Justice Kennedy

[Robert]

its nice to see the courts may finally come back to the law as written instead of being a place the rules for our Republic are decided in favor of political direction and at no cause by conservatives. Liberals have spent millions on elections to swing the favor of the courts to more liberal interpretations and legislation from the bench. The fight will be interesting on confirmations. 

[Rams]

This morning one of the GPB radio pundits  used the title of an REM song to describe the retirement.

"It's the end of the world as we know it".

Remember when congress forced Obamacare down our throats and SCOTUS dumped on us?   A reckoning is in sight.

Also remember that, Harry Reed is the Senator that changed it he rules on confirmations to SCOTUS while Mitch McConnel kept saying to not do it.   Yes, the other shoe is being dropped....

 Now we just need RBG to realize she is too sick to remain there.  We're stuck with Sotomeyer for a long time, it is what it is.....   MAGA!    

Although the Dems and a bias'd (anti-Trump) media will chum the waters to get anything they can on any potential appointee.    

Rams

[Serk]

This morning one of the GPB radio pundits  used the title of an REM song to describe the retirement.

"It's the end of the world as we know it".

Works for me, they just forgot the next line of that song:
"And I feel fine"

[Serk]

Which brings to mind someone we know would be a Constituitionalist and thus a tremendous pick,  that being Senator Mike Less who was born in 1971.  I would not be surprised if his brother Thomas
Lee, a Utah Supreme Court Justice, gets the nod.

Nominating a sitting senator would be risky right now, don't wanna lose that seat (And Utah just showed it's rather flirty right now.... Nominating Romney for a senate seat? Really?) although I will admit a certain affinity for people born in 1971, good people were born that year. Very good people. Thomas Lee, although a little older (Born in 1964)  however would make a good, solid, and safer to replace associate justice...

[Alpha Dog]

Which brings to mind someone we know would be a Constituitionalist and thus a tremendous pick,  that being Senator Mike Less who was born in 1971.  I would not be surprised if his brother Thomas
Lee, a Utah Supreme Court Justice, gets the nod.

Nominating a sitting senator would be risky right now, don't wanna lose that seat (And Utah just showed it's rather flirty right now.... Nominating Romney for a senate seat? Really?) although I will admit a certain affinity for people born in 1971, good people were born that year. Very good people. Thomas Lee, although a little older (Born in 1964)  however would make a good, solid, and safer to replace associate justice...

I totally agree Serk.  When folks are floating his name I think we need that seat, unless Utah allows for the governor to appoint one immediately to fill his term that can vote yes to affirm him.  Some states do.  Others have special elections at a later date.  Indeed the safer bet is Thomas Lee.

[Skinhead]

Well if you don't have to be a former judge or lawyer, what about meathead? He wouldn't throw us under the bus wouldya meat?

Nothing against MH but if we're picking from the VRCC,
My pick is  either Oss or Jess.

Or maybe Skinhead.

I accept the nomination, (Thanks Mark) and it just so happens, if I retire in August, I will be available, so the timing is perfect.

While I would never wish someone to die, (unlike some of the lefties), What would happen if 'ol RBG kicked the bucket in the near future?  BTW, I look forward to working with her and trying to win her over to my point of view.


And thank you Meat for your vote of confidence.  I trust I can count on your enthusiastic support through out the confirmation process.

[Serk]

What would happen if 'ol RBG kicked the bucket in the near future? 

IMHO liberals would start going full lemming...

[Jess from VA]

I'll get a lawn chair and some popcorn for that one.    

[Skinhead]

I'll get a lawn chair and some popcorn for that one.    

I'll bring the beer!

[Serk]

LOL! This Tweet has aged like a fine red wine...

[The emperor has no clothes]

LOL! This Tweet has aged like a fine red wine...

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

[Serk]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

oh, McConnel did it. I thought you were saying Reed did it. 

[Serk]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

oh, McConnel did it. I thought you were saying Reed did it. 

Reid started it, McConnell finished it when the Democrats staged the first ever partisan filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

oh, McConnel did it. I thought you were saying Reed did it. 

