Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think liberals are fucking nuts. Well classical liberals aren’t.  I’m basically one. But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

Oh the irony

[Pancho 44792]

 

[David Dennison 18856]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Dems angling to make the midterms a referendum on the scotus. I actually think that is precisely the wrong play. The gop is dejected. Give trump the ability to float a nomination and you only give them a chance to rally with a good map

Republicans are going to be decimated in November no matter what.

It's going to be ugly.

[Huckleberry 32859]

You see the 5-4 ruling yesterday on the California law and its injunction? 

WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as probably unconstitutional a California law that required religiously affiliated pregnancy centers to inform clients about the availability of state-funded services for terminating a pregnancy.

The fact that 4 dumb fucks voted the other way is scary.
The left has gone off the reservation. There aren’t moderates on the left. It’s socialists, freebies, identity politics and victimhood.  

What in the world do any of those four GOP buzzwords have to do with that law and dissent?

Hilarious that you decry identity politics while simultaneously offering a perfect example of it.

[relapse98 634]

38 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Trump will get his nominee. He's a scorched earth President. No one in his party will go against him unless he nominates a complete clown.

Brett Talley, come on down!

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Trump will nominate someone soon. Let the red state senator dems up for re-election have to take a position. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Republicans are going to be decimated in November no matter what.
It's going to be ugly.

Before today I agree. If you make the vote a referendum on a named conservative judge instead of Dotus it only favors gop, with the tailwind of strong map. You go all in on that and you risk a 3rd appointment if Bader strokes out.

[Pancho 44792]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think liberals are fucking nuts. Well classical liberals aren’t.  I’m basically one. But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

You are describing conservatives too. Why do you people keep igorning this???

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

When was the last time democrats really came out for a midterm election?

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Dems angling to make the midterms a referendum on the scotus. I actually think that is precisely the wrong play. The gop is dejected. Give trump the ability to float a nomination and you only give them a chance to rally with a good map

This is what I'm arguing in the Elections thread. 

Making November a "Vote for us or the other side will get a SCOTUS seat" election is precisely the recipe to motivate Republicans.  It's hard to swallow, but this nominee will be conservative and he will be confirmed.  Don't overplay your shitty hand and lose any chance at House and/or Senate too.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

Come on man. That's basically the Trump playbook with the exception of freebies and you possibly argue that the tax cut without the corresponding spending cut is a freebie.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

I hope McConnell gets another SC justice confirmed before the midterms. Like Cobra Kai, show no mercy when it comes to getting a conservative on the bench. Going hardball, scorched earth is generally not the right call, BUT it was worth doing when it comes to picking justices on the Supreme Court.  I am glad the Republicans got Gorsuch on the bench and denied Garland a confirmation hearing. That move by the Republicans has already paid huge dividends with the decision in Janus. Getting 2 conservative justices on the SC will help blunt the stupidity of an unqualified hack like Sotamayor and blatant liberal bias of Ginsburg.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wouldn't say I "prefer" it but I don't mind it.  The balance between strict originalism and interpreting the Constitution as a living document of sorts is difficult.  Of course, I lean towards the latter, but mostly I just want serious high intellect justices who truly know not only the law but history, and who are morally committed to doing the best job possible.

I don't think Trump would ascribe to my standards with a gun to his head.  Ergo, I am extraordinarily worried.

I want a SCOTUS that stays keeps the government out of my shit. 

That means Roe v. Wade first and foremost. 

Trump gonna fuck this up.

[jimmyjazz 45942]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Dems angling to make the midterms a referendum on the scotus. I actually think that is precisely the wrong play. The gop is dejected. Give trump the ability to float a nomination and you only give them a chance to rally with a good map

I agree with you on that.  The only counter-play is to somehow invoke the hypocrisy being spewed by Turtle in the light of his statements about Garland, and that's such old news I don't think it will play well.

[hayden_horn 11362]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think liberals are fucking nuts. Well classical liberals aren’t.  I’m basically one. But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

your use of the word "you" there is most curious. i don't really consider myself a liberal. i am for SOME policies that the democrats support, and i am for SOME polices that republicans embrace.

i'm basically against everything this current cabal is doing to destroy america, i don't care what letter they claim. and when the democrats eventually go fucking crazy at the federal level, i'll be here still, probably speaking against their overreach. because the teams don't matter to me. the polices are what matters. but you don't care about that as long as your team is doing the winning. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Not sure why anyone cares. Trump will have the courts obsolete soon enough.

