compares them to several other judges whose confirmations appear to be going smoothly. They end the episode with their big takeaways from the first year of nominations.

There's also a surprise holiday offer to our listeners at the end of the episode. You can direct message us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com if you'd like to respond.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Links

  • Here is an article about the withdrawal of Talley and Mateer, and here is an article about the withdrawal of Peterson.
  • Jason mentioned the record of district court nominee Mark Norris. You can find out more here.
  • An article mentioning Jeff Mateer's anti-trans comments is here.
  • An interesting article speculating about why Senator Kennedy, a Republican from Loiusiana, has been asking tough questions of Trump nominees is here.
  • We mentioned the article "In Defense of American Criminal Justice," which can be found here.
  • The article by Calabresi and Hirji proposing an expansion of the federal courts is here.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – Requiem for the Establishment Clause?

7/1/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Those who still believe that the Constitution precludes state involvement in promoting religious thought and experience now have some work cut out for them

Ira C. Lupu

George Washington University Law School

Robert W. Tuttle

George Washington University Law School

Republican Hoopla About Trump Judicial Confirmations Ignores the Important Facts

6/30/20  //  Commentary

I've found 79 cases where Trump-nominated appeals court judges have written or joined opinions that are so extreme that even other Republican-appointed judges have disagreed with them

Elliot Mincberg

People For the American Way

Religious Discrimination And Racial Discrimination

6/30/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Court’s decision in Espinoza is similar to the trajectory of the law of racial discrimination in some respects, it also offers a striking contrast in others

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School