Reid started it, McConnell finished it when the Democrats staged the first ever partisan filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee.

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

[Robert]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32422/no-thank-you-harry-reid-hank-berrien

Took five years, but now conservatives across the country are expressing their heartfelt gratitude to former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid for eliminating the filibuster for most nominations by presidents in 2013, allowing the Senate to approve judicial nominees with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority that had been the standard for nearly four decades. The Washington Post chortled at the time, "Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction."

Whoops.

Since the GOP currently holds a slim 51-49 majority, the fact that a simple majority is all that they need to approve a Supreme Court justice means that a true conservative can be confirmed to the court.

Reid had acted so that former President Barack Obama could gain confirmation of three picks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, feeling that the GOP had obstructed those selections.

At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had presciently warned Reid, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."

    Revenge, sweet glorious revenge.

    Mitch Mcconnell in 2013 when Harry Reid changed the Senate rules: "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." #JusticeKennedy pic.twitter.com/WyOviDvvVM
    — The Columbia Bugle(@ColumbiaBugle) June 27, 2018

But Reid was adamant, and issued a deathless tweet that may now come back to haunt him:

    Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done.
    — Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

And now, conservatives are expressing their gratitude:

    No, thank YOU, Senator Reid https://t.co/akqNSrX8rt
    — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 27, 2018'

    No, no -- Thank- YOU. https://t.co/MzIOhZJAds
    — Debra Heine (@NiceDeb) June 27, 2018

    The tweet of a man who believed that the Democrats would win forever. https://t.co/e50PpZ9NvY
    — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 27, 2018

    Never gets old. https://t.co/xdnvAVJslR
    — Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 27, 2018

    Let's hear it for Harry Reid! https://t.co/WnHinwU2dH
    — Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) June 27, 2018

    Funny old world sometimes, innit? https://t.co/96o76mCV8d
    — Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) June 27, 2018

    Oh how well this tweet aged. https://t.co/dF6qkmAVne
    — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) June 27, 2018

    Good political lesson: whatever precedent you change to benefit your party eventually benefits the other party too. https://t.co/dApIZTFlrT
    — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 27, 2018

    You rig it, you ride it, Ranger. https://t.co/AqCCAA8tjL
    — terry schappert (@terryschappert) June 27, 2018

[Serk]

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Just going by those right wing folks at Time Magazine...



"There is precedent, but not for a Supreme Court Justice. Senate Democrats have invoked the rule before. In an ironic twist, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid implemented the nuclear option in November 2013 to confirm three of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees to a federal appeals court. The measure prevented filibusters on executive appointments and a majority of judicial nominations, but did not extend to Supreme Court nominees. That would, of course, change if McConnell invokes the role for Gorsuch.

Every Republican in the chamber opposed the measure to invoke the nuclear option in 2013, and warned that the Democrats would regret it.

"I think Democrats are playing with fire," South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune told Time in 2013. "What goes around comes around. And someday they're going to be in the minority.""

http://time.com/4723610/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nuclear-option-filibuster/

[baldo]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

oh, McConnel did it. I thought you were saying Reed did it. 

Reid started it, McConnell finished it when the Democrats staged the first ever partisan filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee.

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

That's being kind, Rob. It smells like BS to me.

Reid instituted it because the R's would let absolutely nothing through for judicial nominations, except for the SC. He had no choice.

Then McConnell changes it to include SC nominations, stealing Obama's seat and giving it to Gorsuch.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/mcconnell-stole-obamas-court-seats-and-gave-them-to-trump.html

Let's keep the story straight here, fellas.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Just going by those right wing folks at Time Magazine...



"There is precedent, but not for a Supreme Court Justice. Senate Democrats have invoked the rule before. In an ironic twist, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid implemented the nuclear option in November 2013 to confirm three of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees to a federal appeals court. The measure prevented filibusters on executive appointments and a majority of judicial nominations, but did not extend to Supreme Court nominees. That would, of course, change if McConnell invokes the role for Gorsuch.