[Burt 4080]

36 minutes ago, zork said:

that's not how this works.gif

Past practice says its exactly how it works.  That was an exact quote from Mitch McConnell.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I agree with you on that.  The only counter-play is to somehow invoke the hypocrisy being spewed by Turtle in the light of his statements about Garland, and that's such old news I don't think it will play well.

The average voter gives zero shits about what happened 2 years ago and probably doesn't understand it. 

Advantage Trump.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Trump will nominate someone soon. Let the red state senator dems up for re-election have to take a position. 

I'm not sure if this or holding out until after the midterms would be better for Trump. Holding gets his base out, but your idea is pretty interesting. Either way it certainly presents an opportunity for Trump to get more power.

Edited June 27, 2018 by SimonBolivar

[deadshank 24652]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I want a SCOTUS that stays keeps the government out of my shit. 

That means Roe v. Wade first and foremost. 

Trump gonna fuck this up.

You're pregnant again?  

[David Dennison 18856]

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the most important people in the Senate right now.

Better hold on to them, wing nuts.

[Orca of Peace 109]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think liberals are fucking nuts. Well classical liberals aren’t.  I’m basically one. But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

identity politics is a mainstay of the right, especially with the Religious Right component. The Rs are 90% white, which should be a telling sign. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Dems angling to make the midterms a referendum on the scotus. I actually think that is precisely the wrong play. The gop is dejected. Give trump the ability to float a nomination and you only give them a chance to rally with a good map

i agree with this, but the inverse is also true. if the republicans go nuclear and jam a justice through, their november may be even uglier than i currently think it could be.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, deadshank said:

You're pregnant again?  

Just send me my money or I'm calling my lawyer again!

[Anastasis 23469]

i agree with this, but the inverse is also true. if the republicans go nuclear and jam a justice through, their november may be even uglier than i currently think it could be.

I agree. Senate goes blue. Which prevents a Ginsburg replacement. It’s amazing political gaming right now.

[JBJ 3654]

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we had a strict conservative in scalia. i don't think we really know what gorsuch will do in the next ruling or 5 years from now. we always knew trump was getting 2-3 justices, because of scalia, and the general age of the justices.

and i'm a weirdo, but i prefer a conservative supreme court. what i worry about is that pendulum swinging into a rubber stamp. i happen to hope that the justices on the surpreme court aren't overly activist, however, and i hope that decisions will continue to be balanced.

a cynic is only a frustrated optimist, after all.

This. 

I'm hoping Garland and [insert new judge] turn out to be more like Kennedy/Roberts. 

Less like Stephens/Ginsberg/Thomas.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The odds are against Senate going blue.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dems just need to run on checks and balances and stick to the truth.

It’s pretty simple when you have a renegade lunatic in the White House 

[David Dennison 18856]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dems just need to run on checks and balances and stick to the truth.

It’s pretty simple when you have a renegade lunatic in the White House 

And a renegage lunatic party on the right.

[Continental Op 3934]

I hope McConnell gets another SC justice confirmed before the midterms. Like Cobra Kai, show no mercy when it comes to getting a conservative on the bench. Going hardball, scorched earth is generally not the right call, BUT it was worth doing when it comes to picking justices on the Supreme Court.  I am glad the Republicans got Gorsuch on the bench and denied Garland a confirmation hearing. That move by the Republicans has already paid huge dividends with the decision in Janus. Getting 2 conservative justices on the SC will help blunt the stupidity of an unqualified hack like Sotamayor and blatant liberal bias of Ginsburg.  

We need someone who will stand for conservative ideals like fucking dudes at a flophouse while whacked out on meth!

[woohorn 1131]

Any idea why Kennedy is doing this now?

[Anastasis 23469]

Well that’s gonna leave a mark.

[Pods 7552]

GOP is keeping the Senate unless they commit several own goals. Pissing off swing voters with another blatant example of hypocrisy is one of those own goals. 

