President Trump announced today that he will announce his nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday at 5:00pm:

I will be announcing my Supreme Court Nominee on Saturday, at the White House! Exact time TBA.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2020

NEWS: Trump says his announcement on his SCOTUS pick will be at 5p Saturday.

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) September 22, 2020

To follow up on yesterday, we thought we would break down some details of President Trump’s new list of judges. President Trump released his list because voters deserve a clear understanding of a candidate’s vision of the direction of the Supreme Court.  Vice President Biden needs to explain what kind of judges he would select, for as President Trump stated: “Unfortunately, there is a growing radical-left movement that rejects the principle of equal treatment under law. If this extreme movement is granted a majority on the Supreme Court, it will fundamentally transform America without a single vote of Congress.”

Briefly on the new list.  It includes three Senators, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who are very well known and leading conservatives.  Instead let’s first focus on the current judges on the list:

President Trump campaigned on judges, and he delivered at an impressive rate.  As Mike Davis puts it:

To put this in perspective, President Obama appointed 55 circuit judges in 8 years; President Trump has appointed 53 in under 4. In doing this, President Trump has filled every federal circuit-court vacancy – something not done by any president in more than 40 years.

At 200 (and counting), President Trump is #2 of 45 for the pace of all Article III judges – and he would be #1 but for the fact that Congress created 152 new judgeships (25 percent) for President Carter to fill.

After Ukraine and the Russia-hoax, it seems likely the Democrats in the U.S. House's quest for Donald Trump’s tax returns is just the latest effort to damage the President politically.  During oral argument over President Trump’s tax returns, USA Today sums up that point as follows:

On the other hand, all the conservatives and some liberal justices wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking a decade of private data involving not only the president but members of his family. They suggested such extensive probing could harass and distract both Trump and future presidents.

. . .

“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?" Kavanaugh asked House general counsel Douglas Letter. . . .

But even liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer noted the subpoenas "go way, way beyond tax returns," a concern voiced by several conservative colleagues.

While Democrats have been obstructing President Trump's nominees to an unprecedented extent, Joe Biden has yet to discuss his most important nominees, those to the Supreme Court. 

On the first, cloture had been invoked 32 times combined on the nominees of the previous four Presidents in their first times terms.  As of today, for President Trump's nominees, it has been invoked 298 times!  Cloture is a delaying tactic traditionally reserved for the most controversial of nominees.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats have used it multiple times for people who have passed with no opposition.  Most recently on February 20 for Silvia Carreno-Coll who was confirmed in a 96-0 to be a U.S. District Judge.  Hardly controversial. 

Some positive actions have been taken in response to the coronavirus, including slashing the burdensome regulations that have been restricting Americans access to medical attention.  President Trump used his emergency powers, and other Governors have followed suit to reduce heavy regulations.

As President Trump said today:

I have directed the FDA to eliminate outdated rules and bureaucracy so this work can proceed rapidly, quickly, and fast. we have to remove every barrier. there were a lot of barriers that were unnecessary.

The Democrats' latest attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election is finally done.  Impeachment is over. 

As White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham stated (emphasis added):  

In what has now become a consistent tradition for Democrats, this was yet another witch-hunt that deprived the President of his due process rights and was based on a series of lies.  Rep. Adam Schiff lied to Congress and the American people with a totally made up statement about the President’s phone call.  Will there be no retribution?  Speaker Nancy Pelosi also lied to the American people about the need to swiftly pass impeachment articles they dreamt up, only to sit on them for a month before sending over to the Senate.  In the Senate, the Democrats continued to make their political motivations clear – Rep. Schiff proclaimed the issues “cannot be decided at the ballot box” – proving once again they think they know better than the voters of this country.  This entire effort by the Democrats was aimed at overturning the results of the 2016 election and interfering with the 2020 election.

We continue our Top 10 Blog posts for 2019.  Numbers 6-10 are here.  

5. February 7: SENATE JUDICIARY ADVANCES AG NOMINEE BARR AND 44 JUDICIAL NOMINEES

Senate Judiciary Dems playing an awkward game of praising Bill Barr's character and competence while saying why they're voting against him, which boils down to Pres. Trump, with some background of unitary executive theory.

In a series of two blog posts, RNLA will detail our top 10 blog posts of 2019.  Today Numbers 10-6.  

10.  May 1: TOP MOMENTS OF BARR HEARING

Attorney General Bill Barr drives it home -"How did we get to this point? The President was falsely accused of colluding with Russians - the evidence shows those allegations are false. To listen to some of the rhetoric you’d think the Mueller Report had found the opposite."

As Hanukkah celebrations are underway, we thought we would briefly focus on President Trump’s recent Executive Order Combating Anti-Semitism (some excerpts):

While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices.  Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. . . .

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”; and

(ii)  the “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.

(b)  In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment