Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[BabaYaga 15631]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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 

And this kids, is how new conspiracy theories start to deflect away the bitter taste of those grapes

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Elaborate. 

No.   I don't believe you to be a genuine participant on this board. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And this kids, is how new conspiracy theories start to deflect away the bitter taste of those grapes

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

[udaydanceparty 33]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No.   I don't believe you to be a genuine participant on this board. 

Such a fucking cop out.  Defend your claim or shut the fuck up.

[udaydanceparty 33]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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

You aren't providing any facts.  You are implying that there is something improper going on and unwilling to explain what that is. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Such a fucking cop out.  Defend your claim or shut the fuck up.

Nah. 

[JBJ 3830]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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?

You can include that fact in your explanation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You can include that fact in your explanation.

I don’t know, I don’t have a theory on this.

But come on, the optics alone on this are dogshit.

It doesn’t really matter anymore because justice is almost a laughable concept now, liberty isn’t too far behind.

[udaydanceparty 33]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Nah. 

Then I guess you aren't a genuine participant in this board.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It'll be tough, but I think I can live with you thinking that.   

[udaydanceparty 33]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

But come on, the optics alone on this are dogshit.

What are these optics? 

DB lent money to Trump to build hotels.

An 81 year old Republican SCOTUS judge decides to retire while a Republican President is in office.

You need to fix your filter because your eyes aren't seeing 20/20 right now.

[jimmyjazz 47331]

5 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

What are these optics? 

DB lent money to Trump to build hotels.

An 81 year old Republican SCOTUS judge decides to retire while a Republican President is in office.

You need to fix your filter because your eyes aren't seeing 20/20 right now.

The irony of you scolding others about their lack of perspective while doing such a piss-poor job of summarizing their position is, well, it ain't like rain on your wedding day.

Come on.  Try harder.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

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

Shady shit afoot.

What's shady about it? Successful and intelligent people tend to have successful and intelligent kids in important positions, like me  . Nothing shady about it at all. There is no quid pro quo going on. Lots of shit to rag on Trump about but this isn't one of them. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[udaydanceparty 33]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The irony of you scolding others about their lack of perspective while doing such a piss-poor job of summarizing their position is, well, it ain't like rain on your wedding day.

Come on.  Try harder. 

It would be easier to summarize their position if they would actually provide one.

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t know, I don’t have a theory on this.=

 

[jimmyjazz 47331]

5 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

It would be easier to summarize their position if they would actually provide one.

 

Maybe you shouldn't leave out the most key part of their concern over "optics".  I know, call me crazy.

[udaydanceparty 33]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe you shouldn't leave out the most key part of their concern over "optics".  I know, call me crazy.

 

I quoted his "optics" comment in my original post.  I asked him specifically what optics he was referencing because I am trying to understand what's wrong with the optics.  I don't see the same thing he does and i'm trying to understand why that is.  My response below.

What are these optics? 

DB lent money to Trump to build hotels.

An 81 year old Republican SCOTUS judge decides to retire while a Republican President is in office.

You need to fix your filter because your eyes aren't seeing 20/20 right now.

What is wrong with a bank lending money to a commercial real estate company?  Is there something inappropriate about that?  Is it not part of their normal day to day business?

What is wrong with an 81 year old Republican SCOTUS judge retiring when a Republican is in office? 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by udaydanceparty

[jimmyjazz 47331]

Jesus Christ, dude.  The SON is a big part of the "optics" (and I fucking hate that word).

[BabaYaga 15631]

8 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

What is wrong with an 81 year old Republican SCOTUS judge retiring when a Republican is in office? 

Because a Democrat is not in office

[udaydanceparty 33]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ, dude.  The SON is a big part of the "optics" (and I fucking hate that word).

Did he do something inappropriate?  Looks like he left the firm in 2009. 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by udaydanceparty

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

14 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Did he do something inappropriate?  Looks like he left the firm in 2009. 

 

GTFO here with facts!

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

Deutsche Bank is shady as fuck outside of any of their dealings with Trump.  I'd be leery of anyone who has ties to them.

There were one of our lenders of choice for the real estate deals I worked on in NY. Nothing shady about them from my dealings. They didn't have their legs spread wide open like Wachovia in lending money. 

[jimmyjazz 47331]

16 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Did he do something inappropriate?  Looks like he left the firm in 2009. 

