View Full Version : Justice Kennedy retiring
GratefulCitizen
06-27-2018, 12:39
The one time cnn wishes their news was fake.
:D
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/anthony-kennedy-retires/index.html
Things are going to get interesting fast.
The left will step up their physical attacks on people on the right.
Things are going to get interesting fast.
The left will step up their physical attacks on people on the right.
Rumor has it that "disrupters" are being bussed to Fargo for tonights Trump rally.
I will be interested to see how long McConnell waits to vote the next justice in. I have read he said fall, but before or after the mid-terms is the big question.
I will be interested to see how long McConnell waits to vote the next justice in. I have read he said fall, but before or after the mid-terms is the big question.
The left sure wants to wait until after the mid-terms.
I just want a conservative that doesn't have baggage.. :mad:
Ret10Echo
06-27-2018, 16:42
Well, since Supreme Court justices are A-political and interpreters of the Constitution and current law of the land this is no big deal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH AH
This will be an absolute Scheiße Sturm
:munchin
Well, since Supreme Court justices are A-political and interpreters of the Constitution and current law of the land this is no big deal.
:munchin
Just this morning I had an online discussion about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment with a self-described Constitutional Scholar. I quoted one of the authors of the Amendment on whether anchor babies were included. He dismissed Sen. Howard's explanation and said, "A Senator’s interpretations of the 14th Amendment doesn’t count for much. Whether you agree or disagree, it’s the Supreme Court’s interpretation that matters". There you go.
The left sure wants to wait until after the mid-terms.
I just want a conservative that doesn't have baggage.. :mad:
Yep, I saw that Chuckie was suggesting that Mitch follow proper protocols which would put the SCOTUS vote off until mid-terms. But we both know that Chuckie is merely trying to buy time in hopes the Dems return to power. Even if McConnell pulls the trigger prior to mid-terms there is still the worry of commies like McCain screwing the pooch.
Trump better do some extreme vetting on his choices because baggage like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby will put this way past mid-terms.
Ret10Echo
06-27-2018, 18:58
Just this morning I had an online discussion about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment with a self-described Constitutional Scholar. I quoted one of the authors of the Amendment on whether anchor babies were included. He dismissed Sen. Howard's explanation and said, "A Senator’s interpretations of the 14th Amendment doesn’t count for much. Whether you agree or disagree, it’s the Supreme Court’s interpretation that matters". There you go.
I should have used pink font...
Well, since Supreme Court justices are A-political and interpreters of the Constitution and current law of the land this is no big deal.
There... fixed it :rolleyes:
I should have used pink font...
There... fixed it :rolleyes:
Not needed, I was agreeing with you. I was just underlining it with my conversation this morning with a "Constitutional scholar". ;)
Golf1echo
06-27-2018, 21:41
Scheiße Sturm ... Ich glaube es auch. Kennedy born in 1936- Ruth born in 1933 Sie anscheinend trinken wie eine Fisch.
Combined with sore ous transferring 18 billion into the USA as well as all the periphery ie. tool 44 and subjects from any number of post...good time to be prepared. Has the makings of Krieg gegen Götter Menschen.
Badger52
06-28-2018, 04:03
Yep, I saw that Chuckie was suggesting that Mitch follow proper protocols which would put the SCOTUS vote off until mid-terms.The Biden "suggestion" regarded a Presidential election year. And although they postured a bunch when Obozo's Garland didn't get a hearing, they didn't go full-berserker because they just knew that Felonia von Pantsuit was going to win.
Trump is not a lame-duck POTUS. IME Trump should nominate his pick, after extreme vetting, and that person should get the "advice & consent" of the Senate & get confirmed. As Obozo enjoyed publically telling John McStain, "Elections have consequences..."
Will it happen? Not likely. See "eunuch" in the dictionary regarding my confidence in the current (R) majority. Meanwhile, Hollyweird IS going full berserk (or at least curling into fetal position), which just makes my day.
