Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick

[Neomalthusian]

The public union sector fee case - Yet another win for the First Amendment. Fees were being forced, from various public unions and their leaders, onto non-union members, and that money goes into the union (then that money goes to the Democrat party). So not only were these non-union employees losing money, that money was going to politicians, without the consent of those employees (nor did many of them support those politicians). Afterwards, for a third time, another First Amendment case came to SCOTUS, they said to these union leaders that can not force someone, who is not even a part of their union, to pay contributions, so SCOTUS slaps them down, and the non-union workers can now keep the money they've earned from work (and rightfully so), AND that money is not going to politicians they don't support. Put another win up for the First Amendment.

PAC dues (money given to Democrats) were voluntary before this decision. What this decision said was that even non-PAC money is nonetheless still political speech, because collective bargaining with government itself is inherently political.

 

[gdgyva]

Exactly, it sure will and perhaps, sooner than anyone thinks. I long for the days of Mitchell and Dole, of Lott and Daschle in the senate. Leaders who would work together and had respect for each other and the traditions of the senate. None of those would have thought of the nuclear option let alone use it. Different era and different times. Less partisanship for sure.

Government the way it is suppose to be.

seems like eons ago

but it really wasnt

both sides will blame the other for moving away...

i dont know what it is going to take to get both sides actually working together again...seems nearly impossible now

are we to blame? is this what we want from our elected representatives?

can you remember the last actual bill in congress that had both sides working together on it...that meant anything?

i cant....it has been that long....

 

[Perotista]

seems like eons ago

but it really wasnt

both sides will blame the other for moving away...

i dont know what it is going to take to get both sides actually working together again...seems nearly impossible now

are we to blame? is this what we want from our elected representatives?

can you remember the last actual bill in congress that had both sides working together on it...that meant anything?

i cant....it has been that long....

No it wasn't. We're talking 15-20 years ago. Was there something that caused the change or was it just a change in leadership of both parties? From what I seen, poll after poll state most Americans want the two parties to work together for the good of America. Yet they, the two major parties refuse too. At least that is what most Americans tell the pollsters.

No, I can't remember the last time when the two major parties worked together to solve an American major problem.

 

[rocket88]

If those "idealouges" as you define them, start voting more closely to the construct of the constitution, and their article 3 limitations, then yes I'll cheer loudly.

But, don't for a moment pretend that if we were talking about a progressive stranglehold on the executive branch and progressives like you had the possibility to see a 7-2 majority on the court, that you wouldn't be....



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Nobody's pretending anything. Except those who think that Trump will appoint anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to him.

 

[Mustachio]

Buh bye. Its good that triggered liberals put on their ***** hats and go march to ***** cat doll songs.

If dissent makes you angry, you should advocate for non dissent with the hollywood crowd.

It's funny you said that, I started a career in film and left because I hated the people. I prefer the blue collar crowd in my neighborhood. It's a place where nobody would ever say "triggered," "snowflake," "trumpkin," or "***** hat." There's so much anger and partisanship here. I'll check on the forum but this place - and partisanship - are out of control.

 

[Mustachio]

Fair court? This is going to help bring that about, a court that rules on the Constitutionality of the issue, what's more fair than that?

What you just said would imply that all constitutional scholars agree 100% of the time. There's a reason they don't. You know that, don't pretend otherwise.

And just because somebody has a more liberal interpretation of constitutional matters than you doesn't mean they still are one thousand times smarter and more informed than you on matters of constitutional law.

 

[distraff]

not going to happen. Time for turtle man (no relation) to ram another Gorsuch down the throats of the dems

I thought not appointing a Supreme Court Justice was based on principal? Is it not based on principal then? So if the Senate and the President are of different parties then no nomination happens?

 

[washunut]

No it wasn't. We're talking 15-20 years ago. Was there something that caused the change or was it just a change in leadership of both parties? From what I seen, poll after poll state most Americans want the two parties to work together for the good of America. Yet they, the two major parties refuse too. At least that is what most Americans tell the pollsters.

No, I can't remember the last time when the two major parties worked together to solve an American major problem.

Where the above falls apart IMO is an error in the polling. Lets see the results of a poll where only people who vote in primary are tallied. Those are the people who give us the choice of candidate we get to select.

 

[TurtleDude]

I thought not appointing a Supreme Court Justice was based on principal? Is it not based on principal then? So if the Senate and the President are of different parties then no nomination happens?

there is no principals anymore. the GOP needs to win when it can.

