Justice Kennedy retiring

RugerFan

Just read that U. S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring effective July 31.

Democrats are wanting the nomination process postponed until after the midterms.

Diver43

hate to say it, but the other side did the same thing not too long ago.  but, we shall see

Big Chief

If I understand it right all that is needed is 51 votes in the senate. Of course, the Dems are going ape-sheet with the idy of another conservative being appointed to SCOTUS.

So instead of 5/4 decisions we should see 6/3, mostly. Never know sometimes an unexpected decision comes down. 

Shame you can almost predict a lot of their rulings based on their left or right leanings. How about on the constitution, whatever happened to that? 

tennmike

Liberal heads are exploding all over  D.C. and the country at large. And rumor has it that Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be retiring next year. If that happens, the Liberals will all go frothing at the mouth crazy.

Big Chief

The Dems want it put off until after the midterms.............funny Dianne F. said just the opposite when her boy Obammy was POTUS, but that was shut down by the senate. 

earlyagain

The court supreme.

The all encompassing black curtain of enlightenment.

🌚

tennmike

Supposedly, the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to make their decisions based on the Constitution taking into account original intent  instead of political ideology or making law on the fly. That got thrown out in the early 1800s and has deteriorated since to the mess we have now.

CaliFFL

It won't matter who's selected,  Heller, Kelo, Caballes, FISA, Salinas, ACA...clear evidence the Constitution doesn't matter when the black robes are in session. 

One may argue for the Heller ruling, but it has become the benchmark for "reasonable restrictions". 

bisley

Mitch McConnell is going to catch hell in the press over this. He refused to bring confirmation hearings before the Senate until after the election, in 2016, and he will most certainly rush the next confirmation hearing up to get it done before the mid-term election. He can be pinned, legitimately, as being hypocritical for that, but it is exactly what Republicans will expect him to do...myself included.

Why? Because....Harry Reid. Harry Reid used to table every bill that came to his desk that was passed by the Republican House, never allowing discussion or vote in the Senate. He also invoked the nuclear option to insure confirmation of 'radioactive' leftist nominees to become federal judges, for the purpose of legislating from the bench on  numerous 'laws' that could never pass through Congress. There is also the fact that Democrats used every dirty trick in the book to control federal judge appointments, including smear campaigns against some very honorable people submitted by Republicans.

So, I am perfectly content for Democrats to call Mitch McConnell a chicken****, as long as we get another 'originalist' Supreme. Besides, he is used to it, from his own constituents.

DanChamberlain

In all fairness, the reason for the delay in the last election was the question of "who" should get to select the next justice, not who would sit in an advise and consent role. The President gets to select the justice, not the "people." The role of congress is to represent the people. No reason to delay the President's choice. 

bisley

DanChamberlain said:

In all fairness, the reason for the delay in the last election was the question of "who" should get to select the next justice, not who would sit in an advise and consent role. The President gets to select the justice, not the "people." The role of congress is to represent the people. No reason to delay the President's choice. 

Obama made his choice, but McConnell prevented the Senate from confirming him, by not allowing it to come before the Senate for confirmation. That is exactly what Republicans expected him to do, and exactly what Harry Reid would have done, had circumstances been reversed. But McConnell, instead of simply admitting that he was doing it because he didn't like the nominee and he had the power to keep him out, he made an excuse about not bringing it up in an election year, just as Democrats had done, previously.

Now, Democrats will call him a hypocrite for doing exactly the opposite of what he said two years ago, and they aren't wrong. Of course, that's exactly what I want him to do, because it benefits the future of the country, in my opinion. It's better for him to be called a hypocrite than it is for the whole country to lose a chance to save the court from radical leftists.

Big Chief

This is a mid-term election year, not a POTUS election year like when McConnell didn't allow a SCOTUS nominee to proceed.

The Dems would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

I think Trump will pick a younger nominee from the list that will have 20-30+ years on the court to serve.

sgtrock21

tennmike said:

Liberal heads are exploding all over  D.C. and the country at large. And rumor has it that Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be retiring next year. If that happens, the Liberals will all go frothing at the mouth crazy.

The Liberals have been frothing at the mouth crazy since 09 November 2016. Many still believe Hillary actually won with the questionable popular vote. Of course they are going to believe "Chuckie's" lie concerning this being an "election year".

Teach

McConnell IS a hypocrite- - - - -this is just one of those exceedingly rare occasions that his hypocricy benefits "us", not "them".  He's a RINO with a long record of being a beltway insider who gets far too cozy with others of his ilk and only does the "right thing" when it benefits him and his cronies.  Just because a career politician panders to the right wing on occasion doesn't make him/her some sort of white knight the rest of the time. 

