Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court

a reply to: Aazadan

This is the reason we have sanctuary cities and a fight over immigration.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

This is the reason we have sanctuary cities and a fight over immigration.

Sanctuary cities exist because our federal government is too weak. It's states rights being used against the states rights crowd. I think it's an unsustainable policy... it's totally ludicrous to me that the law is not uniform across the US.

And that brings me to another major gripe about our Constitution. Enforcement of laws lies entirely within the Executive branch, which gives them the power to choose what they will and won't enforce. This means that the law does not remain consistent. How this applies to states, is that our state Constitutions are mostly modeled after the federal Constitution and they have their own enforcement provisions. This gives the states enough power in most circumstances to simply pick and choose what they want to enforce.

In the past, this lead to a pretty bloody conflict over slavery, in the present this has lead to sanctuary cities, a huge gray area in marijuana laws, a non uniform border, inconsistent gun laws, and a whole slew of issues with interstate commerce.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is correct it does require an act of congress to add more Justices, however, the reality is that the seat or seats could remain empty. As long as there is an odd number of justices, then it could function.

a reply to: vor78

Here is the problem in a nut shell, both the Republicans and the Democrats are making something that should be a political issue, into a political issue. The door was opened up, the reason gave and they managed to pull it off. Now the are faced with another conformation process, and are rejecting the very precedent that was set. The republicans are wrong and can not have it both ways, they can not have their cake and eat it too.

However, personally I am looking forward to the cases that will be tried and heard, and reading the legal decisions and opinions, as they are interesting. But if they start reversing decisions on key decisions, it could be more of a problem for the country.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Right now it is up in the air, the Senate is waiting to see who is going to be nominated and then the process started and moving forward. This is going to be interesting. However, I do disagree with the President and believe that the Justices should be in their 50's and 60's that way there is a turn over in the highest court.

Update: Fox News is citing those famous anonymous sources as saying Trump is down to 3 finalists.

Trump completes interviews of Supreme Court candidates, as shortlist shrinks

They are Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, and Amy Coney Barrett.

I've already seen articles attacking Kavanaugh as not conservative enough. I'm taking them with a grain of salt, because for sure there are going to be groups pushing one candidate over the others.

Call my cynical, but I wonder if Trump is going to save Amy Barrett for when they finally stop pretending that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive.

Of course, the Democrats have already signaled that they're going to have a hysterical meltdown no matter who Trump chooses, so to hell with them.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Of course, the Democrats have already signaled that they're going to have a hysterical meltdown no matter who Trump chooses, so to hell with them.

meltdown, no meltdown the dems do not have the numbers to stop this;
as we are reminded by BHO himself "“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Of course, the Democrats have already signaled that they're going to have a hysterical meltdown no matter who Trump chooses, so to hell with them.

meltdown, no meltdown the dems do not have the numbers to stop this;
as we are reminded by BHO himself "“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

There are at least 4 Democratic senators who will badly endanger their re-election prospects if they fight Trump's choice. That's before we even consider the issue of how qualified the choice is. Gorsuch attracted three Democratic votes, over a year ago when they were still predicting a "Blue Wave." The numbers are definitely in Trump's favor.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That is true.
IMO this is nothing compared to the crapstorm that is coming when the notorious RBG retires. It appears she has much more stamina than her political allies. She continues to hold on as they continue to lose elections. When there is no actual "blue wave" will she be able to hold out until 2020?