 

[Perotista]

Where the above falls apart IMO is an error in the polling. Lets see the results of a poll where only people who vote in primary are tallied. Those are the people who give us the choice of candidate we get to select.

This is close to what I was talking about: Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington

The 18% who think leaders should stick to their principles is a new low
28% take a neutral position on the issue
44% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats favor compromise

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

I think compromise and the two parties working together is approximately the same thing. It's a good article and the graphs break it down further than just what I posted. Take a gander.

Gallup addressed all Republicans and all Democrats, not just who voted in the primaries. You probably have a valid point there as I suspect the hard core of each party who don't believe in compromise or working with the other party are more apt to vote than those who do believe in compromise or working with the other party.

It's also interesting that Republicans in 2013, 33% felt it more important to stick to their beliefs than compromise has fallen to 23%, a ten point drop in 2017. Democrats among those who think it was more important to stick with their beliefs also fell from 2013 to 2017, from 19% down to 12%.

 

[Grand Mal]

there is no principals anymore. the GOP needs to win when it can.

Desperation?

 

[TurtleDude]

Desperation?

reality-if you read at least a few posts of mine concerning presidents-its the judges that matter most. we no longer get judges (at least from the dems) who are objective. On every major political case since 2000 dem judges have always voted the party line. Souter, Stevens, Kennedy and Roberts-all GOP appointees, have voted against their party on huge politically important cases

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I guess we now know why Justice Kennedy sold us down the river.

Anthony and Mary Kennedy have three sons. One is Justin Kennedy, who works in real estate. Politico notes that Justin knows Donald Trump Jr., President Trump’s eldest son, through his work in New York real estate.

The 52-year-old Justin is the co-CEO and CIO of Green River Properties, leading the company’s investment activities and strategy. He has almost 30 years of experience in U.S. and international markets. He has an A.B. in Economics from Stanford and earned his MBA from UCLA.

According to Justin’s Bloomberg bio, he also worked as the managing director and Global Head of CMBS Trading and Structuring at Deutsche Bank. The Sun-Sentinel notes that Justin left Deutsche Bank in 2009 after 11 years there.

 

[Herkamer63]

PAC dues (money given to Democrats) were voluntary before this decision. What this decision said was that even non-PAC money is nonetheless still political speech, because collective bargaining with government itself is inherently political.

Well yes and no. Yes, the money did go, and still is going, to Democrats. There was a list that came out with some of the top donors from 2017-2018. I don't think it's a complete list, obviously, and I won't go through all of them because there's just too many, but I'll name the some of the top donations to political parties from these unions:

The American Federation Of Teachers - $6,500,000 (All to the Left, none to the Right)

The American Federation Of State, City, And Municipal Employees - $5,027,000 (All to the Left, none to the Right)

The National Education Association - $2,300,000 (95% to the Left, 5% to the Right)

The American Federation of Government Employees - $1.8 million (95% to the Left, 5% to the Right)

Just between those 4 unions, they donated $14 million to politicians. If you look at the break down, the Left (The Democrat party more specifically) took in over $13 million, and the Right (more specifically the Republican party) took in less than $1 million. That's pretty significant. Something I didn't know about, until 2 days ago, 1/3 of Obama's Stimulus Bill went to unions, which a lot of that, ultimately, went back into the Democrat party.

For the 'no' part of it, somehow, the non-union members' money was going into these unions, which was then donated to politicians. Most union members themselves probably didn't know that a portion of their fees were going to politicians. I bet they were wondering why their benefits weren't kicking for whatever the occasion was. When many of them did find out that most of that money was going to Democrats, because, I would argue, most of them are blue collar Republican voters, you bet they blew a gasket. It's one thing to KNOW where your money is going, but quite another when you DON'T KNOW where it's final destination is. Especially when it goes against your First Amendment rights. Anyway, the lie from the union leaders is what's the most infuriating to me, when they say they're their for their fellow workers and helping them get the benefits they want/need, but really, they're political activists in disguise, pushing a political agenda secretly. So in the end, it had much less to do with collective bargaining, and more with funding political parties (namely the Democrats). Kind of a money laundering scheme.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Well yes and no. Yes, the money did go, and still is going, to Democrats. There was a list that came out with some of the top donors from 2017-2018. I don't think it's a complete list, obviously, and I won't go through all of them because there's just too many, but I'll name the some of the top donations to political parties from these unions:

The American Federation Of Teachers - $6,500,000 (All to the Left, none to the Right)

