Justice Kennedy to retire

[Doc]

let the fun begin

[badrose]

I trust we'll get another good one, preferably one that can stick around awhile.

[KeithKSR]

I expect another nominee in the Neal Gorsuch mold.

[suncat05]

When is Ginsburg going? THAT is the one that needs to retire.
Today. As in now. Already.

[Doc]

when do we start THANKING Dirty Harry Reid for changing the rule to allow a simple majority for confirmation?

[badrose]

When is Ginsburg going? THAT is the one that needs to retire.
Today. As in now. Already.

She's 84 yrs old.

[CitizenBBN]

When is Ginsburg going? THAT is the one that needs to retire.
Today. As in now. Already.

I'll take any of her, Sotomoyer or Breyer but obviously Ginsberg at 85 or Breyer at 79 are the obvious choices. Ginsberg is also being a bit more erratic, making more than one public comment on more pure political issues, which is not unheard of but uncommon.

[CitizenBBN]

And, as we all know, this is a huge reason why Trump won. I know a ton of GOP voters who despise Trump but pulled the lever for him b/c the idea of Hillary picking at a minimum 1, and maybe even 2 or even 3 justices was even more unpalatable.

Had Hillary won you'd have her filling Gorsuch's spot, but Ginsberg would likely have retired to let Hillary pick her spot, and Kennedy has been on retirement watch for some time.

And Trump did well with the Gorsuch pick. He's a qualified jurist, and conservative but not radical or irresponsible. I think he was well advised and made a mature selection. I hope he repeats that accomplishment.

Preferably with someone more socially liberal and economically conservative, but we'll see.

[UKHistory]

While garland should have been allowed to proceed and was a miscarriage of the constitutions intent, Gorsuch is a qualified judge that is worthy of the slot.

I’d be shocked to see a socially liberal fiscally conservative judge appointed. Social conservative issues played a huge role in the last election.

Ginsberg has a documentary about her life out in theatres. Heard it was good. She was closest to Scalia of all the other justices.

[KeithKSR]

While garland should have been allowed to proceed and was a miscarriage of the constitutions intent, Gorsuch is a qualified judge that is worthy of the slot.

I’d be shocked to see a socially liberal fiscally conservative judge appointed. Social conservative issues played a huge role in the last election.

The Garland nomination is an example of the DNC pulling something that ultimately bites them in the butt. McConnell applied the Biden Rule, which Biden and Senate Dems applied in 1992 to block George H. W. Bush's court nominees until after the election, Clinton ultimately made the appointments in '93.

Harry Reid and Senate Dems eliminated judicial filibusters when they controlled the Senate, making a filibuster of Trump's nominees now impossible.

I fully expect a Gorsuch type nominee that will drive the left nuts, and they will be unable to stop the process.

[KeithKSR]

And, as we all know, this is a huge reason why Trump won. I know a ton of GOP voters who despise Trump but pulled the lever for him b/c the idea of Hillary picking at a minimum 1, and maybe even 2 or even 3 justices was even more unpalatable.

Had Hillary won you'd have her filling Gorsuch's spot, but Ginsberg would likely have retired to let Hillary pick her spot, and Kennedy has been on retirement watch for some time.

SCOTUS selection is one of my primary voting issues, along with the Second Amendment views of a candidate.

[Doc]

The Garland nomination is an example of the DNC pulling something that ultimately bites them in the butt. McConnell applied the Biden Rule, which Biden and Senate Dems applied in 1992 to block George H. W. Bush's court nominees until after the election, Clinton ultimately made the appointments in '93.

Harry Reid and Senate Dems eliminated judicial filibusters when they controlled the Senate, making a filibuster of Trump's nominees now impossible.

I fully expect a Gorsuch type nominee that will drive the left nuts, and they will be unable to stop the process.

Yep, I was against a lot of Harry's shinnanagan's but not because they were to the democrat's benefit at the time. I knew it would change how things were done in the future. To be honest, it should have been EVERYBODY, and especially Dem's who were against them but their shortsightedness blinded them.

And I am fascinated at how this is now the "McConnell Rule" that the Democrat's keep refering to when it was ORIGINALLY suggested and used by the democrats to block (or rather slow) Bush's nominations.

[CitizenBBN]

While garland should have been allowed to proceed and was a miscarriage of the constitutions intent,

I don't want to be argumentative and pick disagreements with you, but I have to disagree with this premise. Not b/c it bothers me but b/c IMO the way SCOTUS and our entire judiciary is organized re the Constitution is very interesting.

First, it's not clear the Founders gave the courts much thought at all. It barely establishes the SCOTUS, and it certainly didn't give SCOTUS the power it holds now to rule the other two branch's actions as "unconstitutional" and everyone just goes along and does what they say.

And IMO, beyond the fact the Founders really didn't give it much priority, I think they'd be fine with what happened. Here's why:

1) The Founders always expected the Senate to make its own rules. They wrote the constitution with the Senate really writing its own rules, which they did. They always saw it as up to the senate, which is why so little of it is in the Constitution. All the rules on judicial approval are made by the senate itself, none of it is in the document. All it says is with "advice and consent." The Founders expected the Senate to work this out on its own, and they do and did.

