Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

30 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Your surprise at this statement makes me think the number is actually larger than you've been led to believe, because I know a fair amount as well.

Hell, it was the very argument Tahoe brought to the board as to why a significant chunk of Alabama would vote for a child molester over a Democrat.

 

We already knew those running the R party didn't really give a shit about abortion.  They needed to pander to get the votes.  Trump just proved what we already knew.  The elite/wealthy on either side of the aisle never really cared about abortion.  What's surprising is after this came out, the far right religious nutters didn't give a fuck.  It was worth the tears.  Real Christians...

[Fozzz 152]

I wonder how popular it would be for the SCOTUS to overturn cases like Brown, Griswold, etc., under an originalist interpretation.  

[David Dennison 18856]

13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There were liberal orginalists before there were conservative ones.  America favors a conservative court because we haven't had a good liberal judge in a while.

We have four of them on the Court right now.

[scottsins 1966]

No other GOP president would tell the Orwellian media to fuck off.  They would have bent over backwards to avoid criticism.  Actually I take that back.  They just would have bent over.  Trump has made the left pull back the curtain and show their true colors.  The other GOP candidates would have been scared shitless to face the slings and arrows that would be flying when that curtain comes down.  The #1 concern of establishment politicians are their established political careers.  A non-politician can say fuck it and upset the applecart because he is not concerned about his political career.

Do you honestly believe that any of what you posted even comes remotely close to addressing the questions you were responding to?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We have four of them on the Court right now.

And by four, you mean 1.

[JBJ 3654]

16 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

No question. It's a dog whistle. 

I think the majority of Americans prefer a conservative court (IE a court that leans on "original intent") vs. a liberal one. But you are correct, it's "activist" when it doesn't rule the way they want.

It depends on whether they are honest or not.

I can recognize the end result of Chevron as good public policy. I can also recognize it an as area of judicial over reach.  Same with Brown and Mapp.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

hahaha this is "good bull" as our aggy friends like to say. post some of the funnies on the facebook thread plz?

Wait. Who has Aggy friends?

[JBJ 3654]

18 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And by four, you mean 1.

This.

[Turkleton 145]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We have four of them on the Court right now.

They're not liberal they're leftist. They could care less about the constitution as written. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

6 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

They're not liberal they're leftist. They could care less about the constitution as written. 

Breyer is a solid jurist. 

[jimmyjazz 45919]

10 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

They're not liberal they're leftist. They could care less about the constitution as written. 

Butchering the English language kinda ruins your point.  Good job.

[Fozzz 152]

Maybe he's saying that the alleged socialists on the SCOTUS actually care a great deal about the constitution as written?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Butchering the English language kinda ruins your point.  Good job.

He could care less. 

[Goredho 17402]

May have been discussed, but I can't keep up with the frequency of posts.  I can't blame the old dude for wanting to retire.  He's got one life and its largely over.  He's done his duty, so people shouldn't really hold this against him.  That said, I think this is a bad portent on multiple levels:

• The most obvious is that the SC gets to be stacked by the current GOP and its decisions will start to reflect their ideology more and more; Roe v Wade at risk, etc...
• I would be very surprised if there aren't already conversations between Trump and congressional Republicans along the lines of "hey, I'll nominate whoever you guys want, but I'm going to need this special investigation to go away..."
• If Trump ever forces a constitutional crisis, either to mitigate his exposure to Mueller or to act on his despotic tendencies, the ultimate arbiter would be a group that is getting increasingly stacked in his favor

It is imperative we vote back to a balance of power this fall.  The GOP is power-drunk and their darkest fringes will be (are) getting a chance to really shape America.

[Ragnarok 103]

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

That's 18 levels of stupid.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

25 minutes ago, Goredho said:

May have been discussed, but I can't keep up with the frequency of posts.  I can't blame the old dude for wanting to retire.  He's got one life and its largely over.  He's done his duty, so people shouldn't really hold this against him.  That said, I think this is a bad portent on multiple levels:

• The most obvious is that the SC gets to be stacked by the current GOP and its decisions will start to reflect their ideology more and more; Roe v Wade at risk, etc...
• I would be very surprised if there aren't already conversations between Trump and congressional Republicans along the lines of "hey, I'll nominate whoever you guys want, but I'm going to need this special investigation to go away..."
• If Trump ever forces a constitutional crisis, either to mitigate his exposure to Mueller or to act on his despotic tendencies, the ultimate arbiter would be a group that is getting increasingly stacked in his favor

It is imperative we vote back to a balance of power this fall.  The GOP is power-drunk and their darkest fringes will be (are) getting a chance to really shape America.

