Justice Kennedy Retires

[93henfan]

At this point we've traveled so far into Bizzaro world does it even matter who he chooses..?
What would surprise anybody at this point..?

I'm thinking he's going to select one of his kids or one of his personal lawyers (Why not)

Too bad Chris Christie’s life expectancy is just a couple of more years. He would have been excellent.

[Baldy]

This idiot is running for Senate in Minnesota.

[css75]

This idiot is running for Senate in Minnesota.

Just when you think you have seen it all......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

At this point we've traveled so far into Bizzaro world does it even matter who he chooses..?
What would surprise anybody at this point..?

I'm thinking he's going to select one of his kids or one of his personal lawyers (Why not)

Well our body of evidence is just Gorsuch - who was an excellent pick if you're an originalist

His SCOTUS pick is the one truly mainstream thing he's done




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

Isn't the lack of judiciary similar to Kagan?

It won't be Mike Lee. He was a never Trumper.

While I agree it won’t be Lee, Lee and Trump did kiss and made up..

[Ibanez]

Life is precious- but who are we to play God and decide who dies? Thou shall not kill is quite straightforward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are misquoting that. It is about planning and attacking a person for the sole purpose of killing them.

Thou shalt not murder is probably better description.

There are consequences for choices.

Not sure if you're serious or trolling.

[SeattleGriz]

You are misquoting that. It is about planning and attacking a person for the sole purpose of killing them.

Thou shalt not murder is probably better description.

There are consequences for choices.

Not sure if you're serious or trolling.

Wasn't sure if you were either, but the way you interpreted thou shalt not kill is incorrect.

Besides, can you realistically sit on one side and say, "babies don't have value until week 23", along with no free will, and then say "criminals have value", plus free will, only to then say the criminal deserves protection under the commandment, but the baby doesn't?

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think there is a need to throw out the Constitution. It can be Amended. I think it should be Amended to eliminate the Electoral College and say the President is selected through direct popular vote. Also, we might try to do something about gerrymandering.

And I do think it is potentially possible to develop sufficient support for Amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. Heck, you could even invoke the fact that it's very likely that Texas is going to evolve into a Blue State. If and when that happens it will be over for the Republicans in Presidential elections if we stick with the Electoral College because if California, New York, and Texas are all blue States there is virtually no chance.

You do realize this sounds like a complete 180 from your ranting and raving about the effect of demographics on the electorate, right?

I wonder if NYC or LA will throw any largesse down to your bayous under your preferred system? hmm

No I think that the Democrats will eventually take over because I think their advantage in terms of people who tend to favor them will become too large for the Republicans to be able to prevail through the characteristics of our system that do allow for the minority party to rule. Like for instance, as I noted in another post, I think that unless something changes with the underlying dynamic Texas and Florida will at some point flip to reliably blue during Presidential elections. If and when that happens...and I think it's a matter of when rather than if unless the underlying dynamic whereby non whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat changes...it will be virtually impossible for a Republican to win a Presidential election.

I do think the Senate is designed so that Republicans can remain relevant there for a long, long time. Everybody can see why that is so. But I think the days during which the Republicans can have a situation like they have now, where they are in the minority in terms of public sentiment yet control all three branches of government, are numbered. My expectation will change if I see evidence that Republicans can make significant progress in changing the way non Whites vote. But I haven't seen any indication of that.

[JohnStOnge]

To avoid the "inevitable" what Republicans/Conservatives needed was to convince those in the changing demographic with respect to Conservative philosophy. Trump is the worst thing that could possibly have happened with respect to that effort. The Conservative "brand" is being absolutely destroyed right now.

An “effort” that you ran away from. Congratulations.

No. I did what little I could to try to convince other conservatives that rallying behind Trump was and is short-sighted. I tried to convince people that electing Trump would mean things like getting some Supreme Court spots filled by the Federalist Society but it would be at the expense of doing severe damage to the effort to address the long term problem that, should it persist, will eventually make the Democratic Party completely dominant. Now doing what little I can that continuing to support Trump is making the long term problem worse and worse.