2) The democrats (small d) in the Founder's group would love this outcome. Clearly the SCOTUS pick was a big deal politically, so what happened? In the end, they put the vote on that justice to The People. Polls indicate 18% of Hillary voters and 26% of Trump voters had that their #1 reason. It was played up by both sides very strong as a reason to vote, and the people went to the polls and voted.

in the end whoever won the election was going to make that pick, and The People knew it. Jefferson would love that outcome.

3) This is a classic checks and balances. The Senate has power, the President has power, and it's supposed to be messy and political and even manipulative. Look at the history of the actions of those same Founders when they assumed these offices. It's how the balance is supposed to work, and as with #2, in the end it worked brilliantly b/c the issue ended up in front of the people.

There's nothing the Senate did that is even close to "unConstitutional" or even somehow undermining the intent of the Constitution. The Founders fully expected the Senate to make its own rules as to how Justices are "consented", and it fully expected these battles royale between the two elected branches.

In the end we got democracy. The people voted, the outcome was decided at the polls, and we moved on. Had my side lost I wouldn't like the outcome one tiny bit, and I'd grieve for a nation all but lost in some ways, but it wasn't contrary to the Constitution that it played out to make it an election issue. Jeffersonians would be delighted.

[KeithKSR]

I don't want to be argumentative and pick disagreements with you, but I have to disagree with this premise. Not b/c it bothers me but b/c IMO the way SCOTUS and our entire judiciary is organized re the Constitution is very interesting.

First, it's not clear the Founders gave the courts much thought at all. It barely establishes the SCOTUS, and it certainly didn't give SCOTUS the power it holds now to rule the other two branch's actions as "unconstitutional" and everyone just goes along and does what they say.

And IMO, beyond the fact the Founders really didn't give it much priority, I think they'd be fine with what happened. Here's why:

1) The Founders always expected the Senate to make its own rules. They wrote the constitution with the Senate really writing its own rules, which they did. They always saw it as up to the senate, which is why so little of it is in the Constitution. All the rules on judicial approval are made by the senate itself, none of it is in the document. All it says is with "advice and consent." The Founders expected the Senate to work this out on its own, and they do and did.

2) The democrats (small d) in the Founder's group would love this outcome. Clearly the SCOTUS pick was a big deal politically, so what happened? In the end, they put the vote on that justice to The People. Polls indicate 18% of Hillary voters and 26% of Trump voters had that their #1 reason. It was played up by both sides very strong as a reason to vote, and the people went to the polls and voted.

in the end whoever won the election was going to make that pick, and The People knew it. Jefferson would love that outcome.

3) This is a classic checks and balances. The Senate has power, the President has power, and it's supposed to be messy and political and even manipulative. Look at the history of the actions of those same Founders when they assumed these offices. It's how the balance is supposed to work, and as with #2, in the end it worked brilliantly b/c the issue ended up in front of the people.

There's nothing the Senate did that is even close to "unConstitutional" or even somehow undermining the intent of the Constitution. The Founders fully expected the Senate to make its own rules as to how Justices are "consented", and it fully expected these battles royale between the two elected branches.

In the end we got democracy. The people voted, the outcome was decided at the polls, and we moved on. Had my side lost I wouldn't like the outcome one tiny bit, and I'd grieve for a nation all but lost in some ways, but it wasn't contrary to the Constitution that it played out to make it an election issue. Jeffersonians would be delighted.

I chuckle every time someone complains about Washington gridlock. Our Founding Fathers didn’t want the passage of laws to be too simple. They wanted it to be difficult and messy as part of their intent to place checks and balances on the power of any single branch of government.

[bigsky]

SCOTUS selection is one of my primary voting issues, along with the Second Amendment views of a candidate.

Two big issues where the D’s constantly fail. Country could not survive three Sotomayer (sp?) types on the SC.

[KeithKSR]

Two big issues where the D’s constantly fail. Country could not survive three Sotomayer (sp?) types on the SC.

I continue to be amazed at the distance her opinions and those of Kagan stray from the Constitution.

[UKHistory]

I don't want to be argumentative and pick disagreements with you, but I have to disagree with this premise. Not b/c it bothers me but b/c IMO the way SCOTUS and our entire judiciary is organized re the Constitution is very interesting.

First, it's not clear the Founders gave the courts much thought at all. It barely establishes the SCOTUS, and it certainly didn't give SCOTUS the power it holds now to rule the other two branch's actions as "unconstitutional" and everyone just goes along and does what they say.

And IMO, beyond the fact the Founders really didn't give it much priority, I think they'd be fine with what happened. Here's why:

1) The Founders always expected the Senate to make its own rules. They wrote the constitution with the Senate really writing its own rules, which they did. They always saw it as up to the senate, which is why so little of it is in the Constitution. All the rules on judicial approval are made by the senate itself, none of it is in the document. All it says is with "advice and consent." The Founders expected the Senate to work this out on its own, and they do and did.

