Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

16 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

It’s called being at work, try it. 

Ok I’m wrong about that instance, but for you to truly believe that trump is somehow fighting for individual rights by nominating Gorsuch, you’re an idiot. He chose from a list that others gave him. The other points still stand. How you think getting rid of the individual mandate will somehow increase prosperity is hilarious. We’ll see when everyone premiums are higher this time next year 

I trust Gorsuch to act in a manner that favors individual rights. Hopefully that will continue to pan out.

Also, forcing someone to buy insurance or face a mandatory penalty is an invasion of liberty. So I think you have that a bit twisted, as it has nothing to do with cost of premiums and everything to do with the government forcing you to buy a product or face a penalty. That is a step for liberty. 

Edit: calling me an idiot after that whopper of a misfire on Gorsuch is pretty silly. Try to use less ad hominems. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Vince_McCoy_Williams

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

37 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I trust Gorsuch to act in a manner that favors individual rights. Hopefully that will continue to pan out.

Also, forcing someone to buy insurance or face a mandatory penalty is an invasion of liberty. So I think you have that a bit twisted, as it has nothing to do with cost of premiums and everything to do with the government forcing you to buy a product or face a penalty. That is a step for liberty. 

Edit: calling me an idiot after that whopper of a misfire on Gorsuch is pretty silly. Try to use less ad hominems. 

Oh you’re still an idiot. I admitted to the “whopper”. I still think your claims of the traitor fighting for liberties is moronic and that he is causing our “prosperity” is idiocy. 

[Pods 7585]

The trolls have been really hard at work lately and the panic in Meadows/Gaetz et. al was palpable. There must be something about to break. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Mojo- Your arguments about the popular vote and electoral college are sort of the epitome of Aggie. 

 It is like Aggie arguing after the football game that they had more offensive yards and therefore they were the better team and should be considered the winner. 

 You have absolutely no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote if that was the way the election was set up.   The candidates would have campaigned differently.  They would have rallied in different states. They would have spent their advertising money in different ways.  How many Hillary supporters in Texas did not vote because  they knew that Hillary would not win Texas? How many Trump supporters in California did the same thing? 

 If you want to argue the popular vote should be the way we choose going forward, then that is a decent argument. But to suggest the will of the people  was different than the outcome is just very flawed.  The contest was not to get the most popular votes it was to get the most electoral votes and that  was the goal of the candidates and that is what determined their campaign strategies. 

If anything is aggy, it's "Trump would have won the popular vote if he had to!"  In fact, I bet I could find numerous adherents to that absurd belief if I went over to texags.  But we'll never know for certain what would have happened in that alternative universe, so enjoy your little delusion.  What we do know is that he received 3 million fewer votes in the system that we do have, and with his opponent campaigning within the context of the same electoral system. 

And the flaw in your comparison is that nobody is arguing that Hillary "should be considered the winner."  Trump won the election and Hillary lost, no question.  She has no moral victory and is a total loser who should never be heard from again.  There's nothing aggy about that. 

But unlike football, where winning is the end of the story, winning an election is only the beginning of the story.  Trump actually has to govern everyone now, including the people who didn't vote for him and don't want him to be president.   Losing the popular vote by 3 million means he started in a big hole among the voters.  Those voters don't disappear or suddenly approve of the job he's doing simply because our system installed him in the Oval Office.   Justifying his actions as "America's will" is a delusional misread of how the populace actually voted.   And that has been reflected consistently in his terrible poll numbers, which shows that his policies have not expanded his support.  Just the opposite, actually. 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Mojo- Your arguments about the popular vote and electoral college are sort of the epitome of Aggie. 

 It is like Aggie arguing after the football game that they had more offensive yards and therefore they were the better team and should be considered the winner. 

 You have absolutely no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote if that was the way the election was set up.   The candidates would have campaigned differently.  They would have rallied in different states. They would have spent their advertising money in different ways.  How many Hillary supporters in Texas did not vote because  they knew that Hillary would not win Texas? How many Trump supporters in California did the same thing? 

 If you want to argue the popular vote should be the way we choose going forward, then that is a decent argument. But to suggest the will of the people  was different than the outcome is just very flawed.  The contest was not to get the most popular votes it was to get the most electoral votes and that  was the goal of the candidates and that is what determined their campaign strategies. 