The American Federation Of State, City, And Municipal Employees - $5,027,000 (All to the Left, none to the Right)

The National Education Association - $2,300,000 (95% to the Left, 5% to the Right)

The American Federation of Government Employees - $1.8 million (95% to the Left, 5% to the Right)

Just between those 4 unions, they donated $14 million to politicians. If you look at the break down, the Left (The Democrat party more specifically) took in over $13 million, and the Right (more specifically the Republican party) took in less than $1 million. That's pretty significant. Something I didn't know about, until 2 days ago, 1/3 of Obama's Stimulus Bill went to unions, which a lot of that, ultimately, went back into the Democrat party.

For the 'no' part of it, somehow, the non-union members' money was going into these unions, which was then donated to politicians. Most union members themselves probably didn't know that a portion of their fees were going to politicians. I bet they were wondering why their benefits weren't kicking for whatever the occasion was. When many of them did find out that most of that money was going to Democrats, because, I would argue, most of them are blue collar Republican voters, you bet they blew a gasket. It's one thing to KNOW where your money is going, but quite another when you DON'T KNOW where it's final destination is. Especially when it goes against your First Amendment rights. Anyway, the lie from the union leaders is what's the most infuriating to me, when they say they're their for their fellow workers and helping them get the benefits they want/need, but really, they're political activists in disguise, pushing a political agenda secretly. So in the end, it had much less to do with collective bargaining, and more with funding political parties (namely the Democrats). Kind of a money laundering scheme.

Only PAC dues, which are voluntary and which nonmembers don’t pay, are donated to PACs and Democrats. It’s because the organization is so extremely political all the time, and because the act and process of bargaining with government itself has such inherently political implications, that the decision was made that all public sector payments t unions contribute to political speech, so they can’t be mandatory because it’s a free speech violation to force someone to fund someone else’s political speech, whether they ostensibly benefit from that speech or not.

 

[vesper]

reality-if you read at least a few posts of mine concerning presidents-its the judges that matter most. we no longer get judges (at least from the dems) who are objective. On every major political case since 2000 dem judges have always voted the party line. Souter, Stevens, Kennedy and Roberts-all GOP appointees, have voted against their party on huge politically important cases

I heard someone say this morning the left sees the SC as a politiburo and through them seek to control society.

I also read an article that say Sen. Mike Lee is on the short list for picks to replace Justice Kennedy.

Because of the razor thin majority in the Senate, most Senators at least Republicans would be inclined to vote for their fellow colleague. Lee could vote for himself, and if a tie, Pence could break it. I found that very interesting.

 

[TurtleDude]

I heard someone say this morning the left sees the SC as a politiburo and through them seek to control society.

I also read an article that say Sen. Mike Lee is on the short list for picks to replace Justice Kennedy.

Because of the razor thin majority in the Senate, most Senators at least Republicans would be inclined to vote for their fellow colleague. Lee could vote for himself, and if a tie, Pence could break it. I found that very interesting.

BYU law school isn't a top drawer member but he was a supreme court clerk

 

[ludin]

I guess we now know why Justice Kennedy sold us down the river.

conspiracy forum is ----->

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess we now know why Justice Kennedy sold us down the river.

how many democrat appointees bucked their party on major cases

how about Republicans?

lets see-Souter and Stevens on Heller and/or McDonald

Roberts on Obama Care

Kennedy consistently voted with the left on gay issues

if you want to talk about justices who always were party players its sure not the GOP appointees

 

[vesper]

BYU law school isn't a top drawer member but he was a supreme court clerk

A person high on the list that is being considered is Amy Coney Barrett


A graduate of Notre Dame Law School – where she later became a professor – Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by Mr. Trump last year. The Senate then confirmed her to the bench in a 55-to-43 vote. Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, and Tim Kaine all voted for her confirmation, as did every Republican senator.


This judge has recently went through the meat grinder known as the confirmation process. It would be very hard for anyone to vote against her this time around that voted in favor of her just months ago. And it would make it very hard for them to slow walk her confirmation because they have already combed through her entire life turning over every stone, challenging her rulings etc.


I think she is a winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[NonoBadDog]

...and you think that is a good thing?