And BTW I can't recall if I already wrote this but, when the Democrats take complete control, they can nix what the Republicans accomplish in terms of getting Supreme Court justices on by simply increasing the number of Justices on the Court and filling the new spots with Liberals so that they'll have a Liberal majority.

The idea that Republicans getting to put Justices on the Court now ensures a Conservative majority for generations is a false one.

[Ibanez]

Not sure if you're serious or trolling.

Wasn't sure if you were either, but the way you interpreted thou shalt not kill is incorrect.

Besides, can you realistically sit on one side and say, "babies don't have value until week 23", along with no free will, and then say "criminals have value", plus free will, only to then say the criminal deserves protection under the commandment, but the baby doesn't?

I was.

Killing an innocent is murder.

Killing your aggressor to preserve you life isn’t murder or immoral- but it’s still killing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitadelGrad]

I read today that Trump has told people in the west wing that he really wants someone from Harvard or Yale.

Ivytalk should send his resume.

If not Ivytalk, then whom?

Kavanaugh is a double Yalie. The left would go ballistic if he gets it, because he worked on the Clinton impeachment team.

There seems to be some concern that Kavanaugh is a potential Suiter.

[SeattleGriz]

Wasn't sure if you were either, but the way you interpreted thou shalt not kill is incorrect.

Besides, can you realistically sit on one side and say, "babies don't have value until week 23", along with no free will, and then say "criminals have value", plus free will, only to then say the criminal deserves protection under the commandment, but the baby doesn't?

I was.

Killing an innocent is murder.

Killing your aggressor to preserve you life isn’t murder or immoral- but it’s still killing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

[houndawg]

At this point we've traveled so far into Bizzaro world does it even matter who he chooses..?
What would surprise anybody at this point..?

I'm thinking he's going to select one of his kids or one of his personal lawyers (Why not)

He's going to pick whoever he thinks can help him out of the tough spot he's iun.

[Ivytalk]

An “effort” that you ran away from. Congratulations.

No. I did what little I could to try to convince other conservatives that rallying behind Trump was and is short-sighted. I tried to convince people that electing Trump would mean things like getting some Supreme Court spots filled by the Federalist Society but it would be at the expense of doing severe damage to the effort to address the long term problem that, should it persist, will eventually make the Democratic Party completely dominant. Now doing what little I can that continuing to support Trump is making the long term problem worse and worse.

And BTW I can't recall if I already wrote this but, when the Democrats take complete control, they can nix what the Republicans accomplish in terms of getting Supreme Court justices on by simply increasing the number of Justices on the Court and filling the new spots with Liberals so that they'll have a Liberal majority.

The idea that Republicans getting to put Justices on the Court now ensures a Conservative majority for generations is a false one.

You obviously didn't read my previous response to this point. Court-packing in this way is impossible. FDR tried it in 1937 and it was slammed down his throat. You really need to brush up on your SCOTUS history.

[Ivytalk]

Kavanaugh is a double Yalie. The left would go ballistic if he gets it, because he worked on the Clinton impeachment team.

There seems to be some concern that Kavanaugh is a potential Suiter.

*Souter

That's the last thing we need.

[css75]

There seems to be some concern that Kavanaugh is a potential Suiter.

*Souter

That's the last thing we need.

I think he should go with a woman, just so the libs can persecute a woman to show their total hypocrisy before the election.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Harriet Miers is available.

[JohnStOnge]

No. I did what little I could to try to convince other conservatives that rallying behind Trump was and is short-sighted. I tried to convince people that electing Trump would mean things like getting some Supreme Court spots filled by the Federalist Society but it would be at the expense of doing severe damage to the effort to address the long term problem that, should it persist, will eventually make the Democratic Party completely dominant. Now doing what little I can that continuing to support Trump is making the long term problem worse and worse.

And BTW I can't recall if I already wrote this but, when the Democrats take complete control, they can nix what the Republicans accomplish in terms of getting Supreme Court justices on by simply increasing the number of Justices on the Court and filling the new spots with Liberals so that they'll have a Liberal majority.

