Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm okay with Kavanaugh and I was okay with Kennedy. I'm not ok with retiring justices having any say at all in their replacements. Even under Trump. 

I don’t get this line of reasoning at all or the complaints that Trump used the Federalist Society to help choose his top 4 candidates. So are you asserting that Trump, as a President with no legal background whatsoever, should have come up with a list of candidates out of his ass and act impulsively like he has in a lot of other areas? I think the way he went about picking Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were the most level-headed, deliberative and thoughtful acts he has done as President. I’m glad he “outsourced” the task of culling the field. He has managed to avoid the disasters of nominating Harriet Miers like W did or Souter like his father did. Trump avoided nominating a political hack like a Sotamayor of the right, well done President Trump.

 

[Brew 3,049]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Did you even scan the thread or this page for that matter?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

5 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I don’t get this line of reasoning at all or the complaints that Trump used the Federalist Society to help choose his top 4 candidates. So are you asserting that Trump, as a President with no legal background whatsoever, should have come up with a list of candidates out of his ass and act impulsively like he has in a lot of other areas? I think the way he went about picking Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were the most level-headed, deliberative and thoughtful acts he has done as President. I’m glad he “outsourced” the task of culling the field. He has managed to avoid the disasters of nominating Harriet Miers like W did or Souter like his father did. Trump avoided nominating a political hack like a Sotamayor of the right, well done President Trump.

 

That's a lot of words that dont address my point. My issue is that Kennedy chose his own successor. I would expect and hope for a President to seek assistance from legal scholars in his selection, just not from the SCOTUS itself. 

Take your example of Sotomayor. Would you want her to pick her own replacement and have a President rubber stamp it?  The court should not be an apprenticeship nor should it have hand selected succession.  That's dictatorship bullshit. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yes! And I blame the CNN/FOX talking heads for this. We've reduced honest debate SCOTUS appointment =  "Der took er jerbs" / "Der took er abortions". 

Frankly, the quotes from Sanders, Warren, Murphy et. al. sum up what is wrong with our process. They are "NO" votes before the process has begun. What happened to honest discourse and debate? YOU fuckers are supposed to be the checks and balances to the system but you stomp your feet and play "gotya" whenever you have any power.

 

From where do you get this utopian view of how the process should be?   It's a political process.  Always has been, always will be.   And it's ultimately controlled by the voters.   The voters want ideology and hardball, so that's what we get, because the system is designed to reflect what the voters want.    The notion that most Senators should reserve judgment and keep an open mind through the hearings is naive and absurd when the pick itself has been carefully chosen based on extensive partisan prejudgment behind the scenes (and even, reportedly, negotiations with the guy he's replacing).   Sure, if Trump had shocked the world and picked a relative unknown not off his public list, they should wait and see.  And often do, when it comes to his lesser-known district and appellate court picks, to the loud complaints of Republicans who call it obstruction when the Ds want full Senate vetting.  But he picked one of the most well-known quantities from his list. 

Barring some unforseen change in the composition of the Senate, this pick is done and approved.  The rest is just a dog and pony show to rile up voters in advance of the elections.  Which is also fine and part of the process. 

[Js1 85,321]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

That's a lot of words that dont address my point. My issue is that Kennedy chose his own successor. I would expect and hope for a President to seek assistance from legal scholars in his selection, just not from the SCOTUS itself. 

Take your example of Sotomayor. Would you want her to pick her own replacement and have a President rubber stamp it? 

How can you say that? Kavanaugh said Trump conducted the most exhaustive, lengthy search process EVER!

So we know he's already a shitty liar.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

Did you even scan the thread or this page for that matter?

Gotta pump those numbers up!

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

From where do you get this utopian view of how the process should be? 

The butterflies speak to me.

[Fozzz 152]

Can't wait to watch Dougie Jones run to the right of whichever child raping Nazi the GOP runs against him in 2020!

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Fozzz

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

How can you say that? Kavanaugh said Trump conducted the most exhaustive, lengthy search process EVER!

So we know he's already a shitty liar.

Even if he only talked to Rudy, Trump is the guy that was elected to make the decision.  Fuck Kennedy putting conditions on his retirement. I hope Trump pulls Kavanaugh on the 1st and nominates Rudy himself. He needs an appointment to truly reflect Trump values. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's a lot of words that dont address my point. My issue is that Kennedy chose his own successor. I would expect and hope for a President to seek assistance from legal scholars in his selection, just not from the SCOTUS itself. 