2) The democrats (small d) in the Founder's group would love this outcome. Clearly the SCOTUS pick was a big deal politically, so what happened? In the end, they put the vote on that justice to The People. Polls indicate 18% of Hillary voters and 26% of Trump voters had that their #1 reason. It was played up by both sides very strong as a reason to vote, and the people went to the polls and voted.

in the end whoever won the election was going to make that pick, and The People knew it. Jefferson would love that outcome.

3) This is a classic checks and balances. The Senate has power, the President has power, and it's supposed to be messy and political and even manipulative. Look at the history of the actions of those same Founders when they assumed these offices. It's how the balance is supposed to work, and as with #2, in the end it worked brilliantly b/c the issue ended up in front of the people.

There's nothing the Senate did that is even close to "unConstitutional" or even somehow undermining the intent of the Constitution. The Founders fully expected the Senate to make its own rules as to how Justices are "consented", and it fully expected these battles royale between the two elected branches.

In the end we got democracy. The people voted, the outcome was decided at the polls, and we moved on. Had my side lost I wouldn't like the outcome one tiny bit, and I'd grieve for a nation all but lost in some ways, but it wasn't contrary to the Constitution that it played out to make it an election issue. Jeffersonians would be delighted.

Citizen,

You are good. My thinking is that if the president has a position to fill like a justice, then the senate should work with that president to fill the slot in a timely fashion. It should not be held up because of a an election an swearing in.

We can point to Reid, Biden or Mitch for manipulating the system for a given party’s benefit. In times of crisis like a vacancy on the high court, I want Americans to come together.

And while we know my position on the president, I would say the same if a trump was in position to replace a justice in 2020. Whatever else trump does, his mark on the court will be profound.

Chief Justice Roberts referenced the presidency over a single president crafting his decision on the travel ban case.

The rationale to protect the presidency over the given position of anyone commander in chief is the basis of my argument.

[Doc]

The Garland nomination is an example of the DNC pulling something that ultimately bites them in the butt. McConnell applied the Biden Rule, which Biden and Senate Dems applied in 1992 to block George H. W. Bush's court nominees until after the election, Clinton ultimately made the appointments in '93.

Harry Reid and Senate Dems eliminated judicial filibusters when they controlled the Senate, making a filibuster of Trump's nominees now impossible.

I fully expect a Gorsuch type nominee that will drive the left nuts, and they will be unable to stop the process.

Blame Obama and Reid, not McConnell. I blame Mitch for lots of things. One of my least favorite politicans, and definately bottom of the Republican list, but Garland's deni was the a result of the LEFT changing the rules and getting burned by it it. Cant shame the GOP for using the rules he left created to do what they wanted. Here is a nice article on the Obama and Reid responsibility

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-to-blame.html

[CitizenBBN]

Blame Obama and Reid, not McConnell. I blame Mitch for lots of things. One of my least favorite politicans, and definately bottom of the Republican list, but Garland's deni was the a result of the LEFT changing the rules and getting burned by it it. Cant shame the GOP for using the rules he left created to do what they wanted. Here is a nice article on the Obama and Reid responsibility

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-to-blame.html

Saw that story earlier, it's a good case in many ways. I was surprised Ginsberg didn't try to step down, but I do think they didn't plan on losing the Senate before Obama was gone, and they assume Hillary would win.

I think the Left was stunned on many levels the ever lost the Presidency again, esp. to someone like Trump, and they made MANY calculations based on them holding the office at least 12 and probably 16 years.

Ginsberg will be the interesting one. She's 85, IF Trump were to win re-election it's somewhat likely he gets to pick her replacement, and that would make him one of the most long term influential Presidents in the modern era. Boy that will really drive the Left into a rubber room.

[Doc]

Dirty Harry played fast and loose and its coming back to bite the left in the ass. They will try to blame McConnell et al and bring up Garland but it was Reid and the Democrats that changed the rules, took advantage of the rules to get Sotomayor and Kagan confirmed then now complain when the Republican use the rules they created. Bottom line is THE RULES SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN CHANGED TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. Had that not happened we would get more centrist jurists, something both sides could live with. Garland didnt get confirmed out of retaliation. Was it childish? Sure but thats what happens when you bully the the other side and then they have the opportunity to retaliate. Personally I hope Trump picks a middle of road person who looks at the law as its written and does not rewrite or reinterpret old established law, and both sides are happy with. But if he doesn't so be it......after all, elections have consequenceses, or so I was told

[KeithKSR]

Personally I hope Trump picks a middle of road person who looks at the law as its written and does not rewrite or reinterpret old established law, and both sides are happy with. But if he doesn't so be it......after all, elections have consequenceses, or so I was told

The middle of the road jurists you speak of are seen as far right jurists by the media and the liberals.

[Doc]

Che would have been considered a right winger it tabbed by Trump by the media