The Biden "suggestion" regarded a Presidential election year. And although they postured a bunch when Obozo's Garland didn't get a hearing, they didn't go full-berserker because they just knew that Felonia von Pantsuit was going to win.
Trump is not a lame-duck POTUS. IME Trump should nominate his pick, after extreme vetting, and that person should get the "advice & consent" of the Senate & get confirmed. As Obozo enjoyed publically telling John McStain, "Elections have consequences..."
Will it happen? Not likely. See "eunuch" in the dictionary regarding my confidence in the current (R) majority. Meanwhile, Hollyweird IS going full berserk (or at least curling into fetal position), which just makes my day.
Not just Hollyweird, it is the radical left as a whole on the verge of going full berserk. And why....based on their demeanor it would appear it is the only card they have remaining which they might win a hand.
It's strange, these people I see and hear remind me of a wacko cult and I just wonder what in life left them so f-d up.
If the POTUS nominated Felonious VonPantsuit for a seat in the SCOTUS you'd see liberals lining up to block it - it must be trick - if Trump wants her, there must be something going on......
....monitr his Tweets to see what he has up his sleeve - harrumph harrumph, never ever Trumph, blah blah blah
mark46th
06-28-2018, 08:29
Just how important is it now, that Donald Trump was elected President instead of Hillary?
IMHO, our system of government and a free market economy works best with a hardworking, moral and rational citizenry...
...those attributes have somehow been diluted or misdirected in our citizenry and consequently our political representatives...and many of our high level appointees...and we can observe the results on a daily basis.
Hopefully, this trend will be reversed - this appointment is an opportunity which I hope will not be squandered.
IMHO, our system of government and a free market economy works best with a hardworking, moral and rational citizenry...
If that is a statement of fact, we may all be well and truly fucked
rsdengler
06-28-2018, 10:32
LOL...I thought we were "truly fucked" already . Especially those of us that are a little right of center. Sort of like a hooker on 14th Street...F'd...Disrespected.....all our money to the Pimp, and nothing to show for all your hard work.
Don't worry, the Left will be throwing tantrums no matter who "The Donald" will select....Bickering BS, Nastiness, and a whole lot of rhetoric on the dark side......:munchin... Hopefully he decides on someone a bit younger than Moses. Hell, some of the current Justices already look like they have been embalmed and propped up in their chairs....like the living dead........:D
If that is a statement of fact, we may all be well and truly fucked
And, the funny thing is how most everything worth doing seems to work just a little better with hard work, moral imperative and rational analysis...all teachable skills to a degree...I know, I know, that sounds sooooo old fashioned and out of touch.
...and yet, most of our universities tend toward multiculturalism, gender studies and socialism...wow...isn’t that sexy !
Any wonder we are not hittin’ on all cylinders?
That sound we just heard with this resignation was opportunity knocking.
And, we have not quite reached the point of no return...just yet.
Nominating a conservative on the Supreme Court is promising but I still wonder about Scalia and his sudden death...they will stop at nothing to achieve absolute power and control...I still feel his death was a warning...
Nominating a conservative on the Supreme Court is promising but I still wonder about Scalise and his sudden death...they will stop at nothing to achieve absolute power and control...I still feel his death was a warning...
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia was certainly a watershed event which might have motivated some to get out and vote in order to stop the Klinton crime family (if she had won the presidency) from appointing yet another liberal justice to the Supreme Court.
In the end, we got a much younger Justice Neal Gorsuch who seems to vote like Justice Scalia did. While there is no intellectual replacement for Justice Scalia - early signs suggest that we done pretty good.
And now, it appears that providence may have smiled on President Trump and the nation, yet again.
You are absolutely correct that leftists will stop at nothing to gain power. The end always justifies the means in that camp. But, this opportunity puts a big dent in their agenda.
bblhead672
06-29-2018, 09:10
Trump's latest offer: :D
This article popped up this AM.
