Justice Kennedy Retiring!

[Restored]

The only store that carried shoes that narrow was run by Jews.  My mother had to take me there to buy shoes that would fit me. 

So every year before school started, you had to get a new pair of Jew shoes?
I never knew about the Jew thing until my best friend in high school informed the Jews controlled everything that the Masons didn't own. It made me want to convert. A couple of classes (I was already snipped) and world domination was within my reach. But I was denied because my credit rating was too low. Sigh.

So far, I am not seeing the level of panic that I expected. I wonder if the immigration thing has to be at the top for longer.

[Polly Ticks]

Sotomayor is horrible.  Her opinions are full of discussion about what is "fair", and whether or not a particular policy "works" and leads to desirable outcomes.  She's the antithesis of what a Justice should be.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[The_Reader_David]

Come on. Kennedy was like a wind sock. He was not very reliable. Getting someone solid and younger on there would be a big deal. It would make that 5 not only reliable, but long lasting.

Yeah, kind of, but the wind more often than not pushed him right.  Kennedy was the "swing vote" because he was the furthest left of what was usually a conservative majority.  A reliable 5-4 conservative majority will be a big thing, and I actually think that's why Kennedy retired:  he saw the polarization in the country, in part due to his occasional siding with the left, and (see his latest few decisions) decided that his seat had better go to a conservative, rather than a "progressive", because stretch the Constitution though he may have, he didn't want it to actually be broken.

[Cyber Liberty]

One of the biggest problems I have with the court system is it's unpredictability.  I've been told it's because the law is complicated, but it makes their decisions inscrutable to a "layman" such as myself.  That I must refer to myself as a "layman" pisses me off.

Kennedy has been the source of that unpredictability on SCOTUS, which is why I don't want him replaced by another Kennedy.

[Bigun]

One of the biggest problems I have with the court system is it's unpredictability.  I've been told it's because the law is complicated, but it makes their decisions inscrutable to a "layman" such as myself.  That I must refer to myself as a "layman" pisses me off.

Kennedy has been the source of that unpredictability on SCOTUS, which is why I don't want him replaced by another Kennedy.

@Cyber Liberty

IF things worked as the founders intended most of us "laymen" could easily predict the outcome of the vast majority of SCOTUS rulings in advance.

[aligncare]

Yeah, kind of, but the wind more often than not pushed him right.  Kennedy was the "swing vote" because he was the furthest left of what was usually a conservative majority.  A reliable 5-4 conservative majority will be a big thing, and I actually think that's why Kennedy retired:  he saw the polarization in the country, in part due to his occasional siding with the left, and (see his latest few decisions) decided that his seat had better go to a conservative, rather than a "progressive", because stretch the Constitution though he may have, he didn't want it to actually be broken.

Finally, someone who well made the point I butchered trying to make earlier in this thread by being too pithy.

Did I just do it again?

I give up.

[Jazzhead]

Cruz says he wants a court that is faithful to the Constitution and the law as it is written. And I couldn't agree with him any more!

Edit to add that if we had a court like that all these recent decisins would have been 9/0.

I agree, on both points.  Note that Justice Kennedy joined the majority in all of these cases.  He was a superb Justice, who ruled with conservative instincts firmly in mind, but without ideology.  If President Trump can nominate another of his caliber,  I will be satisfied. 

He demonstrated his wisdom one last time when announcing his retirement - giving the President and Congress the opportunity to name his successor before the election, so the people can make their choices free of at least one more appeal to blind stinking ideology.   

[Jazzhead]

The name on the Federalist society list that intrigues me is Amul Thapar, who joined the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 after having been nominated by President Trump.  He previously served on the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.   A South Asian-American conservative,  it would be fascinating to have his perspective on the Court. 

The other name I'd like to see nominated is Third Circuit justice Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania.  He was reportedly the runner-up to Gorsuch for the Scalia vacancy.   

[andy58-in-nh]

Sotomayor is horrible.  Her opinions are full of discussion about what is "fair", and whether or not a particular policy "works" and leads to desirable outcomes.  She's the antithesis of what a Justice should be.

