Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Dems not understanding what +-3.7 margin of error means? That's unpossible.

 

I didn't spin it, I said "evenly divided". You are the one who mistakenly said plurality. I've learned numbers are not your strength.

 

womp womp

 

What exactly am I whinging about?

My point is that it doesn't matter. The left and right will whine either way. If the Republicans won the popular vote but lost the EC, there would be many whining about how its unfair just as those like you whine about it. The rules are the rules. The laws are the laws. Get over it.

I dont know why you are bringing up the Obama nominees. He nominated one, Congress rejected it. Congress came out and said they would reject all nominations of Obama. They rejected for political means, political retribution and a hopes a Republican would get the White House, not because there was some nonsensical poll out there stating Americans wanted to wait until the election.

If Democrats controlled congress, they would be doing their best right now to negotiate a candidate with Trump before the 2018 elections in fear of the Republicans controlling it. If Democrats control congress in 2019/2020 and another SCOTUS seat comes open, they will not care about pointless polls. They will block every single one of Trumps nominations unless its one they want. The leftist got the far left picks in Kagan and Sotomayer. Quit crying now that the right will put someone like Jeff Sessions on the seat. Perhaps last time they should have put a more centrist person like Kennedy instead of Kagan and Sotomayer.

This is basic game theory that a child could understand. I don't see why you find this so complicated.

 

You are putting aside that Trader_J has never apologized for making a post that was a lie, was proven wrong, or any other damn thing. When all this is over, if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that trump and/or his campaign didn't collude with the Russians, I'll be happy to apologize to you. Certainly not to him.

 

I will not comment on the Jorge part because I do not keep up with what he does but I believe you about apologizing if you are wrong. While I disagree with you on just about everything when it comes to politics, I believe you are 100% a stand up guy. I do agree with most things you post in the GARM.

 

Thank you. That was much appreciated.

 

Nice thing to see on a Monday. The country needs more people willing to see their neighbors like that, I think. Thank you.

 

You keep forgetting its the SCOTUS responsibility to interpret the law, not the will of the people. If you are still struggling with this concept, I suggest you find a new country to live in.

So it doesn't matter if my position is outside the thinking of anyone. I want to see judges who are centrists, not ones who align their political belief with mine.
And no, I have little concerned what other peoples opinions are provided I am not depriving them of their opinions. I understand how our government is setup. We are not a direct democracy so opinion polls mean nothing to me. I cast my vote to elect people to represent me.

The will of the people only matters when it comes to elections, not on policy decisions, which includes confirming SCOTUS nominations.

I did not speak of Garland. I spoke of Kagan and Sotomayer. Both who put their emotions and political views over their role in the SCOTUS.

 

LOL, fine, perhaps last time they should have nominated a more centrist person like Kennedy instead of Garland

 

Amen. Some of the members around here probably think guys like me don't have conservative friends. That's not true. I have several in "real life," some old friends from way back, some newer ones I've known for many years. I don't doubt that you do as well, B-Bob. Heck, half of the trivia team I've been with for a decade are conservatives. One a retired cardiovascular surgeon, and one retired from Austin's city owned electric utility. We're all old guys, and I'm easily the oldest. We simply don't talk politics. A caveat - the other guy on our team, the other liberal (a Rice grad) and I talk politics if the others are running late. Just never as a group. It helps. We win often, our one weakness being recent popular culture.

 

I was just reading about the Bork nomination and how his subsequent denial led to the eventual appointment of Justice Kennedy. If Bork had been approved and you assume he had stayed on the court till his death in 2012, Obama would have been the President who would have selected the Justice to replace this seat.

I'm not making any assumptions beyond the above...just interesting how time and fate changes things.

 

What comes around, goes around.

 

Because you are dealing with long term appointments and usually death or unknown retirements, there is no way to really know what will happen to the Court 5 years down the road.

Right now things look good for the Republicans controlling the Court. However, in 5 years there could be a Democrat in the White House that gets to appoint several Justices. You could see Ginsburg and Breyer wait to retire until 2020 and then see a situation where Thomas (would be 75) or Alito (would be 73) die or have to step down. Then you have a liberal majority. Hell, if a democrat wins in 2020 and is reelected in 2024, you could be looking at a liberal super majority. Obviously the same applies for the conservatives if they win in 2020.

It is very hard to predict this stuff. With both parties picking younger candidates it becomes less of an issue....... you also don't know what someone's politics will be in 10-20 years. It is possible that John Roberts drifts to the left or SotoMayor drifts to the right.