Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Kennedy Retiring

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justice Kennedy Retiring

    Bet the democrats are kicking themselves everyday for taking the Senate nuclear.

    Hopefully Trunp will get another good textualist on the court.

  • #2
    Originally posted by SB Shock View Post
    Bet the democrats are kicking themselves everyday for taking the Senate nuclear.
    It's silly to think it wouldn't have happened regardless of whether the Democrats first used the nuclear option in non-Supreme Court nominations.

    Democrats are probably kicking themselves over a lot of things right now. I don't think using the nuclear option on lower level nominations is one of them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jdshock View Post

      It's silly to think it wouldn't have happened regardless of whether the Democrats first used the nuclear option in non-Supreme Court nominations.

      Democrats are probably kicking themselves over a lot of things right now. I don't think using the nuclear option on lower level nominations is one of them.
      Actually I think it silly to think the Republicans would have had the balls to change the long standing senate rules. Thank you Harry Reid.

      Now add in the left harassing McConnel and his wife should give him some backbone. Karma!

      Comment


      • #4
        The Left are losing their minds that Trump gets to appoint his second SCOTUS member and not Hilary, or whatever other puppet they would have had in the WH.

        If Trump makes a right decision here, and he picks two good SCOTUS members during these 4 years, then that will go a long way to marking a fairly successful first (and maybe only) term.
        Last edited by Shock Top; June 27th, 2018, 03:39 PM. Reason: Grammar is fun!
        President - Change the Name to “University of Wichita” Alumni Group

        Comment


        • #5
          Preliminary list of SCOTUS Candidates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Now that he's been through one, hopefully this one goes more smoothly. I haven't vetted any on that list but I knew of Margaret Ryan. On the surface, it would almost seem like a dare to Dems to not allow her confirmation. Served in the Gulf war, decorated Marine, unanimous Appeals Court confirmation, another female on the bench. Those are things most Americans are going to find appealing.

            Comment


            • ShockingButTrue
              ShockingButTrue commented
              Editing a comment
              Yep. They hate conservative women almost as much as they hate white men, or so it seems. Hell, lately they hate even white liberal men. Just ask Chuck Schumer.

            • Shock Top
              Shock Top commented
              Editing a comment
              We want freedom and empowerment for ALL women*!!

              * = provided they: think, speak, and act they way we think they should!

            • SHOCKvalue
              SHOCKvalue commented
              Editing a comment
              It is head-scratching how leftist women think all women are leftists.

              The political breakdown of the sexes has been (more or less) 45%R/55%D for women, and the opposite for men, for a long, long time. That’s a hell of a long ways from a clear majority.

          • #7
            Kennedy was the back-up after Bork was not confirmed. Senate Democrats specifically warned Reagan that they would fight a Bork nomination. Bork ultimately wasn't confirmed, and Kennedy was nominated. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed because Senate Democrats recognized that he was a more moderate conservative and Reagan had offered them some concession.

            Fast forward to 2016. Folks like Orrin Hatch were predicting Obama was going to nominate someone very liberal, and asked that he instead name someone like "Merrick Garland, who is a fine man." Garland gets nominated, and the Senate refused to even hold hearings on the matter.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by jdshock View Post
              Kennedy was the back-up after Bork was not confirmed. Senate Democrats specifically warned Reagan that they would fight a Bork nomination. Bork ultimately wasn't confirmed, and Kennedy was nominated. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed because Senate Democrats recognized that he was a more moderate conservative and Reagan had offered them some concession.
              Actually, after the Democrats voted down Bork, Reagan announced his intention to nominate Douglas Ginsburg who Reagan had just nominated with Senate approval several years before to the Bork nomination. The left wing media went after him too when Nina Totenberg from NPR reported that he had smoked marijuana earlier in his life. Thus, the ensuing nomination was scuttled too and finally Kennedy was a successful try.

              I might add that Bork's views probably were the same as other constitutional strict constructionists but he didn't hide anything. He was very upfront and brutally honest on how he felt about sensitive topics and the left used it against him. Since then, when SCOTUS candidates go before the Senate, they are very careful about how they share their views. Their writings and past decisions are on display but they talk about their decisions with discretion and tact, and rarely add facts that will hurt their chances. Bork's personality may not have been capable of being tactful.
              Last edited by Shockm; June 28th, 2018, 08:57 AM.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by jdshock View Post
                Kennedy was the back-up after Bork was not confirmed. Senate Democrats specifically warned Reagan that they would fight a Bork nomination. Bork ultimately wasn't confirmed, and Kennedy was nominated. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed because Senate Democrats recognized that he was a more moderate conservative and Reagan had offered them some concession.