The irony is thick in this post. As if Obama and the liberals werent "power-drunk" and abusing all facets of government to ensure a Hillary victory and completely annihilate conservatism. Get a clue.  

[Lucid 3]

No we ought to consider that it's impossible for anyone to do anything without partisan babies getting butthurt about it

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

13 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

The fuck? The only issue is the leftist judges treat the Constitution like toilet paper and are activists. 

[DoobieWah 1436]

You guys standing on the Merrick Garland limb forget one thing - The Republicans had both houses.

Yeah, they could have drug him up to Congress, made him sit through hours of crawling up his ass questioning like they do every judicial candidate, but

HE WAS NEVER EVER GOING TO BE CONFIRMED.

They did him a huge favor by telling him not to bother.

That's why the Dems didn't make too much of a stink about it at the time.

Remember when you expected Hillary to win and in so doing, taking back both houses? Yeah, the plan was to find a really radical judge and cram it up the Republican's ass.

You DO remember that, right?

 

[jimmyjazz 45919]

Uh, no?  The idea of HRC nominating a "really radical judge" is Hannity fan fiction.

[Js1 85321]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uh, no?  The idea of HRC nominating a "really radical judge" is Hannity fan fiction.

This. She was almost 100% just going to re-nominate Garland had she won. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Plus Garland should have been confirmed by an R Senate.  He's a high-quality jurist. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, DoobieWah said:

You guys standing on the Merrick Garland limb forget one thing - The Republicans had both houses.

Yeah, they could have drug him up to Congress, made him sit through hours of crawling up his ass questioning like they do every judicial candidate, but

HE WAS NEVER EVER GOING TO BE CONFIRMED.

They did him a huge favor by telling him not to bother.

That's why the Dems didn't make too much of a stink about it at the time.

Remember when you expected Hillary to win and in so doing, taking back both houses? Yeah, the plan was to find a really radical judge and cram it up the Republican's ass.

You DO remember that, right?

 

The dems should have made a stink out of it for political reason.  

They should have gone HAM on McConnell and browbeat him to have a hearing.

Let the American people hear and decide on Garland.  McConnell could have still taken the vote and rejected Garland but at least norms wouldn't have been destroyed.

Dems should have raised hell because the consequences of them not were tragic. 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The dems should have made a stink out of it for political reason.  

They should have gone HAM on McConnell and browbeat him to have a hearing.

Let the American people hear and decide on Garland.  McConnell could have still taken the vote and rejected Garland but at least norms wouldn't have been destroyed.

Dems should havve raised hell because the consequences of them not were tragic. 

 

In all candor (and quoting HRC) why would any of this matter?

We are a representative republic. How would "the American people hear and decide on Garland".

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uh, no?  The idea of HRC nominating a "really radical judge" is Hannity fan fiction.

 

"She offered more hints about the kind of justice she is looking for in the second debate.

"I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm or clerk for a judge and then gotten on the bench," Clinton said.

She added, "Maybe they tried some more cases and actually understand what people are up against."

Clinton also appears to want a justice who has experience with abortion and gay marriage cases.

Facing off against Trump in the third presidential debate in Las Vegas, Clinton argued, "We need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."

Garland may not have those kinds of experiences. While Garland was formerly a partner for the law firm Arnold & Porter, the bulk of his career has been in government."

[GHOSTUSER 361]

16 hours ago, Lucid said:

You guys know any good tailors?

I do. Uniforms are his speciality. PM me for details.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

In all candor (and quoting HRC) why would any of this matter?

We are a representative republic. How would "the American people hear and decide on Garland".

Public opinion.  You know, how politicians make decisions. 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Continental Op 3934]

Serious question, why would the Republicans want Roe vs Wade overturned?

We need those babies to be born so we can cut funding to their schools!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Public opinion.  You know, how politicians make decisions. 

 

Oh my sweet summer child. Politicians make decisions based on who pays them the most.

[formermav43 4606]

15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Plus Garland should have been confirmed by an R Senate.  He's a high-quality jurist. 

This is correct.

I know it’s a pipe dream, but I think the “advice and consent” should extend only to determining if the person is qualified or not, to weed out the Harriet Miers of the world. Ideology shouldn’t matter to the Senate-that’s up to the President. And that’s regardless of who is in power.

 

[David Dennison 18856]

1 hour ago, Turkleton said:

They're not liberal they're leftist. They could care less about the constitution as written. 

That's a good thing. The Constitution as written is extremely flawed. It's literally racist.

[yoladu 4094]

12 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Third, I also heard that same story when HillDog was gonna beat Trump and cement a liberal majority for a generation. How is that one working out?  

Not working out well at all considering, the Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 or 7 Presidential races.