The idea that Republicans getting to put Justices on the Court now ensures a Conservative majority for generations is a false one.

You obviously didn't read my previous response to this point. Court-packing in this way is impossible. FDR tried it in 1937 and it was slammed down his throat. You really need to brush up on your SCOTUS history.

No, it is not impossible. Yes, FDR couldn't do it. But Congress has the authority to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While all of the changes happened relatively early the number of Justices has changed several times. It started 5 and has been as high as 10.

It's just a matter of political power and will. And we've gotten into a situation in which both Democrat and Republican Senates have gotten rid of the filibuster when necessary. It is not impossible, at all, for the Congress to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court wherever it wants.

We are in a time now when, if we had a Democrat majority in the House, a Democrat 51-49 majority in the Senate and a Democrat President the Congress could set the number of Justices at, say, 12, and let the Democrat President nominate 3 Justices then have the Democrat Senate ratify each by a 51-49 vote.

The fact that FDR wasn't successful doesn't mean there's any procedural barrier to doing it. If they gain power they can do it.

[Ivytalk]

You obviously didn't read my previous response to this point. Court-packing in this way is impossible. FDR tried it in 1937 and it was slammed down his throat. You really need to brush up on your SCOTUS history.

No, it is not impossible. Yes, FDR couldn't do it. But Congress has the authority to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While all of the changes happened relatively early the number of Justices has changed several times. It started 5 and has been as high as 10.

It's just a matter of political power and will. And we've gotten into a situation in which both Democrat and Republican Senates have gotten rid of the filibuster when necessary. It is not impossible, at all, for the Congress to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court wherever it wants.

We are in a time now when, if we had a Democrat majority in the House, a Democrat 51-49 majority in the Senate and a Democrat President the Congress could set the number of Justices at, say, 12, and let the Democrat President nominate 3 Justices then have the Democrat Senate ratify each by a 51-49 vote.

The fact that FDR wasn't successful doesn't mean there's any procedural barrier to doing it. If they gain power they can do it.

It is political suicide, and both sides know it. If it could have been done without political consequence, it would have been done by now by one side or the other. Don’t you think conservatives were hostile to the Warren Court in the last century? But, then again, you’ve never demonstrated any respect for SCOTUS in your posts, so why should you change now?

[JohnStOnge]

No, it is not impossible. Yes, FDR couldn't do it. But Congress has the authority to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While all of the changes happened relatively early the number of Justices has changed several times. It started 5 and has been as high as 10.

It's just a matter of political power and will. And we've gotten into a situation in which both Democrat and Republican Senates have gotten rid of the filibuster when necessary. It is not impossible, at all, for the Congress to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court wherever it wants.

We are in a time now when, if we had a Democrat majority in the House, a Democrat 51-49 majority in the Senate and a Democrat President the Congress could set the number of Justices at, say, 12, and let the Democrat President nominate 3 Justices then have the Democrat Senate ratify each by a 51-49 vote.

The fact that FDR wasn't successful doesn't mean there's any procedural barrier to doing it. If they gain power they can do it.

It is political suicide, and both sides know it. If it could have been done without political consequence, it would have been done by now by one side or the other. Don’t you think conservatives were hostile to the Warren Court in the last century? But, then again, you’ve never demonstrated any respect for SCOTUS in your posts, so why should you change now?

I think the rules about sticking to tradition have been largely discarded at this point. I also think an awful lot of anger is building by virtue of the fact that more people in this country lean toward the Democrat Party point of view but the Republicans are in control of all three branches. I think we're getting close to a pitchforks situation.

It'd be interesting to see a poll about how the majority of the people would feel about having the Democrats increase the number of Justices in order to neutralize what's going on right now.

[Ivytalk]

It is political suicide, and both sides know it. If it could have been done without political consequence, it would have been done by now by one side or the other. Don’t you think conservatives were hostile to the Warren Court in the last century? But, then again, you’ve never demonstrated any respect for SCOTUS in your posts, so why should you change now?

