Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick

[NonoBadDog]

So lets wait until after the election to nominate the Justice just like we did in 2016.

That's what elections are for. We have no other choice but to wait. Time doesn't stop.

 

[CitizenBasehead]

Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick

Two Scoops
Two SCOTUS nominations
Two terms (coming soon)

Please Mr. President you need to stop, this is just to much winning to handle.

This should kick the eternal tantrum up a couple of notches.

Trump is going to have to construct a reservoir just to contain all the liberal tears......Delicious

 

[ttwtt78640]

So lets wait until after the election to nominate the Justice just like we did in 2016.

Midterm (congressional only) elections are not 'just like' POTUS elections. It is not 'up in the air' as to who will have the power to appoint a SCOTUS justice until after the 2018 midterm elections.

 

[maxparrish]

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

...

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...

LOL...you can't betray an "us" you weren't a member of. As you acknowledged, Kennedy was a Republican appointee by a very conservative President, so if he had spent a career gutting progressives, he would not have been a sell-out but a loyalist.

And yes, Kennedy was often "sell-out" to his party. His so-called libertarian impulses led him to folly as much as wisdom. Among his sell-outs and folly:

1) Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Under shaming from the court left, he flipped his vote to the liberal side and preserve Roe v. Wade.
2) Roper v. Simmons. Kennedy joined the left in voting down capital punishment for homicides committed by a person under 18 years of age (finding it "cruel and unusual").
3) Kelo v. New London. Kennedy gutted any pretense at protecting property rights, joining court liberals, in approving the taking of homeowner property for the use of a private corporation.
4) Boumediene v. Bush. Kennedy voted with court liberals to invent American constitutional rights for foreign persons detained in war and held in foreign lands (Guantanamo Bay).
5) Obergefell v. Hodges (and its setup case Windsor v. US) invented a right to gay marriage - Kennedy was the architect behind it.
6) Romer v. Evans, Kennedy vote to invalidate a provision in the Colorado Constitution prohibiting the right to bring local discrimination claims based on sexual orientation.
7) Kennedy is an internationalist, infatuated with foreign law as helpful to determining how he should vote.

Frankly, conservatives would pop a champagne cork for any left of center jurist that was not a dogmatic member of the leftist cadre, and crossed over as much as Kennedy did. When it comes to votes on major cases of political import, the progressive gang of four is as single minded loyal as Stalin's politburo.

 

[Mustachio]

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.

That's what I'm talking about. I don't even care if you're lying. Because let's break it down:
1. You spend time with a few liberal friends and you take great pleasure in their anger. So they're mad about the supreme court and you're laughing at them and mocking them? Do you show them your posts on this forum? No liberal would ever be your friend if they read your forum posts because you're so, so vindictive and trollish.
2. You're lying and you said you have liberal friends because you don't want to admit that you are the exact picture painted of the quintessential Trump voter. I find that very easy to believe.

Either way, you're just another guy who is making this country worse by joining in on the name calling, trolling, you're-my-enemy-mentality wave of faux nationalism that is in reality a show. I'm not angry at you. I'm angry because I know, I have seen, the effects of this administration's policies. Education, health care, senior care, and the rights and tolerance of diverse Americans (minorities mostly) are eroding. I don't hate you, I hate your ideas, I hate your words, but I respect you because you are a human being and the fact that you can't do the same will never change my attitude.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL...you can't betray an "us" you weren't a member of. As you acknowledged, Kennedy was a Republican appointee by a very conservative President, so if he had spent a career gutting progressives, he would not have been a sell-out but a loyalist.

And yes, Kennedy was often "sell-out" to his party. His so-called libertarian impulses led him to folly as much as wisdom. Among his sell-outs and folly:

1) Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Under shaming from the court left, he flipped his vote to the liberal side and preserve Roe v. Wade.
2) Roper v. Simmons. Kennedy joined the left in voting down capital punishment for homicides committed by a person under 18 years of age (finding it "cruel and unusual").
3) Kelo v. New London. Kennedy gutted any pretense at protecting property rights, joining court liberals, in approving the taking of homeowner property for the use of a private corporation.
4) Boumediene v. Bush. Kennedy voted with court liberals to invent American constitutional rights for foreign persons detained in war and held in foreign lands (Guantanamo Bay).
5) Obergefell v. Hodges (and its setup case Windsor v. US) invented a right to gay marriage - Kennedy was the architect behind it.
6) Romer v. Evans, Kennedy vote to invalidate a provision in the Colorado Constitution prohibiting the right to bring local discrimination claims based on sexual orientation.
7) Kennedy is an internationalist, infatuated with foreign law as helpful to determining how he should vote.