Take your example of Sotomayor. Would you want her to pick her own replacement and have a President rubber stamp it? 

Especially while that sitting justice is deciding cases in which the government is a party.   There is an appearance of impropriety with this story and Kennedy's recent vote in the Muslim ban decision.   Even if there was no explicit quid pro quo — and we'll never know — there is inherent pressure in such a situation not to cross Trump to get his former clerk the spot. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Anastasis 23,469]

Are we going to get real wound up about a tweet, or is their some other story out there that really fleshes out the role that Kennedy played in the pick?

[TwiceHorn 31,457]

10 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Lake of education makes some forget Art. 2, Section 2 of the Constitution which provides for the Consent of the Senate, which therefore explains why protests and other techniques designed to sway Senators make perfect sense.

Then maybe they should protest at the Senate chamber instead?

 

I'm all for these youngsters being "woke" and politically engaged.  It seems a lot of them are.  But I am also reminded rather constantly (the whataburger deal, among other things),. that a lot of these youngsters just like to make a lot of noise because it's cool, not because they actually know wtf is going on.  And I suppose a protest at McDonalds about a supreme court nominee has some effect, but it's about as logical as protesting at 1 First Street NE.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Fozzz 152]

Imagine worrying about the "appearance" of impropriety in American politics circa 2018.  How fucking quaint.  

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's a lot of words that dont address my point. My issue is that Kennedy chose his own successor. I would expect and hope for a President to seek assistance from legal scholars in his selection, just not from the SCOTUS itself. 

Take your example of Sotomayor. Would you want her to pick her own replacement and have a President rubber stamp it?  The court should not be an apprenticeship nor should it have hand selected succession.  That's dictatorship bullshit. 

The author of that tweet is making it sound as nefarious as possible which is not surprising since he works for NBC. I bet you the truth is that Kennedy was probably just looking to retire and was lobbying for his star former clerk to be the one to succeed him. Media trying to portray normal acts that you and I would do in recommending someone to join a firm or as in-house counsel is made to seem like it’s some cabal of radical Catholics pulling the strings. I’m not Catholic, but I’m disgusted by the anti-Catholic vitriol being spewed that seems straight out of the 19th century. Fellow Iranian-American and intellectual giant, Sohrab Ahmari, highlighted this in an article yesterday.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-daily-beast-sounds-the-alarm-about-a-papist-menace/

[tantric superman 4,667]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Then maybe they should protest at the Senate chamber instead?

[TwiceHorn 31,457]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

From where do you get this utopian view of how the process should be?   It's a political process.  Always has been, always will be.   And it's ultimately controlled by the voters.   The voters want ideology and hardball, so that's what we get, because the system is designed to reflect what the voters want.    The notion that most Senators should reserve judgment and keep an open mind through the hearings is naive and absurd when the pick itself has been carefully chosen based on extensive partisan prejudgment behind the scenes (and even, reportedly, negotiations with the guy he's replacing).   Sure, if Trump had shocked the world and picked a relative unknown not off his public list, they should wait and see.  And often do, when it comes to his lesser-known district and appellate court picks, to the loud complaints of Republicans who call it obstruction when the Ds want full Senate vetting.  But he picked one of the most well-known quantities from his list. 

Barring some unforseen change in the composition of the Senate, this pick is done and approved.  The rest is just a dog and pony show to rile up voters in advance of the elections.  Which is also fine and part of the process. 

Good post.  Something you said about voters wanting political hardball resonated with me.  Could it be that one of the reasons politics are so divisive these days is that they are so otherwise unresponsive to voters?  In other words, the voters figuratively say "well, you aren't doing what you said you'd do, or what any of us elected you to do, so you should go thunderdome on the opposition."

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

The author of that tweet is making it sound as nefarious as possible which is not surprising since he works for NBC. I bet you the truth is that Kennedy was probably just looking to retire and was lobbying for his star former clerk to be the one to succeed him. Media trying to portray normal acts that you and I would do in recommending someone to join a firm or as in-house counsel is made to seem like it’s some cabal of radical Catholics pulling the strings. I’m not Catholic, but I’m disgusted by the anti-Catholic vitriol being spewed that seems straight out of the 19th century. Fellow Iranian-American and intellectual giant, Sohrab Ahmari, highlighted this in an article yesterday.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-daily-beast-sounds-the-alarm-about-a-papist-menace/

I dont give a shit about Catholics. If anything, they are better than Protestants these days. Kennedy isnt retiring from a private law firm where he owns equity.  He has stepped outside the constitutional scope of the SCOTUS in doing this.

