Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[wildcat09 29354]

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

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. 

In addition to this, the idea that it's the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court rather than the conservative bloc that has shown a tendency to ignore the Constitution and clearly valid existing law (both statutory and case law) and legislate from the bench is absurd.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

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

 

The legislative branch can really only punish the judicial by limiting funding, refusing salary increases, and just stop confirming new judges.    Tell them they have to do more with less.  

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Lawrence Tribe, who was close to Obama, said Sotomayor was not that smart and a bully on the bench. I think I have given enough reasons why I don’t like her. Let’s get back to the topic discussing the merits of Judge Kavanaugh. I do appreciate FondrenRoad telling me, a lawyer who has been practicing for over 19 years, about stuff a law student in his first semester would learn. 

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The legislative branch can really only punish the judicial by limiting funding, refusing salary increases, and just stop confirming new judges.    Tell them they have to do more with less.  

That was my point.  Nonsensical post from a nonsensical poster.  

[Don Johnson 4753]

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What is stopping them from confirming him before midterms?

Nothing, and they will confirm him.  That's why Kennedy is retiring exactly when he is.  Its a politically driven retirement.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, GRHorn said:

That was my point.  Nonsensical post from a nonsensical poster.  

No, there is another option that is so obvious i shouldn't have to repeat it.  

[zork 629]

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

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. 

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Reasonable.  

I can see with the type of guy Trump is and has been labeled(fairly and not) that maybe Kennedy would think it actually prudent to meet the man before deciding if he could retire when he wanted.  That the alleged impropriety was actually a sane and reasonable act given the circumstances.(not mentioning any cases that were going on with just the need for Kennedy to meet the man in person who would pick his successor)  

What do you think @Huckleberry?  What is your opinion on this topic?(separate from any personal comments)

 

edit:BTW this came out while I was typing which makes it moot, to a certain extent:

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by zork

[Js1 85321]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nothing, and they will confirm him.  That's why Kennedy is retiring exactly when he is.  Its a politically driven retirement.

Good lord, can you imagine the gnashing of teeth by Fox News if RBG had retired in June 2014, the summer before the Republicans were slated to gain control of the Senate?

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

lol at "almost certainly"

We need hearings.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

That was my point.  Nonsensical post from a nonsensical poster.  

In theory the Exec and Legis could ignore the Judicial and their rulings.  However they would be proactively destroying the checks and balances.  At that point, why wouldn't the Exec decide to ignore the Legis as well.  

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Good lord, can you imagine the gnashing of teeth by Fox News if RBG had retired in June 2014, the summer before the Republicans were slated to gain control of the Senate?

I would think it was reasonable given the current, say since Bork nomination, timeframe.

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

Well now we have an anonymous blog vs an anonymous source.  Shit.  Who to believe?

One thing people have to consider when they look at anonymously sourced stories is what could be the ulterior motives behind someone leaking something?

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Well now we have an anonymous blog vs an anonymous source.  Shit.  Who to believe?

Russia!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

Now scotusblog is actually just a dude who tweets, unlike NBC.  It is not affiliated with the actual SCOTUS.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Lawrence Tribe, who was close to Obama, said Sotomayor was not that smart and a bully on the bench. I think I have given enough reasons why I don’t like her. Let’s get back to the topic discussing the merits of Judge Kavanaugh. I do appreciate FondrenRoad telling me, a lawyer who has been practicing for over 19 years, about stuff a law student in his first semester would learn. 

I know. It is basic stuff. Surprised you didnt know it. Maybe stay awake in a CLE every now and then. 

[wildcat09 29354]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

I know. It is basic stuff. Surprised you didnt know it. Maybe stay awake in a CLE every now and then. 

IT is too busy buying knockoff Chinese-made NFL jerseys to practice law.

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Now scotusblog is actually just a dude who tweets, unlike NBC.  It is not affiliated with the actual SCOTUS.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that an anonymous person who devotes a significant portion of their life to blogging and documenting SCOTUS activity has less of an axe to grind than either an anonymous source providing material for a story attempting to defame the President and Kennedy, or a NBC reporter. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

I would think it was reasonable given the current, say since Bork nomination, timeframe.