Every Republican in the chamber opposed the measure to invoke the nuclear option in 2013, and warned that the Democrats would regret it.

"I think Democrats are playing with fire," South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune told Time in 2013. "What goes around comes around. And someday they're going to be in the minority.""

http://time.com/4723610/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nuclear-option-filibuster/

I'm sure I could find plenty of reputable news reporting it differently.  but if it helps you sleep that's a different story.

[Serk]

but if it helps you sleep that's a different story.

Anything that can drag this nation back to being a constitutional republic that is ruled by the constitution as it was originally written, where law rules and not men, will help me, and eventually all of us, sleep soundly.

[Wizzard]

Jeannie Pirro. Now wouldn't that be interesting 

[Serk]

Jeannie Pirro. Now wouldn't that be interesting 

The main problem with her (And several other folks who would otherwise be awesome) is that she's 67 years old... For maximum impact and to defend liberty as long as possible, ideally we need a younger person.

[Rams]

I thought the vote stayed the same for Supreme Court nominations ?

The Democrats "broke the seal" by making it for lifetime appointed positions other than SCOTUS, then when the Democrats tried filibustering Gorsuch's SCOTUS confirmation, the Republicans extended it to include SCOTUS appointments.

oh, McConnel did it. I thought you were saying Reed did it.  

Reid started it, McConnell finished it when the Democrats staged the first ever partisan filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee.

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

That's being kind, Rob. It smells like BS to me.

Reid instituted it because the R's would let absolutely nothing through for judicial nominations, except for the SC. He had no choice.

Then McConnell changes it to include SC nominations, stealing Obama's seat and giving it to Gorsuch.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/mcconnell-stole-obamas-court-seats-and-gave-them-to-trump.html

Let's keep the story straight here, fellas.

Are you suggesting that the environment in DC is different between the White House and Congress now versus during the Obama era?   Seems to me, the Dems started this and now don't like how things are working out.    I distinctly remember an Obama State of the Union address where he basically said, screw them, we're the majority and can do what we want.   Yeah, that's a very loose paraphrase but, it happened. 

Read the tea leaves however you wish but, the fact is, Reid drew blood first, he was warned that the Dems would regret it.    I'm not a Mitch McConnell fan but, he called it right.

Didn't start it but definitely got the last punch thrown.   It is, what it is...... . Once we rid ourselves of RBG, things will be even better.   Yeah, I've had enough of the Liberal buying votes crap.  Don't really like President Trump personally but want to thank the Dems for putting Hillary up as a candidate.    Oh, and thank you "Dirty Harry".

We will have a Conservative majority at SCOTUS for the rest of most of our lives.   Thank you.

Rams

[..]

Previously from Waters. Note points 1 and 2.

https://waters.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/us-rep-maxine-waters-statement-illegal-immigration

maybe she has onset Alzheimers and has forgotten?

[Oss]

Jenny Pirro would be a better Dept of Justice or atty General head IMHO

but like judge judy she makes more $ where she is now and she reaches people thru her media and Trump needs SOME mainstream media to counter the everyday avalanche of hate media

The News and Post both post vulgar cartoons of Trump.  I wont even use them to housebreak the dog

I do not have any idea what opinions she has written on the bench even though she served here in Westchester after being DA

Hate to guess, better to know

[Moonshot_1]

Personally, I thought then as it think it now, the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, Obama's pick for the SC was an abominable decision that put a political party above the Constitution.
The man had the credentials and was highly respected. Even Justice Gorsuch spoke highly of him.
The President picked a nominee and the Senate should have immediately put the confirmation hearings on the schedule and gave the man an up or down vote.

As unfortunate and abominable as that was it makes no sense to double down on such a decision.

What I will predict is that Trump may nominate Garland. This would do a number of things.
If confirmed he would be a reputable justice. As I said even Justice Gorsuch, who knows him personally, spoke of his professionalism and jurisprudence. So this isn't a radical guy even though some think he has to be because Obama picked him.  I believe Obama picked him precisely because he knew he wouldn't get  a confirmation hearing.

