Justice Kennedy Retiring

[wufan]

I honestly think the left is leaving a ton of support in the middle with no where to go. Not sure the GOP can get em to the polls.

[SB Shock]

I do think the liberal angst is a little too dramatic right now. I think Roberts has kind of shown he is willing to be the next Kennedy on the court.

[Aargh]

Elizabeth Warren is predicting that if Trump gets to appoint another SCOTUS, that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. In an odd twist of fate, that could be disastrous for the Republican party.

There are a lot of single-issue voters where abortion is the single issue. If that issue is removed from the Republican arsenal, those voters may look at other issues. Many of those voters are not affluent and may prefer some of the philosophies of the Democrat party when the reason they vote Republican is removed from the discussion.

[jdshock]

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.

Agreed on all fronts. I think it'd be interesting to know which of three scenarios would be best for the Republicans in the midterms:

1. Holding off entirely out of "principle" and trying to get voters to turn out like in 16.
2. Appointing an extreme conservative to energize the base.
3. Appointing a more moderate but conservative justice to try to win over the middle.

[Shocker1976]

Agreed on all fronts. I think it'd be interesting to know which of three scenarios would be best for the Republicans in the midterms:

1. Holding off entirely out of "principle" and trying to get voters to turn out like in 16.
2. Appointing an extreme conservative to energize the base.
3. Appointing a more moderate but conservative justice to try to win over the middle.

IMO the best scenario for the Republicans is to force those Democratic Senators running for re-election to cast their vote prior to the election. Following this strategy, if the Dems vote against the Trumpster's nominee Republicans would gain at least four seats in the Senate. McConnell could produce a 60 seat majority Republican Senate.

[jdshock]

I do think the liberal angst is a little too dramatic right now. I think Roberts has kind of shown he is willing to be the next Kennedy on the court.

Yeah, I'm not totally sold that the sky is falling. Kennedy was the "swing vote," but really only on a couple of issues. This is also just the way it is supposed to work. Justices are appointed for life and they can choose when to step down (or, alternatively, they die). The replacement process should be swift. The president should have to work at least at some level with the Senate to come up with a nominee that is somewhat tolerable to the majority party, and then they should get confirmed quickly.

Anything else is an attack on the separation of powers. It makes the process too political. This would be a total non-story for me if the Garland stuff hadn't happened.

[shockfan89_]

The best scenario is to confirm a replacement for Kennedy prior to the mid-terms, and then immediately after the elections have Thomas and Alito announce their retirements. That would give Trump 4 SCOTUS appointees in a 4 year Presidential term. Can you imagine the meltdown on the left?

Then if Trump gets re-elected, Roberts should retire in four years at 67 giving Trump his 5th SCOTUS appointee. That would be the definition of MAGA!

[jdshock]

The best scenario is to confirm a replacement for Kennedy prior to the mid-terms, and then immediately after the elections have Thomas and Alito announce their retirements. That would give Trump 4 SCOTUS appointees in a 4 year Presidential term. Can you imagine the meltdown on the left?

Then if Trump gets re-elected, Roberts should retire in four years at 67 giving Trump his 5th SCOTUS appointee. That would be the definition of MAGA!

And maybe all of the crazy libs on the court will die too, right? That's the REAL definition of MAGA! Or maybe just get rid of the Supreme Court all together and give Trump full decision making authority.

[wufan]

I almost feel like each party should nominate 10 justices they want on the bench, and then each party could throw out 5 nominees from the other party leaving 5 dem nominees and 5 rep nominees. The pres could then choose from the 10 candidates, but affirmation isn’t required. Of course the party in charge would pick the 10 most partisan candidates they could find. IDK, just thinking aloud.

[wufan]

I know I have biased blindness working here as I think that a constitutional originalist is a centrist view. While I’m wildly open to states doing whatever they want, I feel that the SCJ bench should only uphold the law as written to determine federal vs state and federal vs individual rights. Interpretation should be narrow.

[shockfan89_]

And maybe all of the crazy libs on the court will die too, right? That's the REAL definition of MAGA! Or maybe just get rid of the Supreme Court all together and give Trump full decision making authority.

If the crazy libs on the court would actually rule according to the law versus their own political agenda I would not have an issue with them. We don't need more activists judges like Obama gave us, we need more like Gorsuch that vote his conscious regardless of what the issue is.

[jdshock]

If the crazy libs on the court would actually rule according to the law versus their own political agenda I would not have an issue with them. We don't need more activists judges like Obama gave us, we need more like Gorsuch that vote his conscious regardless of what the issue is.

This line of reasoning is so asinine. And it's not just you. I've seen other posts on here the past few days that are like "these decisions have been so cerebral" or "I don't know how anyone could disagree with this." And it's just so absurd. Look, reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Every single one of the justices on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified and using logic in their decision making. What does it even mean to vote with a "conscious" on the Supreme Court if you also want them to "rule according to the law?" We don't want justices who vote with their conscience. When Westboro Baptist won 8-1, I think every single one of the 8 voted against their conscience.

There have been 30 opinions this month. Have you read them? Did you read even the 200+ pages from the travel ban, labor union, and pregnancy center cases? Each justice has presented a more thorough argument for their side than any of us could for the side we agree with.

[shockfan89_]

Actually I did misspeak when I said vote your conscious because that could easily be political or activist voting. What I meant to say is look at the rule of law and use their legal experience and logic.

Yes I did read all of the pages from the travel ban and labor union, but not the pregnancy case. I can understand the dissent on the labor union but the travel ban should have been 9-0. There were some statements that were very politically motivated. It was ridiculous, and politically motivated that this proclamation was even challenged by any court.

[Aargh]

Pretty much everybody sees their ideology as the absolute intent of the constitution. Whenever a court rules in a way that displeases them, they talk about activist judges, and how the judges need to follow the rule of law.

What's being said about the left-leaning activist judges could just as easily be said about the right-leaning conservative judges. It's as if some great politician somewhere went on a divide and conquer campaign, and by dividing the American people sought to conquer them and take over the country.

Undermining the authority of the courts and planting doubt in their decisions has been used repeatedly throughout history - often with incredibly negative results.

[wufan]

Pretty much everybody sees their ideology as the absolute intent of the constitution. Whenever a court rules in a way that displeases them, they talk about activist judges, and how the judges need to follow the rule of law.

What's being said about the left-leaning activist judges could just as easily be said about the right-leaning conservative judges. It's as if some great politician somewhere went on a divide and conquer campaign, and by dividing the American people sought to conquer them and take over the country.

Undermining the authority of the courts and planting doubt in their decisions has been used repeatedly throughout history - often with incredibly negative results.

Can you clarify what you mean by right-leaning conservative judges and how their decisions are similarly partisan to left-leaning judges?

[jdshock]

Can you clarify what you mean by right-leaning conservative judges and how their decisions are similarly partisan to left-leaning judges?

Like how Thomas is more of a conservative outlier from a truly "neutral" judge than any liberal in the last thirty years:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Love the Douglas trendline. You can almost pinpoint the day his Manchurian Candidate-esque activation occurred. What a Libtard.

"Judge Richard A. Posner, who was a law clerk at the Court during the latter part of Douglas's tenure, characterized him as "a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible" Supreme Court justice, as well as "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed" and so abusive in "treatment of his staff to the point where his law clerks—whom he described as 'the lowest form of human life'—took to calling him "shithead" behind his back."


T


...:cool:

[shockfan89_]

This graph appears to strengthen my point that, other than Thomas, whom I already stated should retire after mid-terms, the "Conservative" Justices are trending more towards zero and the "Liberal" Justices are trending more away from zero (i.e. activist).