Makes you wonder if Americans are clearly being represented.

This whole democracy thing is complicated.

[yoladu 4094]

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Not working out well at all considering the Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 or 7 Presidential races.

Makes you wonder if Americans are clearly being represented.

This whole democracy thing is complicated.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by yoladu
double posted.. not sure how to delete posts on this new fangled site.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Not working out well at all considering, the Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 or 7 Presidential races.

Makes you wonder if Americans are clearly being represented.

This whole democracy thing is complicated.

It's wild when I hear Republicans refer to themselves as the "silent majority" when all evidence over the past 3 decades concludes that they are clearly the "overrepresented minority."  

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Not working out well at all considering, the Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 or 7 Presidential races.

Makes you wonder if Americans are clearly being represented.

This whole democracy thing is complicated.

Ah yes the popular vote argument. Never fails. 

We are the United STATES of America. Every STATE votes on the president.  Every STATE has electors that vote based of an election in the STATE. Not just LA and NY overpowering the masses. Get a grip. 

[David Dennison 18856]

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's wild when I hear Republicans refer to themselves as the "silent majority" when all evidence over the past 3 decades concludes that they are clearly the "overrepresented minority."  

This country is center left. That's a fact. If every eligible voter voted, Democrats would control everything.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's a good thing. The Constitution as written is extremely flawed. It's literally racist.

You are a traitor to our Constitution and our country. Please leave if you dont like it.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This country is center left. That's a fact. If every eligible voter voted, Democrats would control everything.

[David Dennison 18856]

5 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

You are a traitor to our Constitution and our country. Please leave if you dont like it.

I'd rather change it so people like you leave.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Ah yes the popular vote argument. Never fails. 

We are the United STATES of America. Every STATE votes on the president.  Every STATE has electors that vote based of an election in the STATE. Not just LA and NY overpowering the masses. Get a grip. 

Then talk about the will of the electors or states, not the will of the American people. 

[yoladu 4094]

25 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Plus Garland should have been confirmed by an R Senate.  He's a high-quality jurist. 

This. Hell, the left was upset when a centrist like Garland was nominated. Several GOP senators had praised Garland in years past. Obama selected Gardland because of his centristness -naively thinking some of those GOP members would be bothered by the hypocrisy of now refusing to even have a confirmation hearing. That was a mistake. Hypocrisy is not something they give two fucks about. 

[udaydanceparty 33]

What are the complaints about the current crop of potential replacements?

Are they racist, sexists and/or homophobic Nazis? 

I am genuinely curious because so far all the complaints i've been reading are criticisms of a dark future that people are imagining is on the horizon.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Then talk about the will of the electors or states, not the will of the American people. 

Sounds like you and Hillary dont understand the electoral system and that might explain why you are losing elections. Running up margins in big states is great but if your aim is to win 270, you are taking a gamble. Im sure Trump couldve campaigned differently and won the popular vote. He just isnt a simpleton and understands political strategy. 

[BabaYaga 15294]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If every eligible voter voted, Democrats would control everything.

The Dem's immigration policy in a nutshell.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

7 minutes ago, yoladu said:

This. Hell, the left was upset when a centrist like Garland was nominated. Several GOP senators had praised Garland in years past. Obama selected Gardland because of his centristness -naively thinking some of those GOP members would be bothered by the hypocrisy of now refusing to even have a confirmation hearing. That was a mistake. Hypocrisy is not something they give two fucks about. 

Obama chose a centrist because he didnt have a majority in the Senate, otherwise he wouldve rammed down our throats another retard like Sotomayor or Ginsburg who treat the Constitution like toilet paper. 

[troph 24789]

We should give more power to the executive branch.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Sounds like you and Hillary dont understand the electoral system and that might explain why you are losing elections. Running up margins in big states is great but if your aim is to win 270, you are taking a gamble. Im sure Trump couldve campaigned differently and won the popular vote. He just isnt a simpleton and understands political strategy. 

No, it's you who doesn't understand the electoral system by confusing its results with the will of the people.  And spare us the nonsense of Trump doing better in a popular vote system.   

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd rather change it so people like you leave.

Good luck with the Constitutional conventions. It is a hell of a process to amend the Constitution. I know you and your liberal buds have figured this out, that is why you all get so butthurt when judges that actually uphold the oath and defend our Constitution are selected. You prefer to have whackjobs like Sotomayor and Ginsburg "re-interpret" the Constitution and pervert it to mean whatever the fuck the flavor of the day for the libtards is. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

21 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Not working out well at all considering, the Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 or 7 Presidential races.

Makes you wonder if Americans are clearly being represented.

This whole democracy thing is complicated.

We aren't a democracy.  For good reason.