I dont know. I think she expects to die on the bench. I just think she expected that to happen during Obama's admin. 

I think we are at the point where we need a mandatory retirement age. That would solve the conditional retirement or death issue. It would also allow for politics to be played for SCOTUS during elections where politics belong since we'd know exactly who was retiring in every cycle. Youd, maybe, have the occasional justice who dies before retirement age, but its doubtful. These fuckers live a long time. Well past average longevity. 

[Hank Kingsley 20927]

 

[Js1 85321]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont know. I think she expects to die on the bench. I just think she expected that to happen during Obama's admin. 

I think we are at the point where we need a mandatory retirement age. That would solve the conditional retirement or death issue. It would also allow for politics to be played for SCOTUS during elections where politics belong since we'd know exactly who was retiring in every cycle. Youd, maybe, have the occasional justice who dies before retirement age, but its doubtful. These fuckers live a long time. Well past average longevity. 

This, this, a thousand times this.

Turn 80 and fuck off to retirement. Enjoy your full benefits for the rest of your life.

[hayden_horn 11362]

i really hope that the scotusblog dude's tweet is real, and nbc is all fake news on this. 

but i think there is enough smoke here to be concerned. kennedy's recent decisions, his sudden retirement, his connections to this guy: it's all a bit dodgy. 

and i actually kind of like the pick so far; what i've read is that he's a conservative dude, which is fine for a justice, imo. we want he court to be conservative, again, imo. but he doesn't look like a crazy conservative, and from what i've seen the rumors about this "not indicting a sitting president" doesn't mitigate the process of impeachment in doing so. as such, that's overblown. in fact, i think the democrats would be doing the country a disservice in trying to obstruct this pick. 

all that said, the fucking SUPREME COURT should be as apolitical as possible, even given their inherent judicial biases. there is a reason they attend the state of the union, but do not stand nor applaud any of the show. the appearance of impartiality is the fucking cornerstone of the court. we put a fucking blindfold on justice, as much as we know most of the judicial system is corrupt and that blindfold is a sham. nevertheless, the highest court in the land should have the fucking propriety to do things correctly. if the story is true, even if kennedy thought he was doing the right thing for his country, it is still the wrong thing.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol at "almost certainly"

We need hearings.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

If for BT: Shouldn't that be a tin foil hoody spray painted in Antifa black?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that an anonymous person who devotes a significant portion of their life to blogging and documenting SCOTUS activity has less of an axe to grind than either an anonymous source providing material for a story attempting to defame the President and Kennedy, or a NBC reporter. 

SCOTUSBlog isn't anonymous; it's run by Tom Goldstein and his wife.  Tom regularly has cases before the Court and has a strong bias towards supporting the Court as an institution.  He does not want to piss off the justices or endanger his standing as a prominent Court watcher.

The blog is a great resource for relatively objective analysis of decisions and information on pending cases and even inside baseball, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their opinion on whether a justice would have done something improper unless they have some specific to report.  It's worth factoring in, just not definitive. 

That said, the NBC report isn't necessarily the gospel either.   And if NBC did get this wrong, they've caused real harm to the credibility of the court. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13195]

80 is too old.

65 should be the automatic retirement age for all "lifetime" appointments.

[triplehorn 2664]

“Kennedy’s travel ban concurrence, translated: “Hey, uh, Mr. President. I’m upholding the travel ban so you uphold your deal to put Kavanaugh in my seat. And remember, I’m giving you this seat, so please, for me, just chill out on unconstitutional and authoritarian stuff, ok?”

[Js1 85321]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

80 is too old.

65 should be the automatic retirement age for all "lifetime" appointments.

Why 65?  66 is currently the age of retirement, soon to be increasing to 67. The average US lifespan is 78 years old, and these people have the top of the top in terms of healthcare.  They can live much longer.  And they also get the entire summer off.

