Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court

This is great news. While I'd rather it had been one of the liberal members retiring, this will give Trump an opportunity to solidify the conservative majority on the SC and hopefully be a further step toward restoring some much needed sanity in this country.

As for Kennedy, I'm glad he did the right thing and chose to step down now, with a GOP senate in place, significantly increasing the odds of a conservative replacement. I didn't always agree with his positions on some of these cases, and he's definitely not as conservative as I'd have preferred, but on the balance, he's been a good one.

If this happens before the November election, expect a fight in the Senate, no holds bar that is going to happen where the Democrats are going to pull what McConnell pulled in the last year of the Obama Presidency. It is going to be nasty, and very political, and one that is not going to go well for anyone.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Yes, though I think it will take 10-15 years of "law and order" before we starting rounding up the breeders.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If this happens before the November election, expect a fight in the Senate, no holds bar that is going to happen where the Democrats are going to pull what McConnell pulled in the last year of the Obama Presidency. It is going to be nasty, and very political, and one that is not going to go well for anyone.

It's effective July 31st. McConnell says they'll definitely vote on it. (Maybe the Dems shouldn't have sent their triggered minions to harass him & his wife yesterday? )

I believe the new Senate rules don't allow them to filibuster Supreme Court nominations, but I could be wrong there.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The Senate filibuster on judicial nominees is already gone. Harry Reid and the Dems got rid of it for everything but Supreme Court nominations under Obama, then the GOP returned the favor and got rid of it altogether last year when Neil Gorsuch was nominated.

The only thing that will stop Trump's nominee is if some of the bitter anti-Trump Republicans in the Senate derail it. The Dems can't do it alone.

The danger of stacking the court with people who lean one way is that it lends itself to the possibility that it will lean the other way in the future.

Which is why I've always wanted term limits on Supreme Court and Congress.


I've also always wanted a unicorn named Jeffery.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If this happens before the November election, expect a fight in the Senate, no holds bar that is going to happen where the Democrats are going to pull what McConnell pulled in the last year of the Obama Presidency. It is going to be nasty, and very political, and one that is not going to go well for anyone.

please explain how that will happen?
wouldn't the dems need the majority to block the nomination?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I especially like the idea of the SC being used as part of Trump's 4D chess move.

I can't imagine that if Trump loses the 2020 election he'll act reasonable about it, so instead his propaganda that illegal voters threw the election now has some more potent teeth behind it.

I'm imagining the headline in a couple years:

"in a 6-3 decision the supreme court ruled today that voting irregularities are grounds for throwing out the results of the 2020 election. a transition council will be appointed by president trump to oversee the revote"

WINNING!!!!

Wait. So all you HRC sycophants are STILL resisting almost 2 years after the fact and you’re concerned about Trump in 2020? Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander? In other words, why would you think Trump and the right wouldn’t resist, hard, since that’s all the left has been doing since Jan 20, 2016? Well, except for the left is handing the 2020 election to the GOP regardless of who the GOP candidate is.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The danger of stacking the court with people who lean one way is that it lends itself to the possibility that it will lean the other way in the future.

Which is why I've always wanted term limits on Supreme Court and Congress.


I've also always wanted a unicorn named Jeffery.

Ding ding.

Nature abhors imbalance.

www.nbcnews.com...

When McConnell was asked if he thinks it is fair to hold a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year after he blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland during an election year, he responded, "There's no presidential election this year."

Interesting answer from the senior senator from kentucky.

a reply to: shooterbrody

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

There are probably parlimentary procedures that could be used to maneuver and in short make it very difficult for them to get anyone through. Though the goal here will be to stall, and or to delay until after the election and then stall until the new senators sit. There is precedent there for such, and it was done and exploited by McConnell, who then changed the rules on such to be able to ram through many things, including exploiting legal doors to suit his own political agenda.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.nbcnews.com...

When McConnell was asked if he thinks it is fair to hold a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year after he blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland during an election year, he responded, "There's no presidential election this year."

Interesting answer from the senior senator from kentucky.

Do you agree or disagree, you know, philosophically, ethically?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

McConnell changed the filibuster requirement for scotus justice confirmation on the heels of Democrats removing the filibuster option for all other court judges.

As I have said before if you are going to take an action that essentially removes the voice of the other party dont be surprised if you find yourself on the other side of that choice down the road.

This applies to both parties and Republicans should remember that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not much can be done about it. A nine justice Supreme Court invites imbalance. Its soon to be a 5-4 majority for conservatives, but had Hillary won, it would likely be 6-3 for liberals. Either way, it sucks royally if you're on the losing side of it.

I think the main problem here is that the judiciary has too much power, period, and I'm not sure what the solution is to put limits on that, if there even is one.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not much can be done about it. A nine justice Supreme Court invites imbalance. Its soon to be a 5-4 majority for conservatives, but had Hillary won, it would likely be 6-3 for liberals. Either way, it sucks royally if you're on the losing side of it.

I think the main problem here is that the judiciary has too much power, period, and I'm not sure what the solution is to put limits on that, if there even is one.

Well, particularly given the fact that most Americans do not live their lives according to that two-dimensional extremist claptrap ... I think what you'll find is that the more extreme one "side" gets ... the more compensatory factors arise to balance things back out.

Which is why I'm absolutely thrilled by all this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The dems have been beaten down, by their own hand, and by the gop enough. Some kind of actual bipartisan effort to find a deserving nomination would help shorten the political divide, but I do not expect that from McConnell. I would expect that from Trump before any of the gop leadership. Especially if rbg is to retire also. The appearance of bipartisanship from the victors would go a long way right now.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

The dems have been beaten down, by their own hand, and by the gop enough. Some kind of actual bipartisan effort to find a deserving nomination would help shorten the political divide, but I do not expect that from McConnell. I would expect that from Trump before any of the gop leadership. Especially if rbg is to retire also. The appearance of bipartisanship from the victors would go a long way right now.

Yeah, gerrymandering didn't hurt that beatdown either, did it? LOL

It's okay ... the American people switch out pretty much on schedule. (Guess what this year is in the cycle, LOL.)

I am very much in favor of finding someone who is accounted brilliant by their peers and even a strict constructionalist.

That's not what's going to happen though. To the victor go the spoils ... right?

Which always sets up the next victor. Gotta love humanity.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's why I'm not too worried.

I know this whole "America" experiment has already failed.
It's just a matter of when, not if.

I still hold out hope in the basic structures set up in the Constitution.

Not a lot of hope, mind you. But still some.

I don't. The Constitution is a lost cause, it has far too many flaws, and needs to be rewritten.

originally posted by: vor78
This is great news. While I'd rather it had been one of the liberal members retiring, this will give Trump an opportunity to solidify the conservative majority on the SC and hopefully be a further step toward restoring some much needed sanity in this country.

As for Kennedy, I'm glad he did the right thing and chose to step down now, with a GOP senate in place, significantly increasing the odds of a conservative replacement. I didn't always agree with his positions on some of these cases, and he's definitely not as conservative as I'd have preferred, but on the balance, he's been a good one.

This is a great example of the problem with the court these days. An apolitical organization has not just become extremely political, but outright partisian. We have one justice running around doing fund raisers for Republicans, and we have another who retired specifically so that a conservative could replace them.

These are the types of acts that will destroy the entire court.