• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Nominates Neomi Rao to DC Circuit Court:

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Neomi Rao is the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an office in OMB focused on regulatory review. Administrator Rao is a former professor of structural constitutional law, administrative law, and legislation and statutory interpretation at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Administrator Rao founded the Law School’s Center for the Study of the Administrative State and focused her scholarship on the political and constitutional accountability of administrative agencies and the role of Congress. Additionally, Administrator Rao’s comparative analysis of the use of dignity in constitutional law has been widely cited in the United States and abroad. She also served as a Member of the Administrative Conference of the United States and on the Governing Council of the ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.

Prior to joining the Law School, Administrator Rao served in all three branches of government. She served as Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. Administrator Rao also served as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where she was responsible for judicial nominations and constitutional law issues. In between government service, Administrator Rao practiced in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP, specializing in international law and commercial arbitration. After receiving a B.A. from Yale University and Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago, Administrator Rao clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In perhaps the best sign, Buzzfeed notes that liberals are not happy:

Criticism from liberal advocacy groups poured in after Trump announced Rao’s nomination, focusing on her record on deregulation.
“Rao has never seen a regulation she didn’t hate, and as a judge would dismantle 40 years of environmental and social progress,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “Her confirmation would be the most damaging and regressive yet by Trump after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.” https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...ao-to-replace-brett-kavanaugh-on-d-c-circuit/
I’m not surprised a strong advocate for deregulation would be opposed by the critical left and wonder what they’ll dig up about this nominee. It is strange the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity would find a Hindu woman “the most damaging and regressive” choice. Could it because she's not Lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,019
Reaction score
36,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I’m not surprised a strong advocate for deregulation would be opposed by the critical left and wonder what they’ll dig up about this nominee. It is strange the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity would find a Hindu woman “the most damaging and regressive” choice. Could it because she's not Lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
You mention a perfectly valid reason liberals would oppose this person and then immediately decide it must be based on something entirely irrelevant? Ok buddy. Have fun.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
6,702
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I’m not surprised a strong advocate for deregulation would be opposed by the critical left and wonder what they’ll dig up about this nominee. It is strange the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity would find a Hindu woman “the most damaging and regressive” choice. Could it because she's not Lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
I'll oppose this nomination precisely because they advocate for deregulation.

Deregulation is generally bad, unless you're careful to preserve necessary protections and only remove unnecessary stuff.

Generally speaking.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,689
Reaction score
81,051
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
top of her class at Yale and U of Chicago Law School, Supreme Court Clerk-sounds like a well qualified candidate
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'll oppose this nomination precisely because they advocate for deregulation.

Deregulation is generally bad, unless you're careful to preserve necessary protections and only remove unnecessary stuff.

Generally speaking.

So, she's apparently a fan of small government....and that is a mark against her? Hmm.....
 

Accountability

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2018
Messages
45
Reaction score
26
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If liberals don't want her, she must be the absolute best choice.:D
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
6,702
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So, she's apparently a fan of small government....and that is a mark against her? Hmm.....
Some regulations are necessary.
When I hear "advocate for deregulation", that means to me that they're advocating cutting the regulations that protect us by restraining corporations.

I don't like that.


Understand that I think corporations would kill people if it was legal, did doing so bring profit to the corporation doing it.
And that they do so already through circumspect or indirect means, for the same reason.

Although they're always ready with a defense along the lines of "well we weren't SURE this would happen, it was just a possibility".


IMO corporations are not by any means sufficiently punished for ****ing up, and if this were a just world the USA would be littered with the corpses of many a corporation taken down by government investigation for the harm it caused the people said government is supposed to protect.
 
Last edited:

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You mention a perfectly valid reason liberals would oppose this person and then immediately decide it must be based on something entirely irrelevant? Ok buddy. Have fun.

It's irrelevant to liberals??? LOL
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If liberals don't want her, she must be the absolute best choice.:D

We liberals had a problem with Scaramucci, Spicer, Hope Hicks, Sessions, Omarosa, and all the other best people trump hired ....AND FIRED. How many have gone to date? Over 50? They should install a revolving door at the white house.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some regulations are necessary.
When I hear "advocate for deregulation", that means to me that they're advocating cutting the regulations that protect us by restraining corporations.

I don't like that.


Understand that I think corporations would kill people if it was legal, did doing so bring profit to the corporation doing it.
And that they do so already through circumspect or indirect means, for the same reason.

Although they're always ready with a defense along the lines of "well we weren't SURE this would happen, it was just a possibility".


IMO corporations are not by any means sufficiently punished for ****ing up, and if this were a just world the USA would be littered with the corpses of many a corporation taken down by government investigation for the harm it caused the people said government is supposed to protect.

Judges are not supposed to determine whether something "protects us" or not. That is a politicians job. A judges job is to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not.
 

SLC

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
9,894
Reaction score
3,281
Location
Southlake, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mention a perfectly valid reason liberals would oppose this person and then immediately decide it must be based on something entirely irrelevant? Ok buddy. Have fun.



The left wing does hate strong republican women.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I’m not surprised a strong advocate for deregulation would be opposed by the critical left and wonder what they’ll dig up about this nominee. It is strange the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity would find a Hindu woman “the most damaging and regressive” choice. Could it because she's not Lesbian, bisexual or transgender?

I'm surprised that the news media is even paying attention to this. Normally Trump would have them buzzing about some irrelevant matter, like banning a liberal reporter from the White House news room. On the other hand, maybe Rao is the foil he's using to distract them from something even more explosive.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Some regulations are necessary. [snip]

Of course. The question is which are necessary. Conservatives and libertarians think that most of them are not.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So wait.

trump just nominated a minority women to the DC bench and the liberals are still wailing and nashing their teeth against her.
these guys are just one EMO after another.