If not 80, maybe 75.  I think the younger you go for retirement, the more "games" you play with appointments.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Js1

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

SCOTUSBlog isn't anonymous; it's run by Tom Goldstein and his wife.  Tom regularly has cases before the Court and has a strong bias towards supporting the Court as an institution.  He does not want to piss off the justices or endanger his standing as a prominent Court watcher.

The blog is a great resource for relatively objective analysis of decisions and information on pending cases and even inside baseball, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their opinion on whether a justice would have done something improper unless they have some specific to report.  It's worth factoring in, just not definitive. 

That said, the NBC report isn't necessarily the gospel either.   And if NBC did get this wrong, they've caused real harm to the credibility of the court. 

Thanks for the background.  

I could see that motivation.  Then again, he wasn't required to comment. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Why 65?  66 is currently the age of retirement, soon to be increasing to 67.

Then whatever the age of retirement is. We do not need people slipping into dementia in positions of power, their ability to physically survive is not sufficient.

[triplehorn 2664]

43 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

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

I don’t expect it, but don’t necessarily oppose the idea:  add to the absolute number of Justices to SCOTUS.  Apparently it’s not an immovable fixed number.  /long game

Edited July 10, 2018 by triplehorn

[Anastasis 23469]

Kavanaugh was added to "The List" last November.  That's some long game shit right there. 

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Kavanaugh was added to "The List" last November.  That's some long game shit right there. 

Oh, you mean right after Manafort and Gates got indicted long game.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The legislative branch can really only punish the judicial by limiting funding, refusing salary increases, and just stop confirming new judges.    Tell them they have to do more with less.  

That is a dumb post by Fozzz, but the legislature can also legislate.  They don't have to leave it to the mean activist judges all the time.  

[Js1 85321]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

That is a dumb post by Fozzz, but the legislature can also legislate.  They don't have to leave it to the mean activist judges all the time.  

Psh, when do they have time to legislate? Grandstanding, fundraising and campaigning takes up 98.9% of their time.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

80 is too old.

65 should be the automatic retirement age for all "lifetime" appointments.

I'd be fine with 70 both for the court and in general.  We can even save Social Security at the same time as we save the SCOTUS.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, triplehorn said:

Oh, you mean right after Manafort and Gates got indicted long game.

Russia put Kavanaugh on the list. Runs through Deutsche Bank, laundered by Kennedy's son, right to the chair at SCOTUS. How deep do you really want to go?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Oh, you mean right after Manafort and Gates got indicted long game.

Dude. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

That is a dumb post by Fozzz, but the legislature can also legislate. 

[Js1 85321]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Russia put Kavanaugh on the list. Runs through Deutsche Bank, laundered by Kennedy's son, right to the chair at SCOTUS. How deep do you really want to go?

Where does the Marshall of the Supreme Court fit in? Do they stamp approval of the list? Procure the beer for the SCOTUS butt-chugging initiation challenge? 

[wildcat09 29354]

Just now, Js1 said:

Where does the Marshall of the Supreme Court fit in? Do they stamp approval of the list? Procure the beer for the SCOTUS butt-chugging initiation challenge? 

Crouched outside the WH bushes waiting for the best time to arrest Trump.

[Huckleberry 32859]

42 minutes ago, zork said:

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Reasonable.  

I can see with the type of guy Trump is and has been labeled(fairly and not) that maybe Kennedy would think it actually prudent to meet the man before deciding if he could retire when he wanted.  That the alleged impropriety was actually a sane and reasonable act given the circumstances.(not mentioning any cases that were going on with just the need for Kennedy to meet the man in person who would pick his successor)  

What do you think @Huckleberry?  What is your opinion on this topic?(separate from any personal comments)

 

edit:BTW this came out while I was typing which makes it moot, to a certain extent:

 

I can't divorce my opinion on this topic from personal comments when being asked by you in this manner. I mean Jesus H. Christ on a cracker just look at this post I quoted.

Paraphrasing of zork's arguments for multiple posts: "Here are a million reasons why NBC's story shouldn't be believed. And even if it's true, it's not a big deal."