I think the rules about sticking to tradition have been largely discarded at this point. I also think an awful lot of anger is building by virtue of the fact that more people in this country lean toward the Democrat Party point of view but the Republicans are in control of all three branches. I think we're getting close to a pitchforks situation.

It'd be interesting to see a poll about how the majority of the people would feel about having the Democrats increase the number of Justices in order to neutralize what's going on right now.

I think you’d better wait until your beloved Democrats take over all 3 branches before you commission that poll. Talk about a fool’s errand. Of course, you’d be perfectly happy with judicial legislation if your ideal SCOTUS had nine Sotomayors on it. Hypocrite.

[css75]

No, it is not impossible. Yes, FDR couldn't do it. But Congress has the authority to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While all of the changes happened relatively early the number of Justices has changed several times. It started 5 and has been as high as 10.

It's just a matter of political power and will. And we've gotten into a situation in which both Democrat and Republican Senates have gotten rid of the filibuster when necessary. It is not impossible, at all, for the Congress to set the number of Justices on the Supreme Court wherever it wants.

We are in a time now when, if we had a Democrat majority in the House, a Democrat 51-49 majority in the Senate and a Democrat President the Congress could set the number of Justices at, say, 12, and let the Democrat President nominate 3 Justices then have the Democrat Senate ratify each by a 51-49 vote.

The fact that FDR wasn't successful doesn't mean there's any procedural barrier to doing it. If they gain power they can do it.

It is political suicide, and both sides know it. If it could have been done without political consequence, it would have been done by now by one side or the other. Don’t you think conservatives were hostile to the Warren Court in the last century? But, then again, you’ve never demonstrated any respect for SCOTUS in your posts, so why should you change now?

He hasn’t demonstrated any respect for anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

An “effort” that you ran away from. Congratulations.

No. I did what little I could to try to convince other conservatives that rallying behind Trump was and is short-sighted. I tried to convince people that electing Trump would mean things like getting some Supreme Court spots filled by the Federalist Society but it would be at the expense of doing severe damage to the effort to address the long term problem that, should it persist, will eventually make the Democratic Party completely dominant. Now doing what little I can that continuing to support Trump is making the long term problem worse and worse.

And BTW I can't recall if I already wrote this but, when the Democrats take complete control, they can nix what the Republicans accomplish in terms of getting Supreme Court justices on by simply increasing the number of Justices on the Court and filling the new spots with Liberals so that they'll have a Liberal majority.

The idea that Republicans getting to put Justices on the Court now ensures a Conservative majority for generations is a false one.

You can't remember that you wrote the same nonsense 2 days ago?
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 0#p1192711

[BDKJMU]

Trump's potential SCOTUS nominees. Sounds like its going to be one of the bolded.

1st list released May 2016 had 11 names.
-Steven Colloton, Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
-Allison Eid, Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
-Raymond Gruender, Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
-Thomas Hardiman, Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
-Raymond Kethledge, Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
-Joan Larsen, Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
-Thomas Lee, Utah, Supreme Court of Utah
-William Pryor, Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
-David Stras, Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
-Diane Sykes, Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
-Don Willett, Texas, Supreme Court of Texas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... tices.html

2nd list released Sept 2016 added 10 more names, 1 of whom was Gorsuch.
Keith Blackwell, Georgia Supreme Court
Charles Canady, Florida Supreme Court (and a former Congressman).
Neil Gorsuch, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Mike Lee, Utah, U.S. Senator, Utah
Edward Mansfield, Iowa Supreme Court
Frederico Moreno, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Margaret Ryan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Amul Thapar, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Timothy Tymkovich, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Robert Young, Michigan Supreme Court
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... minees.php

3rd list released Nov, 2017 added 5 new names to the above, minus Gorsuch, total of 25 names.
Amy Coney Barrett, Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Britt Grant, Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Brett Kavanaugh, Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Kevin Newsom, Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Patrick Wyrick, Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st ... ourt-list/