Jump to content

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Miers has comparable experience to Kagan - just saying that it is always political.

She was also replaced by Alito, so it was a bad political move in the end.

I don’t agree that their credentials are similar, and I’m not particularly a fan of Kagan.

Regardless, I’m not talking about how it is, but how it should be. Miers was merely an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Johnny Sack
Johnny Sack
Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

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 ot

El Guapo
El Guapo
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t agree that their credentials are similar, and I’m not particularly a fan of Kagan.

Regardless, I’m not talking about how it is, but how it should be. Miers was merely an example.

Kagan wasn't great.  But much better than Miers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

Scalia personally requested Kagan:

 

"I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."

A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again.

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Knight

Michael Knight 12989

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 6/28/2018 at 6:35 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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

They don't, but just like with Obamacare they're a dog chasing a car and they won't know what to do with it once they catch it

Edited by Michael Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13516

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

Agree completely. The Senate’s role should be to determine whether or not they are qualified, not whether or not they pass a particular political litmus test. Weed out the Harriet Miers types, but not those you merely disagree with.

Disagree 100%.  The executive branch doesn't have the right to fully decide on the Judicial and only ask the Legislature to ensure the appointee has a law degree.   The whole point of our govt is each branch having checks on the other 2.  If you think otherwise, why not just declare us a constitutional monarchy where we occasionally elect the monarch.

Just as the Executive branch uses politics to put forward the candidates, the Legislature has the same right when consenting.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Disagree 100%.  The executive branch doesn't have the right to fully decide on the Judicial and only ask the Legislature to ensure the appointee has a law degree.   The whole point of our govt is each branch having checks on the other 2.  If you think otherwise, why not just declare us a constitutional monarchy where we occasionally elect the monarch.

Just as the Executive branch uses politics to put forward the candidates, the Legislature has the same right when consenting.    

I’d say there’s a bit more than just checking to see if they have a law degree.

Our disagreement is over what “advice and consent” is. I think those terms are pretty limited in comparison to the appointment power given explicitly to the President, and I say that as someone who is generally against the current expansive power of the executive office. But it’s not overreach if the power is expressly granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
Quote

What is the theory?  What non-factual statement have I made here? 

Quote

Citizen’s United was a 5-4 decision with Kennedy writing the opinion of the court.  His son was in clear position to personally benefit from the decision and it looks like he may have capitalized.

Quote

Other than the fact that the banker worked for the biggest Russian money laundering bank in the world and personal finance guy to the now president of the United States? I have no idea

This is sooo typical of this place and all of you guys.  The only reason there is even any kind of "smell test" is because, as usual, the media print a small part of the actual story and you guys just lap it up like dogs.  Do you ever get tired of relying on half truths in the media to form opinions?  

Hugo asked what he posted that wasn't non-factual.  Actually, almost everything that makes this look suspicious is un-factual.

The only facts are 1) At one time Kennedy's son worked at De, and 2) Trump made development/construction loans with De during part of the time that Kennedy's son was there.  That is it.  Everything else being discussed is half truths and outright lies that are very easy to investigate.

The biggest claim that is non-factual is this supposed claim that Kennedy's son was Trumps personal banker or something like that.  It is a complete and total falsehood.  Kennedy never made any construction/development loans and he never had any role in that side of the business.  Kennedy was a trader.  He traded in mortgage backed securities.  Traders do not make loans.  It is a completely different division of the bank.  Kennedy had exactly zero input in any of the De loans to trump co.   Zero.

Trump started his relationship with De before Kennedy even worked there. Trump did have a relationship with a De banker and that was the guy that basically started the commercial real estate lending office in NY for De.  Lots and lots of articles about it.  The guy knew he was taking a risk on Trump but did it anyway.

Your Citizens United point is incredibly stupid.  Citizens United was decided in January of 2010.  Kennedys son was long gone from De at that point and was running a small real estate investment firm that, according to the only records I could find, made exactly zero political contributions.  Your point is absurd.

Yes De was fined for money laundering related issues.  From what I can tell they deserved to be.  But the division in question was based in Moscow.  Just like every single other big I Bank had offices there.  De is a massive institution.  This happened in 2017.  Of course, Kennedy never worked on anything russian related or had any connection whatsoever to the russian division when he worked there and he had been gone from the company for 8 years when the fines were handed down..  

It appears that Kennedy has a friendly relationship with the trump kids.  That is neither unusual or surprising considering their backgrounds and work.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13516

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I’d say there’s a bit more than just checking to see if they have a law degree.