This is rather ironic...Aggies LOVE them some Trump.  

[Horn Dog 9875]

1 hour ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

 

Also, forcing someone to buy insurance or face a mandatory penalty is an invasion of liberty. So I think you have that a bit twisted, as it has nothing to do with cost of premiums and everything to do with the government forcing you to buy a product or face a penalty. 

I would agree with this if when the person who refuses to buy insurance is given no care and allowed to die when he gets in a car wreck or has a heart attack and needs said insurance.  Instead, he gets the care he would have had with or without insurance and now that 200k bill is passed on to me via higher premiums or higher taxes.  So now my individual freedom is being infringed because I have to pay for individuals bad decisions....but I guess this kind of welfare is ok.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Ain’t that nice...

 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ain’t that nice...

 

So instead of a man who is 80 years old and just wants to retire under a Republican president, you are suggesting some sort of payoff or foul play because he didnt try to hang on longer? 

Hugo, you keep being you, you provide me laughs on a daily basis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You’re the one drawing crazy conclusions 

[formermav43 4606]

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ain’t that nice...

 

I don’t see what’s particularly unnerving about that. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t see what’s particularly unnerving about that. 

If there was a conflict of interest, at least Kennedy is off the court now.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

11 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t see what’s particularly unnerving about that. 

There isnt anything, just more conspiracy bullshit

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

Ain’t that nice...
 

Honestly I have no idea what the implications of this are and it could absolutely be above board, but if this were a TV drama the writer would be laughed out of the room if he introduced this twist.

[XR4ticlone 122]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not upset at all. I know this is temporary. I don't think Donald Trump threatens the republic. I know he doesn't threaten me. I'm a white man. 

I'm not seeing it....

Just saying.

[troph 24851]

I trust Gorsuch to act in a manner that favors individual rights. Hopefully that will continue to pan out.

Also, forcing someone to buy insurance or face a mandatory penalty is an invasion of liberty. So I think you have that a bit twisted, as it has nothing to do with cost of premiums and everything to do with the government forcing you to buy a product or face a penalty. That is a step for liberty. 

Edit: calling me an idiot after that whopper of a misfire on Gorsuch is pretty silly. Try to use less ad hominems. 

 

Don’t buy health insurance fine, but then remove the idea that ER care is mandatory and let people just fucking bleed out on the street or rot at home without any medical assistance. Or don’t let people go bankrupt when they can’t pay their medical bills bc they didn’t have insurance.

 

We have government healthcare being up front about it and requiring health insurance isn’t about taking away liberty it’s about taking personal responsibility and making our collective system work without patchwork, chicken wire and duct tape.

[David Dennison 18922]

4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Slavery to the government is still slavery.  Big government is the ultimate slave owner because the entire country is its plantation and everyone on the grounds is its slave.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

3 hours ago, Pods said:

The trolls have been really hard at work lately and the panic in Meadows/Gaetz et. al was palpable. There must be something about to break. 

Their bed pans?

Edited June 29, 2018 by blackmarketbaby

[sheeeit 129]

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

If anything is aggy, it's "Trump would have won the popular vote if he had to!"  In fact, I bet I could find numerous adherents to that absurd belief if I went over to texags.  But we'll never know for certain what would have happened in that alternative universe, so enjoy your little delusion. 

I actually thought you were better than the usual suspects here.  My delusion?  I pretty clearly said that we have no idea who would have won the popular vote.  I have no idea if trump would have won that or not.  The point that apparently went over your head was that to try and use the popular vote result to draw any type of conclusion is aggy since the game that was played was to get the most electoral votes.

 

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

But unlike football, where winning is the end of the story, winning an election is only the beginning of the story.  Trump actually has to govern everyone now, including the people who didn't vote for him and don't want him to be president.   Losing the popular vote by 3 million means he started in a big hole among the voters.  Those voters don't disappear or suddenly approve of the job he's doing simply because our system installed him in the Oval Office.   Justifying his actions as "America's will" is a delusional misread of how the populace actually voted.   And that has been reflected consistently in his terrible poll numbers, which shows that his policies have not expanded his support.  Just the opposite, actually. 

