General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKethledge Seen as Top Supreme Court Choice
Time: As of Saturday evening, advisers say, the president had narrowed his list down to four candidates. Raymond Kethledge was the leading contender, although officials stress that Trump has not yet settled on a choice. Trump has been describing Kethledge to aides as Gorsuch 2.0, a reference to his 2017 successful nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Trump sees that nomination as one of the high points of his presidency.
Even so, White House officials are preparing rollout plans for all four contenders, which also include Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Hardiman, officials say. Hardiman, however, remains in distant last place.
https://politicalwire.com/2018/07/07/kethledge-seen-as-top-supreme-court-choice/
RandySF
(58,799 posts)In 2008, the Supreme Court reviewed, although on an emergency basis, another ruling in which Kethledge had participated. Kethledge had joined a majority of the full 6th Circuit in upholding a district courts ruling in favor of the Ohio Republican Party in a case involving the Help America Vote Act that liberal groups warned could have resulted in last-minute disenfranchisement for thousands of eligible new Ohio voters. The party had argued that the act requires states to successfully match voters with computer records in the states drivers license database or the Social Security database before they could register to vote or have their votes counted. The district court granted the partys motion to require Ohios secretary of state to give county election boards either lists of mismatches or a way to identify the mismatches, and the full 6th Circuit upheld that ruling. The secretary of state asked the Supreme Court to step in; in an unsigned order, the justices vacated the district courts temporary order. The justices did not weigh in on the merits of the dispute, but instead concluded that the party had not shown that it was sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether the district court has the authority to enforce the law in a case filed by a private party.
During his time on the bench, Kethledge has been a solidly conservative vote. He has almost uniformly voted in favor of the state and against the inmate in death-penalty cases. In United States v. Gabrion, Kethledge wrote for the divided en banc court in affirming a federal death sentence. Perhaps in response to the gruesomeness of the murders at issue in the case, Kethledges opinion uses strong terms. For example, several of the inmates arguments centered on the fact that he was tried in federal, rather than state, court because one of the murders took place in a national forest in Michigan which does not have the death penalty. Kethledge rejected the inmates argument that the absence of the death penalty in Michigan should have been a mitigating factor considered by the jury in determining his sentence, because he would not have otherwise been subject to the death penalty. Kethledge pointed to the Supreme Courts caselaw indicating that mitigating circumstances can play a role in a defendants personal culpability. That Michigan lacks a death penalty is irrelevant to a reasoned moral response to Gabrions background, character, and crime.
Kethledge was similarly dismissive off the inmates argument that he should be allowed to argue at his sentencing that there was some residual doubt about whether the victim was actually killed in the national forest. Kethledge wrote that the exclusion of Gabrions residual-doubt argument was so palpably harmless as to render an opinion on the merits of the exclusion nearly advisory. Indeed, he continued, although most residual-doubt cases hinge on whether the inmate actually committed the murder, here the supposed doubt concerns only a technical jurisdictional issue that, though significant legally, is much less so morally.
Kethledges conclusion also referred to the jurys ruling in moral, rather than legal, terms. He observed that, [a]fter 11 days of testimony and two days of careful deliberation, the 12 jurors who sat on this case decided unanimously that Marvin Gabrion deserved a sentence of death for what he did to the victim. We have no basis, Kethledge stressed, to set aside that moral judgment.