A Garland nomination would confound the Democrats who are determined to undermine ANYBODY nominated by Trump.

It is very likely that Trump will have 2 more vacancies to fill in the near future. Thomas is considering retirement and Ginsberg is close to permanent retirement. Not wishing her any ill here just she is old and frail. It's a reality. So this means Trump would have 2 more vacancies to fill with conservative bent judges.

So he can fill this vacancy with a qualified centrist jurist (Garland) and still have future picks to shape a more conservative court.

Any push back from the right would be met with Gorsuch's opinion of Garland.
Any push back from the left would be met with their own rhetoric.

It would be game set match Trump.

[..]

Not true. It is off a parody site. Unfortunately, her conduct makes such things easily believable

I deleted my post if you want to delete yours so the link is no longer in this thread.

[Serk]

Garland would be an interesting pick, but at this point President Trump has committed to sticking to someone from his list, and President Trump is many things, but he is definitely a man of his word and honor means a lot to him, so if someone isn't on this list, they're probably not gonna be his nominee:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/

[Jess from VA]

Garland may be a centrist, but he's no friend of the 2d Amendment.  NO.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/01/merrick-garland-guns-supreme-court-second-amendment-column/83670044/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephen-halbrook-merrick-garland-and-the-second-am/

[¿spoom]

Personally, I thought then as it think it now, the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, Obama's pick for the SC was an abominable decision that put a political party above the Constitution.
The man had the credentials and was highly respected. Even Justice Gorsuch spoke highly of him.
The President picked a nominee and the Senate should have immediately put the confirmation hearings on the schedule and gave the man an up or down vote.

As unfortunate and abominable as that was it makes no sense to double down on such a decision.

What I will predict is that Trump may nominate Garland. This would do a number of things.
If confirmed he would be a reputable justice. As I said even Justice Gorsuch, who knows him personally, spoke of his professionalism and jurisprudence. So this isn't a radical guy even though some think he has to be because Obama picked him.  I believe Obama picked him precisely because he knew he wouldn't get  a confirmation hearing.

A Garland nomination would confound the Democrats who are determined to undermine ANYBODY nominated by Trump.

It is very likely that Trump will have 2 more vacancies to fill in the near future. Thomas is considering retirement and Ginsberg is close to permanent retirement. Not wishing her any ill here just she is old and frail. It's a reality. So this means Trump would have 2 more vacancies to fill with conservative bent judges.

So he can fill this vacancy with a qualified centrist jurist (Garland) and still have future picks to shape a more conservative court.

Any push back from the right would be met with Gorsuch's opinion of Garland.
Any push back from the left would be met with their own rhetoric.

It would be game set match Trump.

If Trump nominates Garland, he IS crazy, as some would have us believe. This has become a blood sport, and the left has lowered the bar to where I'll accept any weapon. Obama picked him because he was smart enough to try and get a moderate through after two Judges that couldn't go any farther left without falling off the bench. The republicans found a way to stop his 3rd pick, the same way Schumer will say ANYTHING to try and stop this pick. He's already wailing about "not in an election year" even though if it were reversed he'd play a different card in a minute. Any party represented by Maxine Waters and not calling for the firing of Samantha Bee is too covered in slime to crawl out of the basement.

[baldo]

but he is definitely a man of his word and honor means a lot to him,

.....did you just finish that big bottle of booze?

[f6gal]

Actually, if you think about it, the republicans aren't strategizing very well.  If they don't successfully confirm a replacement before the election, it would likely push conservatives and republicans to the polls.

[Rams]

Actually, if you think about it, the republicans aren't strategizing very well.  If they don't successfully confirm a replacement before the election, it would likely push conservatives and republicans to the polls.

I tend to agree.  I fully expect to see a push from the left to energize their base, that would include all those currently "illegal" aliens and many residents from local cemeteries as is normal.

Rams

[solo1]

We have to face it. The Founders thoughts about the Senate's 'Advise and Consent" have been pushed to the limits and now is purely political.  Selection is no longer based on vast knowledge of the Law and our Constitution but on liberal vs conservative decisions and interpretations. Heck, maybe it's always been that way.