Frankly, conservatives would pop a champagne cork for any left of center jurist that was not a dogmatic member of the leftist cadre, and crossed over as much as Kennedy did. When it comes to votes on major cases of political import, the progressive gang of four is as single minded loyal as Stalin's politburo.

It is interesting that you're complaining about RvW, which is likely considered the ultimate in libertarian ideals, not to mention that enshrining marriage equality shouldn't be on any libertarian radar at all. It's their damn business, not yours, as libertarians always like to say.

But gutting the VRA, swinging the 2000 election and enshrining open bribery and graft (CU)...to you, those aren't a big deal at all.
I can easily imagine why.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It is interesting that you're complaining about RvW, which is likely considered the ultimate in libertarian ideals, not to mention that enshrining marriage equality shouldn't be on any libertarian radar at all. It's their damn business, not yours, as libertarians always like to say.

But gutting the VRA, swinging the 2000 election and enshrining open bribery and graft (CU)...to you, those aren't a big deal at all.
I can easily imagine why.

I find it odd that the great textualist Hugo Black is not considered a libertarian hero.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump is going to Helsinki to ask Putin who he should nominate to replace Justice Kennedy.

 

[Harshaw]

I find it odd that the great textualist Hugo Black is not considered a libertarian hero.

Judicial philosophy isn't the same as political philosophy.

 

[Herkamer63]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the premise of PACs. The only thing is I'm disagreeing with, and correct me if I'm wrong, the workers, both union and non-union, didn't know. When they did find out, especially those who were not for whatever party, that's where the line was drawn. My point is in most of these cases, it wasn't voluntary. The union leaders suckered them into believing that all the money that they were required to pay was going into collective bargaining. Otherwise, this wouldn't have gone to SCOTUS. Knowing what you're paying into is one thing, but not knowing is another, and that had been happening with these employees was wrong. I think we can both agree that putting politics, PACs or not, in business is wrong. I'm just glad SCOTUS stopped it.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Judicial philosophy isn't the same as political philosophy.

Strict constructionism has a political philosophy different from judicial philosophy.

I thought people wanted a strict constructionist in the judicial sense, like Hugo Black?

 

[maxparrish]

It is interesting that you're complaining about RvW, which is likely considered the ultimate in libertarian ideals, not to mention that enshrining marriage equality shouldn't be on any libertarian radar at all. It's their damn business, not yours, as libertarians always like to say.

But gutting the VRA, swinging the 2000 election and enshrining open bribery and graft (CU)...to you, those aren't a big deal at all.
I can easily imagine why.

I'm not complaining, I am pointing out that his so-called libertarian impulses produced both good and bad law, and were not a "sell-out" to anyone but the Republican-Conservative folks who supported his nomination (he did not consider himself a libertarian then or later).

Your sense of "betrayal" requires one to have been a self-identified member prior to his "betrayal". It would be best for you to acknowledge your overstatement as a product of an emotional outburst, rather than continue to desperately manufacture obvious canards.

And as for his votes on VRA, 2000 election, CUnited, Heller, the travel ban, and the first challenge to Obamacare - not only do I not have a problem, I believe that is some of his wisest votes. And in those he wrote an opinion, it was completely convincing and logical (unlike his daffy poetics when he "sold out" his party).

 

[Harshaw]

Strict constructionism has a political philosophy different from judicial philosophy.

Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy. It has no application other than in interpreting the Constitution (or other laws).

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

The one can complement the other, but it doesn't necessarily.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the premise of PACs. The only thing is I'm disagreeing with, and correct me if I'm wrong, the workers, both union and non-union, didn't know. When they did find out, especially those who were not for whatever party, that's where the line was drawn. My point is in most of these cases, it wasn't voluntary. The union leaders suckered them into believing that all the money that they were required to pay was going into collective bargaining. Otherwise, this wouldn't have gone to SCOTUS. Knowing what you're paying into is one thing, but not knowing is another, and that had been happening with these employees was wrong. I think we can both agree that putting politics, PACs or not, in business is wrong. I'm just glad SCOTUS stopped it.

From my personal experience with unions, I would speculate that it's been extremely common for new bargaining unit employees to be suckered into paying the union without clearly understanding their actual rights or the meaning of the terminology used to refer to what they were going to be paying the union. I'm sure some unwittingly paid PAC dues even though that's been voluntary for decades.

But what this case was about was "agency fees." When an employee accepts a union-represented position, a union steward or representative gives them an application for union membership and a dues deduction authorization card. If the employee says "I don't want to be a member," the union says "ok, fine, but you still have to pay, and we call that payment 'agency fees' instead of 'dues.'"