You seem to be backtracking a bit now.  Sheeeit never even suggested that trump was doing "america's will".  Sheeit was calling you out for suggesting that trump being potus was against the will of the people based on the fact that he got fewer votes.  I mean this was your post right?

"They did in 2016, and the candidate with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent became president.   These are some of the consequences of a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people and a president who tells the majority who voted against him to fuck off on a daily basis."

You are clearly saying that our electoral system does not reflect the will of the people because trump got less votes.  There was a contest to see who gets the most electoral votes.  There was not a contest to see who could get the most total votes.  You can not make assumptions about results from a contest using data that was not the intent of the contest. 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.

Can you hear me?

[David Dennison 18922]

Third person is next level.

[softlynow 1816]

"I trust Gorsuch to act in a manner that favors individual rights."

We don't have to "trust" anything. He's already got a track record there. He's in favor of only 2 individual rights. Guns and unlimited money in politics. He's the modern robber-baron's wet dream: distract the drooling masses with trinkets while the rich make off with anything not bolted down.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

6 minutes ago, softlynow said:

"I trust Gorsuch to act in a manner that favors individual rights."

We don't have to "trust" anything. He's already got a track record there. He's in favor of only 2 individual rights. Guns and unlimited money in politics. He's the modern robber-baron's wet dream: distract the drooling masses with trinkets while the rich make off with anything not bolted down.

Imagine not reading the opinion

[Pancho 44856]

 

[Whitman 694]

Your posting is disingenuous and you know that (and Turtlehead has clarified that) he was talking about a Presidential election.  Not saying he was right (I don't think he was and it should have gotten a vote), but you are better than that to post knowingly misleading stuff.   

[Pancho 44856]

10 minutes ago, Whitman said:

Your posting is disingenuous and you know that (and Turtlehead has clarified that) he was talking about a Presidential election.  Not saying he was right (I don't think he was and it should have gotten a vote), but you are better than that to post knowingly misleading stuff.   

Wait...timeout.

 

all of the Republican senators in that video who stated if Clinton was president she’d never get a SC justice under their watch, that is disingenuous?

 

just to be clear 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Pancho Negro

[RayDog 682]

Political assassination was brought up in another thread.

It made me wonder that with McCain sidelined only one seat has to flip for the Democrats to block the nomination until the midterms. That could be accomplished by the forced "retirement" of a Republican senator in a state with a Democratic governor with the power to appoint his replacement. 

My question is if the supreme court seat is important enough that this is a viable option?

Of course I realize that Republicans can do it too.

[Whitman 694]

McConnell as Senate leader moving an existing Obama nominee forward to committee and then a vote is a completely different issue than a couple of Senators (not the Senate leader) thumping chest how they will do whatever they can to stop a HRC nominee.  You took two different issues and participants and merged them together for what ever reason.  Your tweet was about the timing of an election and the nominee, and the video was not.  I addressed the disingenuousness of the tweet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, RayDog said:

My question is if the supreme court seat is important enough that this is a viable option?

No

[Js1 85407]

17 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

Wait...timeout.

 

all of the Republican senators in that video who stated if Clinton was president she’d never get a SC justice under their watch, that is disingenuous?

 

just to be clear 

 

 

Many of them said they’d keep that seat open until 2021 if Hillary won 

[RayDog 682]

59 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No

I disagree.

The 10s of millions of lives that will be negatively impacted by a conservative  justice vastly outweighs the life of one senator.

Edited June 29, 2018 by RayDog

[Whitman 694]

20 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

...all of the Republican senators in that video .....

 

When I was watching that thing and saw McCain, I just get pissed because maybe it was wrong, but I think I read somewhere a while ago that he hasn't been on the Senate floor since last December.  Fuck that.  I'm sorry he's dying, but why the hell won't he resign so that the people of AZ have a vote.  Unless i'm missing something, it seems like a shitty self-serving thing for him. 

[Gil Bang 25975]

Kennedy’s son is Trump’s banker at Deutsche.

Shady shit afoot.

[RayDog 682]

12 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Kennedy’s son is Trump’s banker at Deutsche.

Shady shit afoot.