I,for one, remember Ted Kennedy and his opposition of Bork was so bad that "borked' became a word to describe unfairness. And then the Thomas nomination with all of the accusations and foul language for the time.

Although I'm a registered Republican I don't have much faith in those Republican wimps in DC but, in any case. I hope that they do what's necessary to get another conservative (or two) in SCOTUS. If they play by the Dems past rules, so be it.  Thank you Harry.  Maybe we can bring this Republic back to a Republic instead of an approach to socialism.

[The emperor has no clothes]

We have to face it. The Founders thoughts about the Senate's 'Advise and Consent" have been pushed to the limits and now is purely political.  Selection is no longer based on vast knowledge of the Law and our Constitution but on liberal vs conservative decisions and interpretations. Heck, maybe it's always been that way.

I,for one, remember Ted Kennedy and his opposition of Bork was so bad that "borked' became a word to describe unfairness. And then the Thomas nomination with all of the accusations and foul language for the time.

Although I'm a registered Republican I don't have much faith in those Republican wimps in DC but, in any case. I hope that they do what's necessary to get another conservative (or two) in SCOTUS. If they play by the Dems past rules, so be it.  Thank you Harry.  Maybe we can bring this Republic back to a Republic instead of an approach to socialism.

To begin with, it's pretty clear that it was McConnels rule. Secondly, I have no idea if the Democrats have any backbone at all. But if they can grow even a semblance of a spine, I hope they win the Senate, House, and Presidency. Then immediately change the Supreme Court to 13 Justices. But like I say, the Democrats have shown themselves to be pussies for years.

[Wizzard]

but he is definitely a man of his word and honor means a lot to him,

.....did you just finish that big bottle of booze?

He probably did not but I got a feeling before this is all over you are going to need one. 

[Serk]

Actually, if you think about it, the republicans aren't strategizing very well.  If they don't successfully confirm a replacement before the election, it would likely push conservatives and republicans to the polls.

I considered that, but it'd be a BIG gamble. If they do that and don't maintain control of the senate, they'd have a hard time getting anyone to the right of Nicolás Maduro confirmed.

[f6john]

Appointment can't wait. I hope the next justice will be good or the country. I hope Trump gets another pick before he is done.

[Robert]

Let's keep the story straight here, fellas.

I agree and since this is from the article you quoted I know you will too.

Will lavishes praise upon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who deftly outmaneuvered Democratic attempts to pack the federal courts. “To prevent Republicans from reciprocating with filibusters against Obama’s packing-by-enlargement of the nation’s second-most-important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,


Thwarting the Democrats plan and the actions of the Democrat's already done does not qualify as starting the change or instituting the change in rules. Republicans they were only smart enough to outmaneuver the Democrats plan. This is of course according to your article.

I don't think the Democrats have no spine, they have sold out the US even to letting Hillary be the head of the Democratic party, her funding it and running it before the election.

The problem is they have no platform, no direction and sold out to socialists. I forgot corrupt with Debbie Wasserman Schultz bringing in foreign nationals to run the servers at the DNC and them in turn taking the information along with all the emails, passwords to their home country and threatening to release that information. Why would anyone want the Democratic party at this point. Of course this says nothing of how much did the Democrats know of the Hillary pay for play scam and Waters inciting violence against people and the list goes on.

I will also remind everyone of the first thing they would do is repeal that measly tax cut and raise taxes to help the illegals.

OH and Pelosi applauding the winning of very left young socialist.

Just so I cannot be accused of being Republican I am neither really Democrat or Republican, the same coin different sides really.

Chain of events from your article

1. Obama enlarged the D.C. Circuit Court, to create more seats he could fill with his nominees
2. Republicans retaliated by filibustering his judicial nominees
3. Senate Democrats changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster of Court nominees, except for the Supreme Court
4. McConnell eliminated the exception for filibustering the Supreme Court

[Alpha Dog]

Appointment can't wait. I hope the next justice will be good or the country. I hope Trump gets another pick before he is done.

Or four.