If he is unsure about Trump, then he shouldn't retire. Trump can also pull Kavanaughs nomination at any time. In fact it would be very Art of the Deal to do so on the day of Kennedys actual retirement. 

[zork 629]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Imagine worrying about the "appearance" of impropriety in American politics circa 2018.  How fucking quaint.  

What exactly was the impropriety? (be specific)

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont give a shit about Catholics. If anything, they are better than Protestants these days. Kennedy isnt retiring from a private law firm where he owns equity.  He has stepped outside the constitutional scope of the SCOTUS in doing this.

If he is unsure about Trump, then he shouldn't retire. Trump can also pull Kavanaughs nomination at any time. In fact it would be very Art of the Deal to do so on the day of Kennedys actual retirement. 

Then it doesn’t matter that kennedy sought kavanaugh’s appointment?

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Are we going to get real wound up about a tweet, or is their some other story out there that really fleshes out the role that Kennedy played in the pick?

Twitter is truth. I read that in a tweet, so it must be true.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Then it doesn’t matter that kennedy sought kavanaugh’s appointment?

Honestly, should it matter?

If I were President, I would think the advice of a SCOTUS judge who's walked the walk would be valuable. 

Also, If I were President Eskimo Hut's would be outlawed.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Cheeseweasel

[wildcat09 29,354]

38 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

McConnell gambled that Trump was going to win when the consensus opinion was that he’d lose. If Hillary was elected,  she would have had her nominee confirmed with lots of bitching from the right. Turn around is fair play if the Dems are in the position like that in the future. I have no problem going scorched earth, no mercy when it comes to Supreme Court justices. It’s that important. The prospect of someone of Scalia’s stature being replaced by a hack like Darth Bader or Sotamayor was scary as fuck. I have no problem saying that Garland got fucked but that’s the stakes when it comes to something this important 

I would love to hear your explanation for why Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are hacks.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, zork said:

What exactly was the impropriety? (be specific)

He's quoting me, and I was already very specific.  If the NBC report is true, there is an appearance of impropriety in Kennedy striking a deal with Trump to install his former clerk as a replacement while Kennedy is deciding cases in which the government is a party.   The apparent impropriety being that Kennedy's deciding vote in the 5-4 decision approving Trump's Muslim ban, for example, was influenced by that deal. 

[Washpark 176]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I would love to hear your explanation for why Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are hacks.

because wimmez can't use logic and need to be in da kitchen!

icon has a history of woman hating posts

[Js1 85,321]

1 minute ago, Washpark said:

because wimmez can't use logic and need to be in da kitchen!

icon has a history of woman hating posts

He also bitches about what happened to Iran but he's supporting Trump. Because he secretly enjoys it.

[Fozzz 152]

Roe will understandably suck up a lot of the oxygen regarding this nomination, but make no mistake, safeguarding the interests of monopoly capitalism is what this guy is being hired to do.

 

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I would love to hear your explanation for why Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are hacks.

I’m pretty busy this morning I will give you a few bullet points of why I think they suck:

1. Both have an expansive view of the powers of the judiciary beyond the role carved out on the Constitution. They have no problem being legislators from the bench.

2. They will cite international law or smushy undefined norms that adhere to their worldview rather than the Constitution, case law or plain language of a statute.

those are my 2 biggest gripes about them

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

He's quoting me, and I was already very specific.  If the NBC report is true, there is an appearance of impropriety in Kennedy striking a deal with Trump to install his former clerk as a replacement while Kennedy is deciding cases in which the government is a party.   The apparent impropriety being that Kennedy's deciding vote in the 5-4 decision approving Trump's Muslim ban, for example, was influenced by that deal. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m pretty busy this morning I will give you a few bullet points of why I think they suck:

1. Both have an expansive view of the powers of the judiciary beyond the role carved out on the Constitution. They have no problem being legislators from the bench.

