SCOTUS Kennedy

[SB Shock]

There is a buzz that Justice Kennedy will be announcing his retirement on Monday.

[SB Shock]

Evidently Kennedy has a sense of humor. At his law clerk reunion on Saturday night with about 200 in attendance Kennedy said:

Justice Kennedy said he had a final announcement to make, addressing an issue of untold speculation. To the relief of the law clerks, who typically share a lifelong bond with the justice they served, Justice Kennedy, 80 years old, declared: The bar would be open downstairs.

[Play Angry]

This would be a fascinating appointment - will Trump go for another reliable conservative like Gorsuch and stomach a more difficult confirmation (guaranteed nuclear option, likely a very narrow approval majority) or appoint a right-leaning moderate to act as a continuation of the swing vote (easier hearings, possibly still nuclear option)?

I hope the former and I actually think that will be the case given his proclivity for conflict, but it probably depends on what other legislation and requests are on the table at the moment.

[WuDrWu]

I don't want to turn our society into a modern day Logan's Run, but like so many things that have changed drastically since inception, is anyone else at all concerned about 80+ year old justices still being capable of being and staying engaged at the Court's highest level?

I realize it's a terribly small subset, but nobody has dementia, early onset Parkinson's or Alzheimer's?

I also realize my current state gives me perhaps a brutal view of those in an advanced age, but I've seen people hide it. It would come as no surprise if that's why Scalia and Ginsburg were so close. And if anyone says that's why they have clerks, well the Senate doesn't vet the clerks.

Just a thought.

[WuDrWu]

This would be a fascinating appointment - will Trump go for another reliable conservative like Gorsuch and stomach a more difficult confirmation (guaranteed nuclear option, likely a very narrow approval majority) or appoint a right-leaning moderate to act as a continuation of the swing vote (easier hearings, possibly still nuclear option)?

I hope the former and I actually think that will be the case given his proclivity for conflict, but it probably depends on what other legislation and requests are on the table at the moment.

Thanks, and I agree. Gorsuch was a simple nominee compared to replacing Kennedy or even more so, Ginsburg. Talk about a fight there.

[ShockingButTrue]

This would be a fascinating appointment - will Trump go for another reliable conservative like Gorsuch and stomach a more difficult confirmation (guaranteed nuclear option, likely a very narrow approval majority) or appoint a right-leaning moderate to act as a continuation of the swing vote (easier hearings, possibly still nuclear option)?

I hope the former and I actually think that will be the case given his proclivity for conflict, but it probably depends on what other legislation and requests are on the table at the moment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/president-elect-donald-trump-supreme-court-list

He submitted a pretty comprehensive list last fall don't you think? I don't think conflict has anything to do with it. He's a little smarter than that.

But then again your posts on this board have proven your broad capacity for projecting articulate delusion/s. It's pretty ugly to watch. You have my sympathy... Just don't go crying to the mods ok?

[Play Angry]

Yep, looks like full tilt has been achieved.

[CBB_Fan]

This would be a fascinating appointment - will Trump go for another reliable conservative like Gorsuch and stomach a more difficult confirmation (guaranteed nuclear option, likely a very narrow approval majority) or appoint a right-leaning moderate to act as a continuation of the swing vote (easier hearings, possibly still nuclear option)?

I hope the former and I actually think that will be the case given his proclivity for conflict, but it probably depends on what other legislation and requests are on the table at the moment.

Trump could appoint a Shockernet poster if he wanted. Regardless of his pick, it will pass via the nuclear option. Trump doesn't really care much about the Court, so I'd assume Bannon and Pence will get their pick.

[Play Angry]

Look like SCOTUS will hear the appeals on both the Trump travel ban and the Colorado wedding cake case this session. I thought they'd punt on both of these - there will be a lot of showmanship during those hearings.

[SB Shock]

Look like SCOTUS will hear the appeals on both the Trump travel ban and the Colorado wedding cake case this session. I thought they'd punt on both of these - there will be a lot of showmanship during those hearings.

I'm not surprised supreme court ruling to allow the travel limitations to go forward.

The Trump administration said the 90-day ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

But since a lot of time has passed why have they not just put in the screening process that is needed to properly vet?

[jdshock]

I don't want to turn our society into a modern day Logan's Run, but like so many things that have changed drastically since inception, is anyone else at all concerned about 80+ year old justices still being capable of being and staying engaged at the Court's highest level?

I realize it's a terribly small subset, but nobody has dementia, early onset Parkinson's or Alzheimer's?

I also realize my current state gives me perhaps a brutal view of those in an advanced age, but I've seen people hide it. It would come as no surprise if that's why Scalia and Ginsburg were so close. And if anyone says that's why they have clerks, well the Senate doesn't vet the clerks.

Just a thought.

How many professions can you name in which the pinnacle/the absolute most prestigious positions are occupied by people in their 70s? I think there are probably some CEO type positions like that. Maybe priests? Academia? I don't know. There aren't that many. It's a reasonable belief.

This is a great article that came out after Scalia's passing: https://www.theatlantic.com/business...rpness/470175/ It's worth a read. The best part is it talks about the case where the Supreme Court upheld age limits for state level judges.

[Dave Stalwart]

I just really wish somehow there could have been a word starting with an "R" after "Supreme Court" and before "of the United States"

This is my contribution to the politics forum.

EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently, it is already a thing. It's moments like these when I'm proud of the internet.

[ShockCrazy]

I don't want to turn our society into a modern day Logan's Run, but like so many things that have changed drastically since inception, is anyone else at all concerned about 80+ year old justices still being capable of being and staying engaged at the Court's highest level?

I realize it's a terribly small subset, but nobody has dementia, early onset Parkinson's or Alzheimer's?

I also realize my current state gives me perhaps a brutal view of those in an advanced age, but I've seen people hide it. It would come as no surprise if that's why Scalia and Ginsburg were so close. And if anyone says that's why they have clerks, well the Senate doesn't vet the clerks.

Just a thought.

I definitely have concerns about them making rulings regarding net neutrality and encryption. These are technically complex issues with many implications, and can truly shape our modern world. Hell I'm not sure there are many judges I trust on ruling on these type of issues, but I certainly don't trust those who probably don't understand the ins and outs of the internet and how the passage of data works. I think the world certainly can pass people and their understanding by. I view myself as a knowledgeable millennial with regards to technology and development, but I'm no under no illusions that even with my desire to stay up to date going forward, there WILL be a time when I am not in touch with modern technology and society.