Just wait until we get the full disclosure of Kennedy's golden parachute

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Kennedy’s son is Trump’s banker at Deutsche.

Shady shit afoot.

Just a coincidence 

[Js1 85407]

14 minutes ago, Whitman said:

When I was watching that thing and saw McCain, I just get pissed because maybe it was wrong, but I think I read somewhere a while ago that he hasn't been on the Senate floor since last December.  Fuck that.  I'm sorry he's dying, but why the hell won't he resign so that the people of AZ have a vote.  Unless i'm missing something, it seems like a shitty self-serving thing for him. 

I know he was waiting until June 1 to not trigger a special election for his seat. Now, if it’s vacant, governor appoints someone until 11/2020

[Fozzz 152]

14 hours ago, JBJ said:

1) Because those quotes come from a discussion on Congress appointing the President vs a popular vote, and (2) you are twisting Madison's words to make it sound like he was against popular election.  And (3) it's a non-sequitar conclusion that this particular concern eventually lead to the Electoral College.  (4) Especially because it wasn't Madison nor the convention's primary concern with direct voting - Madison actually gave reasons why this shouldn't be a consideration and (5) that slavery wasn't even why voter participation was so low in the southern states, it was actually one of the less important factors.

So find me an actual argument for the Electoral College, from someone supporting it, that was an important reason for it.

 

...and it still wouldn't change the actual effect of slave states having a reduced apportionment from the status quo.

I never said he was against popular election - in my first post concerning this topic I quoted him supporting just that.  The other explanations for the existence of the electoral college have far less support than the one I have given - few at the convention accepted the argument made by Elbridge Gerry that electors were needed in order to shield the nation from the evils of "excess democracy," and it was also not meant to protect smaller states from the larger ones:

Quote

The implication of Hardaway’s argument is that the electoral college was created to placate the small states. However, in all the debates over the executive at the Constitutional Convention, this issue never came up. Indeed, the opposite argument received more attention. At one point the Convention considered allowing the state governors to choose the president but backed away from this in part because it would allow the small states to chose one of their own.

http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College.pdf

What were the reasons that Madison gave as to why the right of suffrage with respect to free and slave states was not an important consideration?  He explicitly said it was an issue of "serious nature," as I've already stated.  The slave staters also made their concerns explicit on this matter:

Quote

Mr. Williamson, conceived that there was the same difference between an election in this case, by the people and by the legislature, as between an appt. by lot, and by choice. There are at present distinguished characters, who are known perhaps to almost every man. This will not always be the case. The people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however. Her slaves will have no suffrage.

The founders did not want the president chosen by the legislature so that separation of powers would not be destroyed, but they would not tolerate a direct election because of the lack of suffrage in the slave states.

Quote

The Convention quickly moved to accept the idea of an electoral college, following the lead of Ellsworth, from the North, and Madison and Williamson, from the South. This sectional balance is revealing. Ellsworth almost always voted with the South on slavery-related matters, and the agreement here seems part of the same New England-Deep South coalition that led to the Slave Trade clause. The Convention tied presidential electors to representation in Congress. By this time the Convention had already agreed to count slaves for representation under the threefifths compromise, counting five slaves as equal to three free people in order to increase the South’s representation in Congress. Thus, in electing the president the political power southerners gained from owning slaves (although obviously not the votes of slaves) would be factored into the electoral votes of each state.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just a coincidence 

So one week after this decision, this was reported.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704194504575031432334629708

Former Deutsche Trader Aims to Start Own Fund

 

By 

Jenny Strasburg And 

 

Lingling Wei

Updated Jan. 29, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

A former top real-estate securities trader who left Deutsche Bank AG's Wall Street unit last year is talking with private-equity firms and other potential partners about launching an investment fund, people familiar with the matter said.

Meanwhile, an executive who built the bank's commercial-property lending business is leaving for another opportunity, and one of Deutsche's well-known residential real-estate analysts also is departing.

Justin Kennedy, 45 years old, resigned from Deutsche in November after making a series of big, successful trades in recent years, betting that mortgage-foreclosure rates would skyrocket. The son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy is a longtime player in the commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, market who worked at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. before joining Deutsche in 1998.