She has all of the qualification and she has all of the needed knowledge and experience.
geez.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'll oppose this nomination precisely because they advocate for deregulation.

Deregulation is generally bad, unless you're careful to preserve necessary protections and only remove unnecessary stuff.

Generally speaking.

What about deregulating marriage? Do you oppose thst?
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,455
Reaction score
5,070
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What about deregulating marriage? Do you oppose thst?

Things might be easier in that arena if everyone devolved to the old Roman model. When neither State nor religion were involved and being married only meant you said you were.
 

Vadinho

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
5,589
Reaction score
2,727
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Of course. The question is which are necessary. Conservatives and libertarians think that most of them are not.

How does any judge use the term "necessary" in relation to regulations? Either the agency has the power or it does not. Either the law supports it or it does not. Being necessary is immaterial to the law itself unless the law claims it to be so. For instance, is it necessary to have the Endangered Species Listing for say, wolves. If you are a shepherd in Idaho you will say no. But the law is not about the shepherd, it is about the wolf and whether or not protecting it within the lower 48 comports with the law. If the judge a priori thinks the act is unnecessary and delists the wolf without justification, they are engaging in judicial activism. This assumes that the wolf does merit protection based upon science not politics.
 

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mention a perfectly valid reason liberals would oppose this person and then immediately decide it must be based on something entirely irrelevant? Ok buddy. Have fun.
That was the first source of my news, and I thought it was ironic they quote this figure at something advocating "biological diversity" criticising the nomination of a Hindu woman.
The announcement came as a surprise to the attendees of a Diya lighting ceremony in the White House commemorating Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated by millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Jains around the world.
I thought Trump was a Xenophobe, what’s he celebrating Diwali for?
Her position at the White House agency tasked with rule-making makes Rao a notable ally of Trump at the center of one of his core campaign promises: gutting excessive regulations from the federal government. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/neomiraokavanaugh-seat-987653
Indeed, and so far this is why the critical left rejects her. I’m fine with regulations, but excessive regulation is a real problem. When is regulation “excessive” is a matter of perspective, it relates to the number, difficulty and cost of compliance and whether it conflicts with other regulations as is often the case. The DC Circuit Court is a very good place to seat a judge with interest in deregulation because this is a court that deals with a lot of claims over excessive regulation. Neomi’s ideological inclination doesn’t really matter since liberal judges in the Court of Appeals are the overwhelming majority. The selection of a woman for this position is a positive and I expect it will facilitate confirmation, or at least make opposition to her more difficult (in the wake of this wave of newly elected female representatives).
 

SLC

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
9,894
Reaction score
3,281
Location
Southlake, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Things might be easier in that arena if everyone devolved to the old Roman model. When neither State nor religion were involved and being married only meant you said you were.
Well that worked.......for men.
 

SLC

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
9,894
Reaction score
3,281
Location
Southlake, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That was the first source of my news, and I thought it was ironic they quote this figure at something advocating "biological diversity" criticising the nomination of a Hindu woman.

I thought Trump was a Xenophobe, what’s he celebrating Diwali for?

Indeed, and so far this is why the critical left rejects her. I’m fine with regulations, but excessive regulation is a real problem. When is regulation “excessive” is a matter of perspective, it relates to the number, difficulty and cost of compliance and whether it conflicts with other regulations as is often the case. The DC Circuit Court is a very good place to seat a judge with interest in deregulation because this is a court that deals with a lot of claims over excessive regulation. Neomi’s ideological inclination doesn’t really matter since liberal judges in the Court of Appeals are the overwhelming majority. The selection of a woman for this position is a positive and I expect it will facilitate confirmation, or at least make opposition to her more difficult (in the wake of this wave of newly elected female representatives).
Maybe Trump will nominate her for the SC in 3 or 4 years
 

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, it was speculated in my first source that she could be nominated to replace Ginsburg, other Supreme Court Justices were 'groomed' at this DC Circuit Court, if the nominee writes a few good decisions that are then cited by the Supreme Court, in a couple of years she'd be a good contender.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
6,702
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
6,702
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course. The question is which are necessary. Conservatives and libertarians think that most of them are not.
I suppose my position is based on a distrust of how current corporations are structured.

I expect them to harm people and the environment if not restrained from doing so.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
6,702
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Judges are not supposed to determine whether something "protects us" or not. That is a politicians job. A judges job is to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not.
Then this judge shouldn't be advocating for deregulation.
 

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Then this judge shouldn't be advocating for deregulation.
She advocated for de-regulation because this was her job (as director of OIRA) and because this is an area of her particular interest (as a scholar and author specialized in administrative procedure, government, law and bureaucracy). We don't know if she would be advocating for de-regulation as a judge, don't think judges should be "advocating" for anything.

Opposition to this nominee is not vociferous. Maybe Democrats are not as concerned since its not for the Supreme Court, or perhaps they noticed their reaction to Kavanaugh wasn’t that well received, but we aren’t getting the reaction in opposition.
Given the importance of the D.C. Circuit (and the lack of any home-state Senators to mollify) I would expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to act promptly on this nomination. I would also like to think that this will not be a particularly controversial nomination. Rao was confirmed to OIRA 54-41, with six Senators crossing the aisle to support her confirmation. While I have no doubt most of the Senate will vote on party lines, this is the sort of nomination that should be capable of attracting bipartisan support. https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/13/neomi-rao-for-the-dc-circuit
 
Top Bottom