 

Well, having worked through all of the tax filings as well as his NDA and all of his communications with his father, I can say . . . what the fuck?  If you want to be a disruptive troll, just admit it.  Nobody fucking knows whether or not the son's position with the bank matters, it's just the sniff test that bothers some people.  Let them be bothered.  They don't have to have it solved, but you should sure as shit represent their concerns properly if you're going to beat them over the head with them.

[dcar00 14997]

21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So you're down with packing the Supreme Court? 

 

since Bork, the republican presidents are the ones that keep nominating justices that become swing votes or outright liberal.  they'll screw this up yet.  the funny thing is Bork would have agreed with the fact that the Supreme Court has too much power.

[formermav43 4631]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, having worked through all of the tax filings as well as his NDA and all of his communications with his father, I can say . . . what the fuck?  If you want to be a disruptive troll, just admit it.  Nobody fucking knows whether or not the son's position with the bank matters, it's just the sniff test that bothers some people.  Let them be bothered.  They don't have to have it solved, but you should sure as shit represent their concerns properly if you're going to beat them over the head with them.

I think the issue is it’s unclear what exactly those concerns are that violate the sniff test-how do you represent them properly? That Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker leaves a huge, underpants gnome ??????? to fill in, especially considering his age and longstanding retirement speculation.

It’s a non-story at this point.

Edited June 29, 2018 by formermav43

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

I don't understand the Democrat whining about Kennedy retiring now.    Yep, it was bs when McConnell broke all tradition and spirit of the Constitution for refusing to even hold a vote on Garland for close to a year.  FYI, the GOP Senators could have formally rejected him to create the same result.   You actually can argue that McConnell was preventing a waste of time to go thru the motions only to have Garland voted down.  However he did it all for the benefit of the GOP, which is not unexpected from him.  

If the Dems are upset that Roe v Wade or same-sex marriage will be overturned, they need to look in the mirror.  Put the right candidates up that can win elections whether that's Senators or President.   And if citizens don't listen to your messages either the content or the messenger is bad.   

Finally Kennedy was not a liberal justice.  This current situation isn't Trump replacing Ginsberg.   Kennedy was sometimes a swing vote but more often than not, he voted in lock step with the other conservatives.   The Left better hope that Trump doesn't get an opportunity to replace Ginsberg with a 40-year Liberty University School of Law grad.    They need to get out the vote in November to take over the Senate.   or they can sit on TV and cry about it.

 

[jimmyjazz 47331]

Kennedy was the swing justice in a lot of cases that the left was concerned about.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't understand the Democrat whining about Kennedy retiring now.    Yep, it was bs when McConnell broke all tradition and spirit of the Constitution for refusing to even hold a vote on Garland for close to a year.  FYI, the GOP Senators could have formally rejected him to create the same result.   You actually can argue that McConnell was preventing a waste of time to go thru the motions only to have Garland voted down.  However he did it all for the benefit of the GOP, which is not unexpected from him.  

If the Dems are upset that Roe v Wade or same-sex marriage will be overturned, they need to look in the mirror.  Put the right candidates up that can win elections whether that's Senators or President.   And if citizens don't listen to your messages either the content or the messenger is bad.   

Finally Kennedy was not a liberal justice.  This current situation isn't Trump replacing Ginsberg.   Kennedy was sometimes a swing vote but more often than not, he voted in lock step with the other conservatives.   The Left better hope that Trump doesn't get an opportunity to replace Ginsberg with a 40-year Liberty University School of Law grad.    They need to get out the vote in November to take over the Senate.   or they can sit on TV and cry about it.

 

Let's say you're Kennedy...  You're not oblivious to what is going on with Trump. 

You see what is happening and you think to yourself, "Yes, this is the guy I want to pick my replacement."

Fuck Kennedy and I'm not a democrat. 

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

It was the only concern voiced by anyone other than Madison, and Madison stated it as his primary concern.

Had you bothered to read my post you would know this is incorrect.  

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I'm not a democrat. 

[Js1 87288]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let's say you're Kennedy...  You're not oblivious to what is going on with Trump. 

You see what is happening and you think to yourself, "Yes, this is the guy I want to pick my replacement."

Fuck Kennedy and I'm not a democrat. 

I think a SCOTUS justice retiring in an election year (midterm or presidential) is poor form.  Unless he's legit dying in the next 6 months, he should have done this in summer 2019 after the 2018-19 session finished.

Obviously a death is different. You can't do much about that.  But SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan and he just made his seat very politicized.