Ohh yeah. It's great for the right. The left has lost their political mind since 2016 and the public is tired of hearing and seeing the out of control petty and manufactured crap reactions of the left.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Apparently. Gloating, taunting, giggling Schadenfreude seems to be the order of the day in this thread. Goodbye to civil rights; women's reproductive rights; women, minority and LGBT equal rights; homosexual right to serve in the military; and certainly to gay marriage rights. In my life I have seen all these rights hard-fought and finally won, and I have seen what this country was without them. Apparently, I will see it all again.

Someone responded to my post in another thread on this subject: "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

It's the most appropriate thing I can think of to describe what my heart feels like right now. I'm very sad, very disillusioned, very disheartened, very hopeless. I doubt I'm alone.

Nope. Several people have pointed out that the over reaction form a good portion of the left is over the top. It's pretty bad when Pelosi and Schumer tell their parties to dial it back and are ignored. The reactions from the left were understandable at first. They have become more hateful as time has passed. It went from ***** hat protests and complaining about Trump's diet, Melania's high heels to impeaching Trump for using twitter, locking his son up with pedophiles, holding the severed head of the president and raping the the head of DHS, just to name a few examples. WTF is wrong with these people? Just as I predicted the left has kicked the tantrum up several notches.

 

[NonoBadDog]

So I was right about everything except you have a liberal friend who comes over every weekend and you drink wine together? Yeah, I can't believe I jumped to such conclusions when everything I said about you was correct except you might have "several" liberal friends who you are telling this forum you are thrilled to make angry with the retirement of justice Kennedy. Will they come over this weekend and you'll say "hi, I hope you're angry, that would make me really happy!"



Yeah, the "leftists" hanging around Berkley eating hash cookies are so enraged they might compliment your shoes. There's just no end to the anger of the artists, engineers, bartenders and doctors of America (jobs most dominated by Democrats).

The only reason I would lie is if I gave a **** what you believe, which I don't. You aren't a friend so if you are angry I will continue to find it entertaining to watch while you participate in the eternal tantrum.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

how many democrat appointees bucked their party on major cases

how about Republicans?

lets see-Souter and Stevens on Heller and/or McDonald

Roberts on Obama Care

Kennedy consistently voted with the left on gay issues

if you want to talk about justices who always were party players its sure not the GOP appointees

Kennedy — a Reagan appointee, spent much of his Supreme Court career supporting Republican efforts to gut the ability of progressives to compete politically on equal footing, even when doing so meant doing real harm to democracy itself.

Kennedy voted to shut down vote recounts in the 2000 Florida election, siding with George W. Bush, who clearly worried that Al Gore would emerge the winner if the vote count proceeded.

Kennedy wrote the opinion in the Citizens United decision of 2012 that gutted campaign finance law by allowing wealthy donors and corporations to dump money into electoral politics with ZERO restraint. The resulting explosion of super-PAC spending has, in turn, helped secure Republican control of all levels of government, from county governments and state legislatures on up.

Kennedy voted to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, which opened the door to the flood of voting restrictions in numerous states, which are clearly aimed at shutting out Democratic voters and specifically to target voters of color with onerous restrictions that limit legal voting rights for no valid reason. In fact, the very same day that Section 4 was reversed, some 868 polling places started being shut down in Southern states, oh but "nothing to see here, let's move on".

In the past month, Kennedy has gone hog-wild dismantling voting rights. He has voted to uphold an Ohio law meant to kick legal voters off the rolls, to uphold racially discriminatory gerrymandered maps, and to punting on blatant partisan gerrymanders, even though he surely knows that whichever Right-wing Robot the Federalist Society picks for Trump's next justice will sign off on them.

Oh yeah, and Kennedy also voted against public-sector unions in Janus vs. AFSCME. Part of that is simply consistent with his long history of siding with corporate interests against workers at every opportunity, but part of it is also likely due to his knee-jerk Republican loyalties. A major reason Republicans are so intent on dismantling union power is because unions are effective at organizing coalitions to support progressive policies and Democratic candidates. Take out unions, and not only can conservatives drive down wages, but they can increase the Republican stranglehold on power, even as increasingly large majorities of Americans want them out of office.

Oh and, Justin is Justice Kennedy's son. And his interactions at Deutsch Bank may be under investigation by Mueller. There may have been some lobbying of Kennedy to "retire" to protect Justin. After all, when there might be loans totaling up to a billion dollars in question...

Any questions?

 

[NonoBadDog]

Obviously 2016 was a very important election to steal. Kudos to the thieves.

You are crappy victim. Maybe if your party didn't stick their head up Clinton's ass (the only person that could possibly lose to Trump) you wouldn't have to generate **** to complain about.