Our disagreement is over what “advice and consent” is. I think those terms are pretty limited in comparison to the appointment power given explicitly to the President, and I say that as someone who is generally against the current expansive power of the executive office. But it’s not overreach if the power is expressly granted.

Don't you think "consent" means agreement?   It doesn't mean, does this guy have the qualifications to do the job?

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the branches of the govt are to provide checks and balances on each other.   If the Legislative branch does not provide a thorough job vetting the Judicial, what's their check on the Judicial? 

If anything I thought the Constitution was vague in terms of the Judicial checks and balances on the other two.  It wasn't until Marbury v Madison that the Judicial took that power.

Since the Judicial appointees are lifetime, we need the other two branches to agree on that appointment.  The Judicial isn't a sub-group within Executive.  And if the other 2 can't agree or compromise, then we live with the consequences of fewer judges.    I'm surprised that anyone is opposed to the Legislature branch having their fair share of power.  It's why we fought the Revolutionary War.

and my opinion has nothing to do with who's in control of the Exec or Legis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18941

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This is sooo typical of this place and all of you guys.  The only reason there is even any kind of "smell test" is because, as usual, the media print a small part of the actual story and you guys just lap it up like dogs.  Do you ever get tired of relying on half truths in the media to form opinions?  

Hugo asked what he posted that wasn't non-factual.  Actually, almost everything that makes this look suspicious is un-factual.

The only facts are 1) At one time Kennedy's son worked at De, and 2) Trump made development/construction loans with De during part of the time that Kennedy's son was there.  That is it.  Everything else being discussed is half truths and outright lies that are very easy to investigate.

The biggest claim that is non-factual is this supposed claim that Kennedy's son was Trumps personal banker or something like that.  It is a complete and total falsehood.  Kennedy never made any construction/development loans and he never had any role in that side of the business.  Kennedy was a trader.  He traded in mortgage backed securities.  Traders do not make loans.  It is a completely different division of the bank.  Kennedy had exactly zero input in any of the De loans to trump co.   Zero.

Trump started his relationship with De before Kennedy even worked there. Trump did have a relationship with a De banker and that was the guy that basically started the commercial real estate lending office in NY for De.  Lots and lots of articles about it.  The guy knew he was taking a risk on Trump but did it anyway.

Your Citizens United point is incredibly stupid.  Citizens United was decided in January of 2010.  Kennedys son was long gone from De at that point and was running a small real estate investment firm that, according to the only records I could find, made exactly zero political contributions.  Your point is absurd.

Yes De was fined for money laundering related issues.  From what I can tell they deserved to be.  But the division in question was based in Moscow.  Just like every single other big I Bank had offices there.  De is a massive institution.  This happened in 2017.  Of course, Kennedy never worked on anything russian related or had any connection whatsoever to the russian division when he worked there and he had been gone from the company for 8 years when the fines were handed down..  

It appears that Kennedy has a friendly relationship with the trump kids.  That is neither unusual or surprising considering their backgrounds and work.

 

Tell us what you think about Uranium One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

and my opinion has nothing to do with who's in control of the Exec or Legis.

Not does mine. It’s rooted in my reading of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with not wanting the Legislature to have its share of power (which it does through making laws-that’s its primary check on both of the other branches, a power it has unfortunately increasingly ceded to the executive), but for it to only have the powers it actually has.

We’re not going to agree on this.

Edited by formermav43
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The reason that the Senate confirms is so that the States have a say on the appointment.  It's not supposed to be a checkbox - it's a joint process.

Agreed. There was a tradition of confirming any qualified candidate.  That ship sailed decades ago. And both sides are at fault.  Neither side has the high ground. 

And if you think Harry Reid puts up a Bush appointee for a confirmation vote for a vacancy created by the death of RBG or Breyer in February of 2008, you are insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Agreed. There was a tradition of confirming any qualified candidate.  That ship sailed decades ago. And both sides are at fault.  Neither side has the high ground. 

And if you think Harry Reid puts up a Bush appointee for a confirmation vote for a vacancy created by the death of RBG or Breyer in February of 2008, you are insane. 

That is exactly what Reid would have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That is exactly what Reid would have done.

No. No he wouldn’t have. He wouldn’t even hold votes on district and appellate court article 3 judge vacancies that occurred that late in the Bush presidency.  

And all article 3 judges have the exact same constitutional procedure for nomination and confirmation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted

Jesus Christ, you're seriously trying to equate hold-ups on lower court judges, which happen all the time, and what the Senate Republicans did with Garland?