 2. They will cite international law or smushy undefined norms that adhere to their worldview rather than the Constitution, case law or plain language of a statute.

those are my 2 biggest gripes about them

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

4 minutes ago, Washpark said:

because wimmez can't use logic and need to be in da kitchen!

icon has a history of woman hating posts

Really, LOL I needed a good laugh this morning. Please refer me to this “history of woman hating posts” that I’ve supposedly made. You won’t find me objectifying women or hanging out in NSAA trolling for porn. I really liked Kavanaugh talking about his mom and that she is the real Judge Kavanaugh in his mind. Like the left’s hate-mongering against this exceptional man, you are making baseless, demonizing attacks against me with no basis in truth. You and your side have lost it and the majority of Americans are going to see through the apolacapytic gnashing of teeth for what it is, bullshit, when it comes to this nominee.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, I think that’s pretty much the opposite big guy. Read some of what she has written or said and then come back to the grownup table 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

17 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Then it doesn’t matter that kennedy sought kavanaugh’s appointment?

Yes it matters. He hand picked a successor like he was a North Korean "justice." That it could backfire is meaningless. It can backfire in North Korea too. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yes it matters. He hand picked a successor like he was a North Korean "justice." That it could backfire is meaningless. It can backfire in North Korea too. 

I think that's what The News wants you to believe. I'm not concerned that (assuming they did) they met and Kennedy gave his opinion on Kavanaugh as a justice. 

I sweater god, we are allowing Twitter dudes to make us believe shit that is pure speculation. I weep for the future due to the lack of discernment people have.

[wildcat09 29,354]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Ok, I think that’s pretty much the opposite big guy. Read some of what she has written or said and then come back to the grownup table 

It's not bragging because you can't throw a stone in here without hitting a lawyer, but I happen to be one of them. I'm pretty confident that I've got a better grasp of these issues than you do.

[Washpark 176]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I think that's what The News wants you to believe. I'm not concerned that (assuming they did) they met and Kennedy gave his opinion on Kavanaugh as a justice. 

I sweater god, we are allowing Twitter dudes to make us believe shit that is pure speculation. I weep for the future due to the lack of discernment people have.

I don't think it is twitter dude but a legitimate reporter. Trump comms director was asked on TV if this was true and there no denial. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m pretty busy this morning I will give you a few bullet points of why I think they suck:

1. Both have an expansive view of the powers of the judiciary beyond the role carved out on the Constitution. They have no problem being legislators from the bench.

2. They will cite international law or smushy undefined norms that adhere to their worldview rather than the Constitution, case law or plain language of a statute.

those are my 2 biggest gripes about them

You have no idea how common law works. Where do you think "case law" comes from?  What do you think the court should do when there is no clear statute or prior case law? Throw up their hands and tell the parties to pound sand?  If there is no binding precedent, they can look to other courts (and countries )for persuasive precedent.  They can also look to dicta.  And the SCOTUS gets a lot of gray area cases because that is actually what the SCOTUS is there for. If its cut and dried, its decided well before SCOTUS.

Relying solely on the plain language of the constitution or statutes is what civil law countries do. In fact, the flexibility of the court system is largely why English common law countries do better economically. 

[zork 629]

26 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

He's quoting me, and I was already very specific.  If the NBC report is true, there is an appearance of impropriety in Kennedy striking a deal with Trump to install his former clerk as a replacement while Kennedy is deciding cases in which the government is a party.   The apparent impropriety being that Kennedy's deciding vote in the 5-4 decision approving Trump's Muslim ban, for example, was influenced by that deal. 

Thanks for the reply.  Interesting point.  Would you believe either one if they said they did not discuss the case?  Only discussed, perhaps, his replacement and maybe grandchildren or golf? 

Is there a remedy being explored on that case due to the: new shit that has come to light(,man)?

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 minutes ago, Washpark said:

I don't think it is twitter dude but a legitimate reporter. Trump comms director was asked on TV if this was true and there no denial. 

Fact: Kennedy met with Trump

Supposition: Kennedy traded his position of the SC to Kavanaugh for dubious reasons.

That's what the Twitter post suggests.

[Fozzz 152]

lol Thomas straight up fucking lied to the federal government about his wife being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Heritage Foundation and some of y'all think this bullshit with Kennedy will matter? 

What matters is whether Dem leadership, if they ever recapture the Executive and Legislative branches and use that power to pass progressive legislation, will have the stones to neutralize SCOTUS when they strike down that legislation.  I don't see that happening with people like Pelosi and Schumer running the show.  

[Huckleberry 32,859]

lulz

zork is such a doofus. I remember when he was pretending to be nothing but intellectually curious in the Cloak Room on shaggy. Those were the days.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol Thomas straight up fucking lied to the federal government about his wife being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Heritage Foundation and some of y'all think this bullshit with Kennedy will matter? 