I think the smart play for McConnell would have been to say that they have other immediate things they have to work on and will probably not vote to confirm until after the election.

Then the GOP can campaign on it and turn out the votes without further pissing off the swing voters. This helps them keep the House, which is HUGE. The last thing the GOP wants is Adam Schiff having subpoena power instead of Devin Nunes. That is literally a game changer. 

If the GOP loses the Senate, which is extremely unlikely, McConnell can just ram the nominee through in December anyway. 

[zork 629]

11 minutes ago, Burt said:

Past practice says its exactly how it works.  That was an exact quote from Mitch McConnell.

is the 2018 election a presidential election? of course not.

[Burt 4080]

35 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Hopefully it'll be Justice Michael Cohen.

Even worse, Jeanine Pirro.

[jimmyjazz 45942]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i agree with this, but the inverse is also true. if the republicans go nuclear and jam a justice through, their november may be even uglier than i currently think it could be.

What does it mean to "jam a justice through"?  Trump nominates some dude(tte), confirmation hearings commence, new Justice.  I don't think it will be perceived in any way as being out of the ordinary, and I don't think there will be much chance of contrasting it against the Garland stall as far as the average voter is concerned.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans are going to be decimated in November no matter what.

It's going to be ugly.

Y'all keep forgetting where the Trump's 30%ers are and how the Senate race lines up. 

The Dems are defending seats in 30% states IN, ND, MO, WV, MT, OH, FL, and WI.  They have to hold every single one of these and without any of the "feel the Bern" GOTV groups who go around helping only progressive candidates.  All 8 of these are "establishment" Dems who the "Berns" think they don't need.

Meanwhile the GOP only has to defend vacant AZ and TN, and Heller in NV.  The rest are all safe including Ted Cruz even though the "Berns" will be wasting plenty of time in Texas instead of helping where they're needed.

I think the Dems pick up AZ and NV, and lose IN, WV, ND, and MO.  At the end it will be worse than it is now.  GOP 53, Dem 47.  The Dems will take the house.

At some point the new progressives will say "hey, maybe we need to go out there and support moderate Dems in states like IN because we're never going to get a true progressive elected there in our lifetimes and we need some support to get a few of the progressive agenda items off the ground even if we can't get them all."  Their idol, Bernie, learned this a long time ago.  Maybe that's the one benefit the old wise idealist has over the young idealist.  Pragmatism.

[Pods 7552]

3 minutes ago, zork said:

is the 2018 election a presidential election? of course not.

It's a Senate election and the justices are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Using McConnell's own logic, the voters should clearly have a say in this. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

6 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Any idea why Kennedy is doing this now?

He hates America?

[Pods 7552]

3 minutes ago, Burt said:

Even worse, Jeanine Pirro.

 

[hayden_horn 11362]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What does it mean to "jam a justice through"?  Trump nominates some dude(tte), confirmation hearings commence, new Justice.  I don't think it will be perceived in any way as being out of the ordinary, and I don't think there will be much chance of contrasting it against the Garland stall as far as the average voter is concerned.

because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

[David Dennison 18856]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

He hates America?

Well, he is a Republican. 

[CooterBrown 18011]

I guess I'll start paying for some abortions while I still can.  

[Pods 7552]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

Narrator: they did, they just didn't care. 

[jimmyjazz 45942]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

Yeah, I'm not very hopeful.  It will take some seriously coordinated messaging, and that will all have to dovetail with all the other transgressions being highlighted.  I just don't think there's much risk in the 'pubs pushing Trump's nomination through.

[David Dennison 18856]

4 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I guess I'll start paying for some abortions while I still can.  

Fortunately, they can't outlaw abortion. They can only throw it back to the states.

[Fozzz 152]

hahaha

 

 

[UrbanAchiever 277]

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When was the last time democrats really came out for a midterm election?

2006

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

We’re all hypocrites Senator

Bork

Thomas

Reid and his nuclear option

Reid doing the same thing in 2007 to numerous Bush appointees that Mitch did to Garland in 2016

Neither side is innocent. Neither side has the moral high ground.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

They won't see it as hypocrisy. A black man nominated Garland.  A white man will nominate the next Justice.  These are 2 different things, don't you see?