This is a good question the Democrats need to resolve, among themselves. If Ginsburg and/or Breyer had retired graciously, Obama would have been a hero, or so one would think.
Before you bemoan Trump's choice, think about what you could have had..
I for one am very grateful the Democrats bungled opportunity.
Why didn’t Ginsburg and/or Breyer retire sooner so that Obama could appoint their replacements?
People are realizing today that Trump’s opportunity to replace Kennedy is the product of multiple Democratic miscalculations, starting with Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for lower-court nominees five years ago and continuing through Chuck Schumer’s decision last year to filibuster Gorsuch with no hope of success. Both errors were egged on by the Democratic base. Liberals were indignant at GOP obstruction of Obama’s nominees in 2013 and furious at Trump and Neil Gorsuch for snatching away Merrick Garland’s opportunity to flip Scalia’s seat. You can understand why Reid and Schumer caved. But in the end, that’s a failure of leadership. It’s up to them to see the big picture strategically and explain to the left when it’s acting self-destructively because it’s spoiling for a fight.
link: (https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/28/didnt-ginsburg-breyer-retire-sooner-obama-appoint-replacements/)
^^^^^^ To paraphrase retired Sheriff David Clarke's tweet from yesterday, “Justice Kennedy chose when he would step down from the Court. God will choose for the next two.” ;)
Ret10Echo
06-30-2018, 05:19
This article popped up this AM.
This is a good question the Democrats need to resolve, among themselves. If Ginsburg and/or Breyer had retired graciously, Obama would have been a hero, or so one would think.
Before you bemoan Trump's choice, think about what you could have had..
I for one am very grateful the Democrats bungled opportunity.
I think this boils down to the general arrogant liberal philosophy that they are individually and collectively so very superior to anyone and everyone else.. So if you're Gin_burg, or Breyer, how could you possibly even consider stepping aside since you are the smartest person EVER and that would deny the nation the privilege of your oversight?
It would seem to be counter to what the dims messaging is to the unwashed masses. Conservatism and republicanism cares for no-one, liberal dims care for everyone.
The reality is demonstrated
Liberals are all about the collective state [FOR EVERYONE ELSE] but will not sacrifice for the NATION. Conservatives are about the rights of the INDIVIDUAL but WILL sacrifice for the GOOD OF THE NATION. Not out of arrogance but out of duty.
Father time is undefeated.
The Reaper
06-30-2018, 10:57
Boy, I sure didn't hear any of this moderation talk when Sotomayor and Kagan were selected by Obama. He demanded and got what he wanted.
Come to think of it, Ginsberg was never held to that standard either.
I can't believe that Scalia was confirmed by this same body 98-0.
Then the Dims in the Senate, under Harry Reid, voted in the nuclear option to get what they wanted, and now claim that the process is flawed.
These idiots are off the rails headed left as fast as the train will go.
I hope the American voters remember this in the fall.
TR
Wenn Ginsburg in einem Monat stirbt und Trump seinen dritten Pick bekommt, könnte es eine offene Revolte geben
when Ginsburg dies in a month and Trump Gets his third Pick, there might be open revolt
Team Sergeant
06-30-2018, 13:43
Wenn Ginsburg in einem Monat stirbt und Trump seinen dritten Pick bekommt, könnte es eine offene Revolte geben
when Ginsburg dies in a month and Trump Gets his third Pick, there might be open revolt
Ginsburg has been dead for about a decade, her corpse just keeps twitching.
supreme for life is a very bad idea..... especially when the brain dead ones continue to linger......
Ginsburg has been dead for about a decade, her corpse just keeps twitching.
supreme for life is a very bad idea..... especially when the brain dead ones continue to linger......
At the very least, they should put in a mandatory retirement age.
At the very least, they should put in a mandatory retirement age.
Agreed,, But given the Left's penchant for the absurd,,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED A MINIMUM AGE
Or they will attempt to put a 10YO on the court :mad::mad::mad:
Ret10Echo
07-07-2018, 06:11
Term limits
12 years... That's 3 Presidentials.
