Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Can the senate vote him through without a D vote? In that case this is a moot point.

I am not a fan of lifetime appointments for Supreme court Justices. You can pretty much rule anything unconstitutional. Its 9 mostly old white men that went to one of three law (mostly yale or harvard) schools. They get to decide the fate of 300+ million people.

 

Yes they can confirm him without a single "D" vote. There will likely be at least a few Democrats who vote for this highly qualified appointment.

You think the SCOTUS justices should be beholden to elections and political whims? IMHO that would be terrible. The framers of the Constitution specifically wrote it so the members of the SCOTUS are not tied to political whims. Any of the SCOTUS nominees can be impeached if they do something they shouldn't.

 

****THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NORMAL****

The President of the United States is not currently the subject of multiple criminal investigations on the subject of his becoming elected, including betraying his country to a foreign power.

The President of the United States is not being prevented only by his own underlying stupidity and slovenliness from turning the DOJ and FBI into his own personal goon squad as part of his spectacularly corrupt administration.

The President of the United States is not a deranged ignoramus, unable to process or carry out basic job functions while instead polluting his addled brain with racist conspiracy theories and toxic memes

Thie President of the United States has no interest in installing loyalists who will protect him and his thuggish followers in all branches of governement

Nope, this is just a regular old Senate Judiciary Committee hearing


****THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NORMAL****

 

English isn't a perfect language, and we have to use English to communicate. That's why context matter so much. Haven't we been talking about the the crux of the issue (full denial of any consideration)? The other side attributes aren't important. You can use arguably and similar in ways toward other attributes, but not toward the crux of the issue here. When I said it's factually incorrect, I was sticking to the main point.

All this doesn't matter much now. It has been done. But I'm honestly curious. What do you value here? You did imply that when the stake are high enough, this type of tactic is acceptable. Is this where you are coming from - you wanted to have a conservative judge?

 

Hope you don't mind, Sam, but I thought the more challenged reader might not get your sarcasm. We have several here. The Senate (and House) Republican leadership have sold out their integrity, assuming they ever had any, in fear of the trumpian horde of primary voters. When their duplicity and casual lying catch up with them, I look forward to the Democratics taking the majority leadership and shoving what the McConnells and Nunes creatures have been doing right back down their corrupt throats until they choke on their own excrement.

 

Except they really can't since the R packed the courts.

 

Somebody once said "elections have consequences" but I can't remember who.

 

If a Democrat takes office next and let's say they take the Senate as well, will you be whining about "packing the courts" if the Democrats get to replace Ginsburg and say Thomas with far left justices? I'm guessing most of the people talking about balance will not care about that at all if Democrats can stack the courts with justices that will help them further their goals of stripping certain rights from the people that would require a far left SCOTUS to accomplish.

 

It was me, dozens of times and right in this forum, and outside of this forum during the 2016 campaign. It was the main reason I gave to those babbling their venom against Clinton to not spend the election staying at home or wasting a vote on the Green Party or some other option, some even voting for the idiot in the White House. Interestingly enough, few, if any, have owned up here to not voting for Hilary because of "Bernie (who's not a Democrat, btw) was not treated right," or "Hilary's a crook," or some other bullshit. Much of that bullshit, it turns out, being pumped into the American political system in 2016 by trump's best friends, Putin's Russia.

I said, "Elections have consequences. If you stay home or waste your vote, you are going to see the Supreme Court and the other lifetime appointments to the federal bench being filled by the Far Right, and you won't like that at all. You won't like it for years, for decades. For god's sake, use your brain." What happened to those people? Are they too ashamed to admit that they ****ed up, big time? That they bear a measure of responsibility for what is happening now to our country? A ****ing disaster of Biblical proportions?

 

Dems can pack the lower courts right back, those are a lot more malleable.

As for the high court, true, but assuming the Dems get power in 2018 and depending on what kind of power they get...house, senate, or both, they may not be able to pack the court but they could protect their seats. That means having Ginsberg retire...then with Dems holding senate they can basically just do what McConnel did till 2020. It's risky, sure, or I guess they could just hold out hope that Ginsberg hangs on to 2020, then they can replace her with a younger liberal judge. Either way if they win back the Senate this year which isn't as likely as the house but still possible they can still win the long term game here.

Ginsberg is the problem seat right now. Kavanaugh is likely going to be confirmed, all this is theater, we just have to hope that Kavanaugh doesn't have the balls to against precedent. If he does, meaning overturning liberal wins, I imagine it's going to highly piss off people to an extent we haven't seen before. As I mentioned before, taking rights AWAY from people is something that's just difficult to do. As Democrats have discovered with the 2nd amendment. Giving rights to people is hard work, taking them away? That's even harder.

As of right now, I think even if (or basically when) Kavanaugh is confirmed, they aren't overturning Roe. I think Roberts will buckle under the weight of responsibility of it now being his court, his legacy, and someone is going to take the power of being the swing vote. At the end of the day, you're going to piss off a lot more people than you make happy when you overturn precedent and strip things away from people. Roberts is also a judge that is strong on precedent...so I guess we'll see. K

To me, the bigger question, and a question I hope we won't have to ask is... if Ginsberg, unfortunately, leaves her seat before 2018 would the Rs replace her with a conservative judge. I think that's the big question because I don't see how that benefits or represents the electorate at all and I think things would get ugly quickly. I think the GOP, given this scenario, would do themselves a lot of good towards moderates by nominating Garland at that point in time. Otherwise they look desperately greedy and seemingly willing to do whatever to force their ideals down people's throats. That never ends well.

 

Was that a copy/paste fail or is the DNC propaganda bot glitching?

As to Merrick Garland, it's not that he wasn't qualified, it's that he was too far left for a Republican controlled Senate to support. The president knew this and instead of compromising to get a justice on the bench like a talented politician would do, he stuck to his guy like an ideologue...and was not rewarded for it.

 

The Senate was well within in there right to wait till after the election to fill Scalia's vacancy. If the tables were turned you would have been perfectly happy with the outcome. As for the justices, yes they all have some political biases but their decisions are not affected by upcoming elections.

 

The issue here is that you said that and the majority of the country thought about it and decided that having the SCOTUS filled with what you call the "Far Right" (what others simply call the right), isn't a bad thing at all.

 

Not true. But continue...

 

lol, I did the same thing as you but on the other side. I hated Trump but I swallowed my hate and pushed many others to do the same specifically for the SCOTUS vacancy.

 

That's absolutely true, Trump carried 30 of 50 states, that's the majority of the country.....I know, you might think that it was more important that California was really, really against him, but you'll have to live with the fact that the national popular vote is irrelevant....just as it was always intended to be.

 

That's not true at all. Try again. By the way, I understand your reasons for voting for anyone, even trump, in the GOP column. I was speaking to a different group of people. They know who they are.

Oh, and JayGoogle? Ginsberg won't leave the SC unless she is dead. I would bet on it.

 

Do you understand what a majority is? More people voted for Democrats. Period. Stop lying to yourself as if the land itself has a vote, as the rules constituted, Trump won the election, fair and square. Unlike you, I'm willing to look facts in the face even if I don't like them. Now, type this out...

More. People. Voted. Democrat.
#Facts.

Lying to yourself isn't going to make more people vote R or make those that voted D go away.

Regardless, it's silly to act like ONE election represents the will of the people. That's why we have midterms, that's why we have terms period. So your main point on its face is just silly, that the people want a far right scotus hasn't been determined. Lets see if people want a far right Scotus when they come after LGBT rights and women's rights, lets see how much people want a far-right Scotus then.