"Look I might be an arsonist who has burned down 20 churches, but that other guy had a match book and that's what gave me the idea!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Reid would have done the exact same thing.  Period.  You think he was some high minded fair majority leader

No, I think he was basically functional and far less of a monster than Mitch McConnell and the Democrats are far more accommodating than the Republicans. That's not saying much, since the Republicans are profoundly bad and incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

You know, RBG could have retired in 14 (pre-midterms) and gotten a 50-year old liberal justice confirmed to serve for 3 decades.  But she didn't because it would have been pretty political and calculating.  Her seat might come up under a Trump presidency because she chose to go the distance.  Oh well if so, I wouldn't call her a bitch for that.

I can't say I have a huge problem with what she did.  She made a commitment for a lifetime appointment and will serve as long she's physically and mentally able to.  All Justices should be confirmed under that notion that they serve until they cannot.  Retiring early as long as the "conditions are favorable" for your replacement is extremely political and not the spirit of their appointment to the bench.

If that's the case, automatic retirement at 80.  Take politics out of it.  Either you die before you turn 80 or you retire at 80.  Guess what, you can't take your time machine into the future to see which party has the Senate and White House in 2048 if you nominate a 50-year old today.

This is sounds great but it's much harder to practice.  When you're past 70 there's a very fine line between being 'physically and mentally able to' and dying.  Also it's an immensely high pressure job.  How you can go full bore into your 80's?  I'm not sure.  There probably needs to be an age cutoff like you hit on but wtf do I know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, I think he was basically functional and far less of a monster than Mitch McConnell and the Democrats are far more accommodating than the Republicans. That's not saying much, since the Republicans are profoundly bad and incompetent.

Yeah, but we all know politics are a shitshow.  The Dems have been stupid to try to play nice and get assfucked a billion times over...Time to get organized and take advantage of the current situation.  My money is that they fuck up again.  Mitch is a fucking asshole of the highest degree.  But if you had a team, you want him on your side.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46006

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Reid would have done the exact same thing.  Period.  You think he was some high minded fair majority leader

Good lord you are one smug, arrogant useful idiot.  (Cue "I know you are but what am I?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15303

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, I think he was basically functional and far less of a monster than Mitch McConnell and the Democrats are far more accommodating than the Republicans. That's not saying much, since the Republicans are profoundly bad and incompetent.

Is this a joke?  When the partisan NYT refer to his “brutish style”, “uncompromising control”, and “unprecedented obstructionism” I’d hardly label that as “functional”.  The facilitator of the nuclear option?  Accommodating….

Reid completely shut Congress down once it transitioned to Obama and they lost the House.  Outright refusing virtually ANY GOP bills or amendments to even be voted on.  This also includes Dem bills such as those from Amy Klobuchar and Gillibrand.  Outright refusal to vote on their proposed amendments.  Even his supporters could only rationalize it so far as to say it was to protect vulnerable Dem senators from having to vote (which is chicken shit as hell)….hundreds of bills passed the house, only to die on his desk. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted

You're forgetting, perhaps intentionally, how I phrased it.

I'll do it again:

"I think he was basically functional and far less of a monster than Mitch McConnell..."

Reid was terrible, but McConnell is far worse.

Nothing Reid ever did was 1/100th of what McConnell did with Merrick Garland. McConnell makes Reid look like a kitten. And there's no way in hell Reid would have done what McConnell did with an SC seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18941

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

We will never know if Reid would have wiped his feet on the Constitution like McConnell has done.

If Harry Reid began a process that results in the elimination of the legislative filibuster, I will consider him a giant in American history.

 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So the facilitator of the nuclear option, who blocked voting on hundred of bills, would allow for a vote in the final year of a lame duck Bush presidency on a conservative judge opening?  

Jimmy Jazz says yes.  His side is noble.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . which party is the "partisan NYT" aligning with?

The DECORUM! Party, which is a gaggle of centrist urbanites endlessly clutching their pearls and wondering what wisdom can be found in the truck stop diners of America's heartland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

Now it's "But Dems!" on things the Dems didn't even do, but R partisans on the right are sure they would have done if the same situation hypothetically arose.   Whatever.   In this version of the multiverse, the Rs did it and the Ds didn't, so stfu and own that reality. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15303

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Now it's "But Dems!" on things the Dems didn't even do, but R partisans on the right are sure they would have done if the same situation hypothetically arose.   Whatever.   In this version of the multiverse, the Rs did it and the Ds didn't, so stfu and own that reality. 

Outfoxed by a fucking turtle....own that.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7586

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

Trump to announce SCOTUS pick on Monday.  List narrowed down to 3 men and 2 women.

Rudy Guliani, Alan Dershowitz, Yury Chaika, Maryanne Trump Barry, Jeanine Pirro

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...