[jimmyjazz 47331]

I agree.  Accepting the nomination and getting seated to me implies a commitment to going the distance.  I understand circumstances change, but it's such an incredibly important position in our government, every effort should be made to keep politics out of the process.

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I agree.  Accepting the nomination and getting seated to me implies a commitment to going the distance.  I understand circumstances change, but it's such an incredibly important position in our government, every effort should be made to keep politics out of the process.

Jimmy,

You are one of my favorite shag posters, but I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if Hillary was elected.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let's say you're Kennedy...  You're not oblivious to what is going on with Trump. 

You see what is happening and you think to yourself, "Yes, this is the guy I want to pick my replacement."

Fuck Kennedy and I'm not a democrat. 

I imagine every Republican in DC, including on the Supreme Court, are  worried that the Senate flips blue in November and Trump will lose them the WH for the following generation.  Kennedy wants to replaced by a Republican President with a GOP led Senate.    Now the Senate may stay red and Trump may be re-elected but that isn't guaranteed like it is today.   The only guarantee is the situation that we see today.

once again this is the only thing that matters: Kennedy wants to replaced by a Republican President with a GOP led Senate. 

Kennedy can only control when he is willing to retire and he would never want to be replaced by a Democrat in the WH.  Stop painting Kennedy as the savior of Democrat values.  He wasn't.   

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Kennedy probably wouldn't retire if Hillary was elected. 

[jimmyjazz 47331]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Jimmy,

You are one of my favorite shag posters, but I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if Hillary was elected.

Oh, absolutely.  I watched the Bork hearings.  I watched the Anita Hill testimony.  I'm always fascinated by SCOTUS maneuverings.  I don't think it's possible to keep the politics out of the nomination process, because they're nominated by a politician, after all.  I just prefer that the rest of the process try to stay as far removed from politics as possible.  (That's a pipe dream, but it's my pipe dream, dammit.)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I imagine every Republican in DC, including on the Supreme Court, are  worried that the Senate flips blue in November and Trump will lose them the WH for the following generation.  Kennedy wants to replaced by a Republican President with a GOP led Senate.    Now the Senate may stay red and Trump may be re-elected but that isn't guaranteed like it is today.   The only guarantee is the situation that we see today.

once again this is the only thing that matters: Kennedy wants to replaced by a Republican President with a GOP led Senate. 

Kennedy can only control when he is willing to retire and he would never want to be replaced by a Democrat in the WH.  Stop painting Kennedy as the savior of Democrat values.  He wasn't.   

 

All good points and Kennedy has a right to retire but still, fuck him. 

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, absolutely.  I watched the Bork hearings.  I watched the Anita Hill testimony.  I'm always fascinated by SCOTUS maneuverings.  I don't think it's possible to keep the politics out of the nomination process, because they're nominated by a politician, after all.  I just prefer that the rest of the process try to stay as far removed from politics as possible.  (That's a pipe dream, but it's my pipe dream, dammit.)

Fair enough.

FWIW, I agree that SCOTUS should be above politics. That's why I was unhappy with many of the recent appointees. They aren't great jurists. Congress/Presidents come and go and much of what they do can be changed instantly. The ripples of SCOTUS decisions impact our nation more than people know. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

I don't think its bad form for a justice to retire in an election year.   Now if they publicly stated their intentions depending on an upcoming election, that would be bad form.    If you flip the situation, you would most likely see Ginsberg and/or Breyer retiring right now.   SCOTUS is just as political as the other 2 branches of our govt.   They just have their version of elections occur much less frequently so it's more important.

 

 

[JBJ 3830]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Had you bothered to read my post you would know this is incorrect.  

You are right, Wilson also had the objection that a majority candidate would not emerge out of a wide field of candidates.

[udaydanceparty 33]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, having worked through all of the tax filings as well as his NDA and all of his communications with his father, I can say . . . what the fuck?  If you want to be a disruptive troll, just admit it.  Nobody fucking knows whether or not the son's position with the bank matters, it's just the sniff test that bothers some people.  Let them be bothered.  They don't have to have it solved, but you should sure as shit represent their concerns properly if you're going to beat them over the head with them.

What the fuck is this word salad supposed to mean?  I asked why Hugo thought the optics were bad and so far I don't see that question answered.  What about these optics make you think something improper is going on.  As I pointed out, Kennedy's son left DB back in 09 during the real estate crash and started a REIT.  So since 09 he's actually been competing with the Trumps.