5 minutes later: "Oh look, here's a blogger's tweet. Case closed. Because obviously this one makes everything moot because I believe it because it's what I want to believe."

Also, give me some labels Trump has had unfairly applied. The dude is a megalomaniacal narcissist who was born into money and then held on to it by shortpaying vendors and playing the corruption game in New York City. Was someone unfairly mean to him? That would suck.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Huckleberry

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Psh, when do they have time to legislate? Grandstanding, fundraising and campaigning takes up 98.9% of their time.

That and its easier to leave it to the courts and bitch about the courts when it comes to the desire to be discriminatory.  Trump went back and tailored his Muslim ban executive order accordingly because he is openly a piece of shit.  Congress gives up because, even though they are assholes too, they don't want the optics of trying to tailor legislation to ban gay marriages, to specifically allow discrimination against gay and transgendered people, or to strip people of health insurance, even if they claim to want all those things to occur.  

[GHOSTUSER 361]

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

IT is too busy buying knockoff Chinese-made NFL jerseys to practice law.

I’m a transactional guy. Very good at what I do. Haven’t bought a knockoff in a while. The $99 legit versions are a good price point. NFL wised up and brought their jersey prices to what MLB charges. They super duper official game NFL jerseys are close to $300. You have to be doing meth/insane to buy those. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[Anastasis 23469]

I really wish that I had remembered about the whole marshal of the supreme court thing so that I coudl have worked that and an air force 1 reference in. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m a transactional guy. Very good at what I do. Haven’t bought a knockoff in a while. The $99 legit versions are a good price point. NFL wised up and brought their jersey prices to what MLB charges. They super duper official game NFL jerseys are close to $300. You have to be doing meth/insane to buy those. 

Jesus IT.  Too easy. 

[zork 629]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I can't divorce my opinion on this topic from personal comments when being asked by you in this manner. I mean Jesus H. Christ on a cracker just look at this post I quoted.

Paraphrasing of zork's arguments for multiple posts: "Here are a million reasons why NBC's story shouldn't be believed. And even if it's true, it's not a big deal."

5 minutes later: "Oh look, here's a blogger's tweet. Case closed. Because obviously this one makes everything moot because I believe it because it's what I want to believe."

Also, give me some labels Trump has had unfairly applied. The dude is a megalomaniacal narcissist who was born into money and then held on to it by shortpaying vendors and playing the corruption game in New York City. Was someone unfairly mean to him? That would suck.

i'm tapping out with you, man.  you win.  

[Lagunamadre 1975]

20 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

SCOTUSBlog isn't anonymous; it's run by Tom Goldstein and his wife.  Tom regularly has cases before the Court and has a strong bias towards supporting the Court as an institution.  He does not want to piss off the justices or endanger his standing as a prominent Court watcher.

The blog is a great resource for relatively objective analysis of decisions and information on pending cases and even inside baseball, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their opinion on whether a justice would have done something improper unless they have some specific to report.  It's worth factoring in, just not definitive. 

That said, the NBC report isn't necessarily the gospel either.   And if NBC did get this wrong, they've caused real harm to the credibility of the court. 

I'm assuming the editors at NBC quadruple checked their sources and did their due diligence before they went public with this story. This would have had to come from a solid source. As much as people like to beat up on the press these days, they rarely get stories of this magnitude wrong. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

I'm assuming the editors at NBC quadruple checked their sources and did their due diligence before they went public with this story. This would have had to come from a solid source. As much as people like to beat up on the press these days, they rarely get stories of this magnitude wrong. 

 

This is a great post.  I have no idea whether you are being serious or sarcastic.  Really brilliant. I mean that sincerely. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

I'm assuming the editors at NBC quadruple checked their sources and did their due diligence before they went public with this story. This would have had to come from a solid source. As much as people like to beat up on the press these days, they rarely get stories of this magnitude wrong. 

I would hope so, but all I saw was a reporter tweeting out that sources told him this.  While I doubt he was lying, I wonder if the informality and directness of Twitter lacks the layers of editing that normal publishing channels have.