In recent weeks, he has talked with potential clients and business partners about jointly starting a fund in the next few months that would wager on CMBS and eventually expand into other real-estate securities, said people familiar with the matter. Mr. Kennedy could opt to run a fund independently, the people said.

His departure from Wall Street comes as big banks are dialing back risk-taking, including shrinking bets traders make using the firms' own capital. Such departures are expected to accelerate as Washington lawmakers step up scrutiny of activities seen as risking taxpayer money in the wake of bailouts.

Traders like Mr. Kennedy helped Deutsche and other banks log big gains in 2007 and 2008 amid the real-estate crisis. But like other banks, Deutsche has suffered from lending to property developers and investors during the boom times. 

Some projects funded by the bank, including those once owned by New York developer Harry Macklowe and the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, have soured.

Meanwhile, Jon Vaccaro, who built Deutsche's commercial real-estate business over the past decade, has resigned. Mr. Vaccaro is leaving to "pursue a new opportunity, which he will announce in due course," Michael Cohrs, the bank's head of global banking, wrote in an internal memo Monday. Mr. Cohrs credited Mr. Vaccaro for having built a unit that "has survived the recent credit crisis better than many of our competitors." Mr. Vaccaro is expected to stay at Deutsche through March.

The bank named as his successor John Nacos, who previously ran the firm's European commercial real-estate unit.

[Pancho 44856]

27 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Kennedy’s son is Trump’s banker at Deutsche.

Shady shit afoot.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

And here come the wacky conspiracy theories!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And here come the wacky conspiracy theories!

Presenting facts are not conspiracy theories.  

This is challenging for the pizzagaters to understand.

I don’t have a conspiracy theory on Kennedy but these facts about his son and Trump smell like shit.

[udaydanceparty 33]

11 hours ago, Pods said:

The trolls have been really hard at work lately and the panic in Meadows/Gaetz et. al was palpable. There must be something about to break. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 hours ago, sheeeit said:

You seem to be backtracking a bit now.  Sheeeit never even suggested that trump was doing "america's will".  Sheeit was calling you out for suggesting that trump being potus was against the will of the people based on the fact that he got fewer votes.  I mean this was your post right?

Oops, sock fail!   Forgot which sock you were posting under, huh?   So, you not only post under multiple socks, but you actually use them to defend your own moronic posts, to make people think that other posters agree with you?   That is pathetic.  I suppose the three random likes you got for this post from Chrispy, Enchubben, and blackmarketbaby are all you too?   

[udaydanceparty 33]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Presenting facts are not conspiracy theories.  

This is challenging for the pizzagaters to understand.

I don’t have a conspiracy theory on Kennedy but these facts about his son and Trump smell like shit.

Misery loves company I guess...

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t have a conspiracy theory on Kennedy but these facts about his son and Trump smell like shit.

I don't have a conspiracy theory. BUT HERE'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

What makes it a conspiracy theory?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Presenting facts are not conspiracy theories.  

This is challenging for the pizzagaters to understand.

I don’t have a conspiracy theory on Kennedy but these facts about his son and Trump smell like shit.

You have nothing.

But keep posting as if there’s something wrong there.

 

Hell, Trump’s banker just got done doing a Nazi seance before shooting up Annapolis... how the hell could he be influencing the timing of a SC justice retirement?

Edited June 29, 2018 by slorch

[Anastasis 23475]

Just want to make sure that I am reading some of these posts right.  Y'all are hinting around assassination of a GOP senator to prevent a SCOTUS appointment?  Did I get that right? I mean, I suppose its a moral conviction at least. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Anastasis

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

18 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I don't have a conspiracy theory. BUT HERE'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY!

I feel like you're purposefully ignoring that nobody has even presented a theory, which is a pretty crucial part of something being a conspiracy theory.  The comments are mostly, "hmm this is a fucking weird coincidence"... WHICH IT ABSOLUTELY IS, clean or not.

If the roles were reversed, you and I both know this would be the lead story on Fox News for 6 months.

[Guest]

Fox news is no qualifier for reality.

[EMAWesome 101]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.

Yes that is saying you know nothing about the history of the world.  Throughout history the larger the government the more people that government can oppress.  Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez,  etc.  None of them rose to power by campaigning on a platform of states rights and government deregulation.