Big Chief

Some are worried that Roe v Wade will be reversed, I doubt it even though they did reverse one of their decisions on unions the other day after 40 years or so. 

earlyagain

Ha, I thought I was the only one that thought DC outhouses should be stocked with McConnell graphic TP.🚽

Diver43

bisley said:

DanChamberlain said:

In all fairness, the reason for the delay in the last election was the question of "who" should get to select the next justice, not who would sit in an advise and consent role. The President gets to select the justice, not the "people." The role of congress is to represent the people. No reason to delay the President's choice. 

Obama made his choice, but McConnell prevented the Senate from confirming him, by not allowing it to come before the Senate for confirmation. That is exactly what Republicans expected him to do, and exactly what Harry Reid would have done, had circumstances been reversed. But McConnell, instead of simply admitting that he was doing it because he didn't like the nominee and he had the power to keep him out, he made an excuse about not bringing it up in an election year, just as Democrats had done, previously.

Now, Democrats will call him a hypocrite for doing exactly the opposite of what he said two years ago, and they aren't wrong. Of course, that's exactly what I want him to do, because it benefits the future of the country, in my opinion. It's better for him to be called a hypocrite than it is for the whole country to lose a chance to save the court from radical leftists.

Yes they would be wrong.  McConnell held off for a Presidential election, not mid term, big difference

NCFUBAR

A very ironic twist here ... all these liberals are screaming about Roe vs Wade (not a Constitutional Right on which the USA was built) but when conservatives start speaking of protecting the 2nd Amendment they cry for the Supreme Court to be bias to removing one of the oldest Constitutional Rights (going on 227 years) granted in the building the USA. Seems they think it’s Burger Kong and they they can have it only their way ... 

bisley

Diver43 said:

bisley said:

DanChamberlain said:

In all fairness, the reason for the delay in the last election was the question of "who" should get to select the next justice, not who would sit in an advise and consent role. The President gets to select the justice, not the "people." The role of congress is to represent the people. No reason to delay the President's choice. 

Obama made his choice, but McConnell prevented the Senate from confirming him, by not allowing it to come before the Senate for confirmation. That is exactly what Republicans expected him to do, and exactly what Harry Reid would have done, had circumstances been reversed. But McConnell, instead of simply admitting that he was doing it because he didn't like the nominee and he had the power to keep him out, he made an excuse about not bringing it up in an election year, just as Democrats had done, previously.

Now, Democrats will call him a hypocrite for doing exactly the opposite of what he said two years ago, and they aren't wrong. Of course, that's exactly what I want him to do, because it benefits the future of the country, in my opinion. It's better for him to be called a hypocrite than it is for the whole country to lose a chance to save the court from radical leftists.

Yes they would be wrong.  McConnell held off for a Presidential election, not mid term, big difference

I'm just pointing out that McConnell left himself wide open for such attacks, which by the way, have begun since I originally posted about it. When they assemble and play the videos, nobody will notice the distinction.

Make_My_Day

NCFUBAR said:

A very ironic twist here ... all these liberals are screaming about Roe vs Wade (not a Constitutional Right on which the USA was built) but when conservatives start speaking of protecting the 2nd Amendment they cry for the Supreme Court to be bias to removing one of the oldest Constitutional Rights (going on 227 years) granted in the building the USA. Seems they think it’s Burger Kong and they they can have it only their way ... 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....Demonrats are pathologically lying hypocrites. They don't have a winning message (Marxism), so they have to lie and be hypocritical about the rest. It works to flim-flam their voters.

tennmike

U.S. Supreme Court Justices 'are supposed to be apolitical' and rule only on the basis of the Constitution and with due deference to the original intent contained in the contained in the intent of the framers of the Constitution. This 'Conservative or Liberal Justice' B.S. started a LONG time ago with certain Presidents appointing activist judges who showed deference to the President's political leanings. All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but Presidents just have the limited power to finagle the court with a justice or two at a time, with Democrat Presidents appointing activist judges that erroneously think, like Al Gore that the Constitution means what they THINK it means, instead of what it actually says. And Congress has, as usual, abdicated their power to control what the Supreme Court cases the Court can rule on. 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was famous, or infamous depending on how you look at it, for trying to stack the deck in his favor by having 15 SCOTUS Justices in 1937. Typical Democrat tactic, but he WAS enamored with Unca Joe Stalin's ability to wield power without consequence in his country.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Lincoln also pulled some shenanigans on the U.S. Supreme Court when they didn't do as he demanded.

earlyagain

There are two kinds of POTUS. One's that try to influence the supreme court and one's that want to.

RugerFan

I just read a tweet claiming there is a NYT article linking Kennedy, and.others to Russia, Trump and $$ is involved. This is the 1st I've heard of this. Of course, you have to consider the source. It was not from a mainstream source.