What matters is whether Dem leadership, if they ever recapture the Executive and Legislative branches and use that power to pass progressive legislation, will have the stones to neutralize SCOTUS when they strike down that legislation.  I don't see that happening with people like Pelosi and Schumer running the show.  

I was informed that Packing The Court was the next step...

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fact: Kennedy met with Trump

Supposition: Kennedy traded his position of the SC to Kavanaugh for dubious reasons.

That's what the Twitter post suggests.

Fact: He retired 3 mos before a contentious midterm.

Fact: If Dems win Senate, his replacement will not be confirmed.

Fact: Trump is nutso and Kennedy isnt. 

You can try to change what happened in your mind all you want. Kennedy picked his replacement. Trump said okay. If anything, I'm happy that you believe it would be wrong for Kennedy to pick his replacement. Baby steps. 

 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

I was informed that Packing The Court was the next step...

Dem leadership as it's currently constructed won't go for that.  There needs to be a purge among Dems in Congress first. 

[HenryJames 66,048]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I was informed that Packing The Court was the next step...

I packed your mom's court last night.

[Biff Tannen 45,681]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Fact: He retired 3 mos before a contentious midterm.

Fact: If Dems win Senate, his replacement will not be confirmed.

Fact: Trump is nutso and Kennedy isnt. 

You can try to change what happened in your mind all you want. Kennedy picked his replacement. Trump said okay. If anything, I'm happy that you believe it would be wrong for Kennedy to pick his replacement. Baby steps. 

 

What is stopping them from confirming him before midterms?

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What is stopping them from confirming him before midterms?

Nothing. That's the "problem". 

[zork 629]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

lulz

zork is such a doofus. I remember when he was pretending to be nothing but intellectually curious in the Cloak Room on shaggy. Those were the days.

Thanks.  I'm not a lawyer.  Just a layman who is interested in politics with more time than I would like these days. 

You are right though, I'm using the same username since UT and Vince won the National Championship.  Before that I was Hypeisgood signifying the early Mack Brown years back to the early days of the site that will not be named and the one that split from it for a time as well.  

There are some topics that interest me more than others.  I comment or ask questions when I want and if I find funny, to me, items I post them where I believe they fit. 

Glad you are entertained. /sarc

 

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol Thomas straight up fucking lied to the federal government about his wife being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Heritage Foundation and some of y'all think this bullshit with Kennedy will matter? 

What matters is whether Dem leadership, if they ever recapture the Executive and Legislative branches and use that power to pass progressive legislation, will have the stones to neutralize SCOTUS when they strike down that legislation.  I don't see that happening with people like Pelosi and Schumer running the show.  

How would you suggest the legislature "neutralize the SCOTUS"?

 

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fact: He retired 3 mos before a contentious midterm.

Fact: If Dems win Senate, his replacement will not be confirmed.

Fact: Trump is nutso and Kennedy isnt. 

You can try to change what happened in your mind all you want. Kennedy picked his replacement. Trump said okay. If anything, I'm happy that you believe it would be wrong for Kennedy to pick his replacement. Baby steps. 

 

You're basing this off of one anonymous source, unless I've missed something.  Haven't we learned anonymously sourced stories aren't the most reliable?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, zork said:

Thanks for the reply.  Interesting point.  Would you believe either one if they said they did not discuss the case?  Only discussed, perhaps, his replacement and maybe grandchildren or golf? 

Is there a remedy being explored on that case due to the: new shit that has come to light(,man)?

Yes, I'd believe what Kennedy says about it, unless there is solid proof he's lying.  I have no reason not to respect his word.   No, I wouldn't believe anything Trump says about anything. Either way, there is zero chance that the case itself will be affected retroactively.   People holding the public's trust have an obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety in order to maintain the credibility of our public institutions.  It's less about one specific case than the system as a whole.   It's bad whether or not the decision was actually affected.   And, because nobody here can accept criticism of their side without a dose of #bothsides, I felt the same way about Hillary as SoS taking meetings with donors to the Clinton foundation and Bill giving paid speeches to entities/countries potentially affected by State Department policy and Loretta Lynch meeting Bill on the tarmac, whether or not any specific policy was affected.   Public officials should uphold a high standard, and they often don't, and its still worth calling out each time.