If there is a reason to suspect impropriety, put it forward.  Playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon and replacing it with Russia innuendo is getting tiresome. 

[RandomIdoit 739]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let's say you're Kennedy...  You're not oblivious to what is going on with Trump. 

You see what is happening and you think to yourself, "Yes, this is the guy I want to pick my replacement."

Fuck Kennedy and I'm not a democrat. 

Or you wait until a Democrat becomes president and they choose a replacement who is aligned with the left. Or you wait to see if the Senate has a democratic majority that will vote down who Trump nominates. Or you just retire now, while there might be enough time for Trump to get his pick pushed through. It's the same reason Ginsburg will not retire while Trump is in office. She wants to make sure someone that aligns with her ideology succeeds her. If she dies while a Republican is in office, the tears may never stop flowing.

[Js1 87288]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fair enough.

FWIW, I agree that SCOTUS should be above politics. That's why I was unhappy with many of the recent appointees. They aren't great jurists. Congress/Presidents come and go and much of what they do can be changed instantly. The ripples of SCOTUS decisions impact our nation more than people know. 

A lot of it is the Senate has completely abandoned its duty to "advise AND consent."

They just consent.  The advising part is just a formality, POTUS is gonna POTUS.  In an ideal world, SCOTUS confirmations should be bipartisan because the Senate had a bigger say in the process.  Instead, POTUS does what he wants and the Senate just confirms (if the majority matches the president's party, and it's not an election year for a lame duck president, and the opposing party is not projected to win the White House, and Jupiter and Saturn are in alignment with Venus, and Alabama wins the College Football Playoffs but only if the SEC got less than 2 teams in the playoffs and.......)

[jimmyjazz 47331]

I was too young and apolitical to understand the nuances in the Bork hearings, but I recall a nagging feeling that it was wrong he was rejected over his perspective on the law.  I've always tended to lean towards the idea that as long as a nominee meets the requirements for the position, they should be approved and seated.  I suspect there are situations where that could backfire . . . like "I nominate Victor Putin" . . . but in the real world, it should be allowed to work, until it doesn't?  Don't know.

[Js1 87288]

19 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Jimmy,

You are one of my favorite shag posters, but I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if Hillary was elected.

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.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Js1

[udaydanceparty 33]

8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't think its bad form for a justice to retire in an election year.   Now if they publicly stated their intentions depending on an upcoming election, that would be bad form.    If you flip the situation, you would most likely see Ginsberg and/or Breyer retiring right now.   SCOTUS is just as political as the other 2 branches of our govt.   They just have their version of elections occur much less frequently so it's more important.

 

 

As long as the SCOTUS judge is fair and not legislating from the bench we really don't have a problem on our hands regardless of political affiliation.  Congress passes the laws, President signs them.  SCOTUS can rule unconstitutional but both other branches can pass amendments to the constitution and the SCOTUS has to deal with it. 

Judges just need to stay in their fucking lanes and do their jobs.

[formermav43 4631]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 I've always tended to lean towards the idea that as long as a nominee meets the requirements for the position, they should be approved and seated.  

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.

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

A lot of it is the Senate has completely abandoned its duty to "advise AND consent."

They just consent.  The advising part is just a formality, POTUS is gonna POTUS.  In an ideal world, SCOTUS confirmations should be bipartisan because the Senate had a bigger say in the process.  Instead, POTUS does what he wants and the Senate just confirms (if the majority matches the president's party, and it's not an election year for a lame duck president, and the opposing party is not projected to win the White House, and Jupiter and Saturn are in alignment with Venus, and Alabama wins the College Football Playoffs but only if the SEC got less than 2 teams in the playoffs and.......)

I agree. This is a much bigger problem than SCOTUS appointments. Congress has yielded much of their power to the office of the President because of their inability to legislate. It's only going to get worse as we become more polarized. 

[JBJ 3830]

54 minutes 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.

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.

Edited June 29, 2018 by JBJ

[RandomIdoit 739]

Why doesn't McCain step down if he cannot be there to vote? He already passed the May 30th deadline to avoid the special election. 

[Jive Turkey 13019]

As much as Trump and his supporters rail on the elites, it would be better if he considered non-Ivy League educated judges. Gorsuch was Columbia, Harvard. If he goes with Kavanaugh, he’s Yale, Yale. 

Not all of SCOTUS need to have gone to the same 3 schools.