This court case challenged the requirement of people who say "no thanks" to membership to nevertheless pay "agency fees" in lieu of "dues." The basis of the argument was that even "agency fees" which can only be used on collective bargaining are a form of forced funding of another's political speech. Why? Because the act and process of collectively bargaining with the government is inherently an act of political lobbying. The political aspects and nature of negotiating with government and vying against government for higher wages and benefits is inextricably political. Thus any compulsion to fund that speech is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy. It has no application other than in interpreting the Constitution (or other laws).

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

The one can complement the other, but it doesn't necessarily.

So what exactly do you want? A strict constructionist regardless of political ideology? Or do you want a strict constructionist who is a libertarian?

 

[Harshaw]

So what exactly do you want? A strict constructionist regardless of political ideology? Or do you want a strict constructionist who is a libertarian?

I want another Gorsuch, who understands that the courts are not a place for political philosophy.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I want another Gorsuch, who understands that the courts are not a place for political philosophy.

Gorsuch is another alito: a political ideologue.

 

[Harshaw]

Gorsuch is another alito: a political ideologue.

I have no idea what he does, politically, in his own time, but his political philosophy does not show up in his legal reasoning. Indeed, he often expresses personal disapproval of a policy while finding that the law supports it, and vice-versa.

 

[fishnthec]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You know what helps me sleep at night? OK! Well let me tell you.

Maturity! Remaining calm! And a realization that - Nothing is ever as good as it seems, and nothing is ever as bad as it seems.

I've been around long enough to know that when one party gets in a position to dominate all three branches of the government, no matter which party, they always overreach! And always before the next election, American voters get a bad taste in their mouths about that!

So what happens? Everything flips! I've seen this just about every 4 to 8 years since I was old enough to know about elections.

So everybody take a step back, stop all this overreactions and emotional baggage.

When the Democrats take back the Executive and Legislative branches, it will be their turn to do a little over reaching of their very own, because it will be their turn right?

So, all the Democrats have to do, is increase the number of judges to the Supreme Court and add a couple of more- and whomever they choose! Lol!

I don't think you people are clearly thinking out of the box!

 

[DiAnna]

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.

I am on record disavowing and clearly criticizing everything in bold, as are many who are not right-leaning. You know as well as I do that the right was just as over-the-top during Obama's term, insisting he was a fake president because, you know, Kenya, insisting Michelle, or "Moochelle", was a MTF transexual, that Obama was a pothead who almost flunked out of college, and on and on and on. The right owns no high ground here.

Now we have a WH intent on overturning Roe v. Wade, marching back civil rights, LGBT rights and women's reproduction freedom to the stone age. Some of us actually saw that stone age; you'll forgive us if we are legitimately scared out of our collective wits to realize that the people who want that actually have the power to make it happen, and plan to do so.

 

[upsideguy]

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.

Please be more specific.... These vague statements are not an argument.

 

[NonoBadDog]

That's what I'm talking about. I don't even care if you're lying. Because let's break it down:
1. You spend time with a few liberal friends and you take great pleasure in their anger. So they're mad about the supreme court and you're laughing at them and mocking them? Do you show them your posts on this forum? No liberal would ever be your friend if they read your forum posts because you're so, so vindictive and trollish.
2. You're lying and you said you have liberal friends because you don't want to admit that you are the exact picture painted of the quintessential Trump voter. I find that very easy to believe.

Either way, you're just another guy who is making this country worse by joining in on the name calling, trolling, you're-my-enemy-mentality wave of faux nationalism that is in reality a show. I'm not angry at you. I'm angry because I know, I have seen, the effects of this administration's policies. Education, health care, senior care, and the rights and tolerance of diverse Americans (minorities mostly) are eroding. I don't hate you, I hate your ideas, I hate your words, but I respect you because you are a human being and the fact that you can't do the same will never change my attitude.

Dude. I'm not trolling. It isn't my fault most of the left has lost their mind. I have said repeatedly that they should pick their fights. Now I just kick back and enjoy the overly emotional stupidity. By the way, I am a minority also. Just one more thing you got wrong.

 

[NonoBadDog]

I am on record disavowing and clearly criticizing everything in bold, as are many who are not right-leaning. You know as well as I do that the right was just as over-the-top during Obama's term, insisting he was a fake president because, you know, Kenya, insisting Michelle, or "Moochelle", was a MTF transexual, that Obama was a pothead who almost flunked out of college, and on and on and on. The right owns no high ground here.

The claims that Moochelle was a guy were not taken seriously by the main stream conservatives. It was stupid. Obama never released his college transcripts. The right did make some stupid points but they weren't anything like main stream liberals stating that Trumps son should be raped by pedophiles. There is too much of that crap going on lately.
Now we have a WH intent on overturning Roe v. Wade, marching back civil rights, LGBT rights and women's reproduction freedom to the stone age. Some of us actually saw that stone age; you'll forgive us if we are legitimately scared out of our collective wits to realize that the people who want that actually have the power to make it happen, and plan to do so.