Average "Life" expectancy in 1787 was around 38 years... I think the percentage of population over 60 was in single digit percentiles, with around 1 % making it to 80.
If Darth Vader Ginsburg was to expire during a Trump presidency, liberals would carry her around like 'Weekend at Bernies' until another liberal gets into the White House.
Badger52
07-07-2018, 09:39
Agreed,, But given the Left's penchant for the absurd,,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED A MINIMUM AGE
Or they will attempt to put a 10YO on the court :mad::mad::mad:Yup. There has been a justice younger than the min age to be a POTUS. And nowadays that's just having moved out of Mom's basement...
:rolleyes:
Term limits
12 years... That's 3 Presidentials.
Average "Life" expectancy in 1787 was around 38 years... I think the percentage of population over 60 was in single digit percentiles, with around 1 % making it to 80.
One of Mark Levin's proposed amendments from his book The Liberty Amendments:
3. An amendment to establish a twelve-year term limit for justices of the Supreme Court and the ability for the Congress to overturn a Supreme Court majority decision by a three-fifths vote of the House and Senate or by a three-fifths vote of the states legislatures.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44154&highlight=Levin
Ret10Echo
07-07-2018, 13:57
One of Mark Levin's proposed amendments from his book The Liberty Amendments:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44154&highlight=Levin
Had not seen Levin's proposals. Thanks for the link
I don't agree with the overturning. But that's a different conversation
sfshooter
07-07-2018, 23:46
The sad part in all of this is how much more important this choice is than just a regular senator or congressman from joe blow state. What should be equal branches of government is damn sure not! I have not yet completed my studies on all things from our institution of government, but I find it disturbing that their decisions out trump (no pun intended) the other branches of government. I do know that congress (yes, I underscore the capitalization on purpose) can have an over all vote to undo a Supreme Court decision (I think I have that right, if not please correct me). I just don't recall when that has ever happened. It seems our elected leaders think they are just as powerful as the Executive branch but fail to realize they are just as powerful as the Judicial branch.
Badger52
07-08-2018, 05:28
I do know that congress (yes, I underscore the capitalization on purpose) can have an over all vote to undo a Supreme Court decision (I think I have that right, if not please correct me). I just don't recall when that has ever happened. It seems our elected leaders think they are just as powerful as the Executive branch but fail to realize they are just as powerful as the Judicial branch.You're right, doesn't seem to happen very often. (Wait till the pendulum swings the other way in Congress however, as they don't seem to be getting more civil but more deranged.)
Strictly speaking, Congress doesn't actually vote (if they actually were to get around to it) to undo a SCOTUS decision. What they would have to do is go back & craft legislation or an amendment to a piece of law that SCOTUS finds objectionable, that is consistent with the Constitution (which they often conveniently forget about). Majority opinions can run the gamut from "the law you (Congress) crafted is unconstitutional & here's why. If you want to keep going, go back & do better."
The other extreme is to let a terribly crafted piece of legislation go ahead (Pelosi: "We'll know what's in it after we pass it.") but then make a ruling when it's appealed as a justice as to "what you think" Congress meant to do when they passed the law. This is the so-called 'activist judge' & they exist on both sides of the political spectrum. (Example: How many were aghast when the Roberts court called the Individual Mandate in ObamaCare a "tax" rather than the extortion at gun point to buy a product that it was.) Another instance where (imo) SCOTUS often misses the boat is to conflate public rhetoric by an official - including emotion-based language of the appellant - with the actual language of an Executive Order balanced against the Constitution. Probably the most recent examples of that I can think of would be POTUS' immigration-related executive orders. Courts kept overturning the orders because they allow too much influence of what was said by then-Candidate Trump, rather than the actual 'meat' and legal standing supporting an EO. (And the Constitution gives wide latitude to the Chief Executive to do his job of "protect & defend" etc.)