                Fast forward to 2016. Folks like Orrin Hatch were predicting Obama was going to nominate someone very liberal, and asked that he instead name someone like "Merrick Garland, who is a fine man." Garland gets nominated, and the Senate refused to even hold hearings on the matter.
                The total inability to negotiate or take part in give-and-take has fully infected both sides at this point. It started under Obama, and has now swung the other direction. Both sides are just out to “get theirs”, because that’s the only way the system works right now.
                There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
                - Ernest Hemingway

                Comment


                • #10
                  Will a SCOTUS nominee be able to be confirmed in an election year? There is precedent that the nomination should wait until after the elections.
                  The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
                  We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.

                  Comment


                  • shockfan89_
                    shockfan89_ commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Elena Kagan was confirmed on August 5, 2010. Same timeframe as this is, right before the mid-terms. I think that would be the precedent to follow.

                • #11
                  Originally posted by Aargh View Post
                  Will a SCOTUS nominee be able to be confirmed in an election year? There is precedent that the nomination should wait until after the elections.
                  You must be talking about the Joe Biden rule. However, that was brought up during a Presidential election.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by Shockm View Post

                    You must be talking about the Joe Biden rule. However, that was brought up during a Presidential election.
                    Man, McConnell really sold you on the idea that he didn't single-handedly orchestrate holding the government hostage. Let's be clear on a couple of things:
                    1. The "Biden Rule" never mattered because there was no vacancy. There was no appointment. There was nothing.
                    2. We have literally no idea if the Dems would've done anything had there been a vacancy. For all we know, the other Democrats could've been willing to hold hearings.
                    3. Biden specifically said "President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." As in... saying Bush could and should nominate someone following the election.
                    What the Republicans did is truly incredible. They held open the seat for a year to A. make sure they didn't lose a majority on the court, and B. encourage voters to get out and vote. And they had absolutely no political backlash for it. It completely paid off. Take credit for it. Be proud of the Republican masterminds. Don't pawn this off on something Biden said back in '92.

                    Comment


                    • shockfan89_
                      shockfan89_ commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Elections have consequences. The reason the Republicans had the Senate was because the people wanted to make sure Obama didn't continue unchecked like he was between 2008 and 2010 when we had ObamaCare forced through with not one Republican vote. Sounds like Democrats did this to themselves.

                      In hindsight it was the correct decision. The people again rebuked Obama and selected Trump as President which was the entire reason for waiting and allowing the new President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

                      Now if Ginsburg retires in the last year of the Trump Presidency and the Republicans move forward with an appointment, and a vote, I will agree with you 100% that is hypocrisy.

                    • jdshock
                      jdshock commented
                      Editing a comment
                      shockfan89_ - you on the other hand have apparently been caught hook, line, and sinker by the Orrin Hatch school of thought which said this was the "chickens coming home to roost" for the Senate Democrats. Obviously, I am more partial to McConnell's claim, which feels a lot more like a "the murder weapon was a knife made of ice" type of scheme. It was well-thought out, great political strategy. As opposed to Hatch's old faithful "well, they had it coming!"

                  • #13
                    McConnel and the republicans could have just Borked any nominee of Obama's until the election.

                    Either way, they had the power given to them to do whatever they wanted.

                    If the roles were reversed, it would have played out exactly the same. If Dems had all 3 branches, they would push through a nominee as soon as possible, and repubs would ***** and moan too.

                    Crying hypocrisy on either side is stupid. Its politics. Its ugly. Its what it is.

                    I will agree. McConnell had an inside straight draw, and hit when Trump won. But with control of the Senate, I think he was playing with the large chip stack.
                    "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!

                    Comment


                    • jdshock
                      jdshock commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Or they could've asked for a specific, moderate to be nominated and then confirmed him when he was nominated.

                    • Shockm
                      Shockm commented
                      Editing a comment
                      The Democrats did that when they held the Senate majority? When? I do remember that Harry Reid did away with the filibuster for court nominees when they were in the majority. Let's see..... The Democrats were the first one to Bork a SCOTUS candidate and the first party to do away with the long held filibuster rule.. You are wrong if you are saying that they Democrats are reasonable.

                  • #14
                    Who will Putin select?
                    The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month.
                    FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      Does it really even matter right now? Even if the desired by many blue wave returns (maybe 50-50?) what's the chance the Dems take the Senate this go around?

                      Basically zilch. The GOP has 42 seats not contested. Romney will win in Utah, Barrasso in Wyoming and Wicker in Mississippi or I'll eat my shoe. Cruz in Texas and Fischer in Nebraska would be heavily favored. The Tennessee seat is a tough one but also leans GOP. Even only 2 of those 3 gets them to 48.

                      The Dems would have to pick off one of those and then win 6 of 7 of Florida, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, Arizona, North Dakota and Missouri. All while not losing left leaning Wisconsin, Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

                      It's more likely that the GOP gets to a super majority of 60, I think, than losing the Senate. Maybe the GOP should just hold off anyway and look good in the end. The right has a real chance to lead and bring at least the middle together right now. Mind you, I don't think they have the willpower, discipline or guts to, but clearly they should. They won't, but they should.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X