You might have but you are only one person in a vase ocean of sewage. The White House has said they aren't going to ask the prospects about abortion in their interviews. Nobody has said anything about LBGT. The left doesn't even know who the candidates are but several high profile people on the left has already said that the Democrats should reject and resist ANY person that Trump nominates. Hell, the guy hasn't even nominated anyone yet. I remember when the left was saying that Trump was a liberal trying to fool the conservatives and that he would never name a conservative justice. It seems the left gets a lot of things wrong but that doesn't seem to make them want to change their habit of making bad predictions. Trump would never become the Republican candidate, until he was. Clinton was going to win, until she didn't. Trump will never make it 100 days in office, until he did. Trump is going to fire Kelly. Didn't happen. Trump was really a liberal in sheep's clothing. Didn't happen. Unemployment will never get below 5%. It is below 5%. I seem to remember the left said Trump would "destroy" the economy. It would be "Armageddon". He would never be able to get tax cuts, till he got his tax cuts. He would never get a meeting with Kim Jong Un, till he did. When a group is wrong so often it becomes hard to take them seriously.

I agree that there is a good reason for concern on the part of the left. The over emotional reactions from the left over the last 18 months have been extremely vitriolic. The sky is always falling when it's not and the theme seems to be to impeach Trump because he uses Twitter. Resist even if the result is good because he's Trump. Frankly it's getting old and yes, I find it amusing at this point.

The Left Scores Zero On Trump Predictions - Steve Gruber

 

[NonoBadDog]

Please be more specific.... These vague statements are not an argument.

Didn't say they were. It was a statement. It doesn't take a brain trust to figure out that the public is tired of the constant "sky is falling" statements from the left. People are tired of hearing all the asinine predictions that the left has collectively wet themselves about that never came to fruition.

 

[DiAnna]

You might have but you are only one person in a vase ocean of sewage. The White House has said they aren't going to ask the prospects about abortion in their interviews. Nobody has said anything about LBGT. The left doesn't even know who the candidates are but several high profile people on the left has already said that the Democrats should reject and resist ANY person that Trump nominates. Hell, the guy hasn't even nominated anyone yet. I remember when the left was saying that Trump was a liberal trying to fool the conservatives and that he would never name a conservative justice. It seems the left gets a lot of things wrong but that doesn't seem to make them want to change their habit of making bad predictions. Trump would never become the Republican candidate, until he was. Clinton was going to win, until she didn't. Trump will never make it 100 days in office, until he did. Trump is going to fire Kelly. Didn't happen. Trump was really a liberal in sheep's clothing. Didn't happen. Unemployment will never get below 5%. It is below 5%. I seem to remember the left said Trump would "destroy" the economy. It would be "Armageddon". He would never be able to get tax cuts, till he got his tax cuts. He would never get a meeting with Kim Jong Un, till he did. When a group is wrong so often it becomes hard to take them seriously.

I agree that there is a good reason for concern on the part of the left. The over emotional reactions from the left over the last 18 months have been extremely vitriolic. The sky is always falling when it's not and the theme seems to be to impeach Trump because he uses Twitter. Resist even if the result is good because he's Trump. Frankly it's getting old and yes, I find it amusing at this point.

The Left Scores Zero On Trump Predictions - Steve Gruber

I am not a fan of either the democrats or the republicans. My SCOTUS wish list is that Sandra Day O'Connor comes out of retirement and throws her hat in the ring. I believe we need a strong, issue-based moderate/centrist to balance out the rabid liberals and the control-freak conservatives currently in SCOTUS.

Yes, I'm a social liberal. I believe all citizens, be they democrats, republicans, independents, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic origins be treated equally under the law. But I'm also a fiscal conservative, who wants to see balanced budgets, congressional oversight of greedy banks illegally gobbling up citizen's homes/property, strong border protection and control, protections from corporate abuse, and affirmative action based on merit and economic need versus purely race-based preferences. I also want to see our alliances respected and nurtured, not tossed into a trashbin to win a weenie-wagging contest, and I do NOT want to see an American president praising despots like Putin, Kim Jong Un, Duarte and the like, while disparaging NATO, our EU allies, our Asian allies, and our closet historical allies, like the UK, Canada and Australia.

If we get a swing-vote SC justice who is a populist, nationalist, anti-choice, anti-secular, avowed Trump loyalist, I believe the next generation will be screwed, and our nation will be relegated to a historical garbage heap of what could have been, but wasn't.

And yes, I believe Trump is the most corrupt president in my lifetime, who cares only about using his office for self-gratification, self-enrichment, and profit for his family business.

All the GOP had to do was nominate a qualified candidate like Kasich or even Jeb Bush, and they would have had my vote. They nominated Trump. That's on them, no one else.