"Outcome-based justice" is not justice: it is a thumb on Justice's scale.

[Bigun]

"Outcome-based justice" is not justice: it is a thumb on Justice's scale.

  nothing less than that!

[Frank Cannon]

Yeah, kind of, but the wind more often than not pushed him right.  Kennedy was the "swing vote" because he was the furthest left of what was usually a conservative majority.  A reliable 5-4 conservative majority will be a big thing, and I actually think that's why Kennedy retired:  he saw the polarization in the country, in part due to his occasional siding with the left, and (see his latest few decisions) decided that his seat had better go to a conservative, rather than a "progressive", because stretch the Constitution though he may have, he didn't want it to actually be broken.

I think he retired because he is old and put in his time. Despite some of his rulings, he was the most normal person on the court. 40 plus years sitting on the bench after 15 years of private practice is a hell of a long time.

[Sanguine]

I think he retired because he is old and put in his time. Despite some of his rulings, he was the most normal person on the court. 40 plus years sitting on the bench after 15 years of private practice is a hell of a long time.

"Normal"?  Serving on the SCOTUS is not a "normal" job, and we shouldn't be content with "normal" people serving on it.

[Frank Cannon]

"Normal"?  Serving on the SCOTUS is not a "normal" job, and we shouldn't be content with "normal" people serving on it.

Listen lady. I didn't say I like the dude and I didn't say I wanted his clone nominated either. I am on the record for nominating an attractive chick like Britt Grant. That said, Kennedy was about as normal a person in that job as I can think off. The rest of them are self important jackasses.

[Sanguine]

Listen lady. I didn't say I like the dude and I didn't say I wanted his clone nominated either. I am on the record for nominating an attractive chick like Britt Grant. That said, Kennedy was about as normal a person in that job as I can think off. The rest of them are self important jackasses.

Listen, fella!  I don't want normal on the SCOTUS.  And, self important jackasses can be....oh, never mind.

[Emjay]

   The McConnell Angle:

I have nothing against Kentucky but the other two points are a negative.  Ethnic minorities or so-called 'minorities' of any ilk have a built in prejudice that might affect their rulings.  And being a friend of McConnell is sure no plus.

[Emjay]

Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·

David Martosko
‏Verified account @dmartosko
2m2 minutes ago

Somewhere in an alternate universe, Supreme Court Justice Loretta Lynch is waiting expectantly to see whether President Hillary Clinton will nominate Eric Holder or Barack Obama to the high court.

_____________________________

 

I'm glad it's morning because your post here would give me nightmares.  And that alternate universe was too dam close.  Thank you, Mr. President.

[Jazzhead]

And if there's a third thing I know for dead last certain, it's what I said earlier in this thread: I'm not interested in a "conservative," a "liberal," a "centrist," or any of that on the Supreme Court. I'm interested in a justice who will construe the Constitution reasonably, reminding anyone who cares to be reminded that construing the Constitution reasonably will not always pleasure any side of the ideological divide. For better or worse, there are laws on the books at all levels of public life that allow what one despises, or prohibit what one prefers; laws that allow what is unwise and prohibit what might be wise. They may not be wise or advisable laws but they don't always run afoul of the Constitution. (I hope I don't need to add that it would be far more beneficial to America and the several states to see myriad laws repealed, to say nothing of only one more law to emanate from Congress, which would say, No law passed by any Congress and/or signed by any President shall be considered legal and binding until or unless every member of the Congress in question plus the President in question can prove they've read it, in its entirety, at least once.) The Constitution was written to guarantee a free, not a wise society, alas.

Agree 100%,  @EasyAce

And for the most part, I think that's exactly the kind of judge Kennedy was.   

[Emjay]

I'd be shocked if there was any such "deal".  Just for starters, what constitutes a centrist is in the eye of the beholder.  You'd have to have a name/names attached for a promise like that to have any meaning.  I could see Trump perhaps going as far as ensuring that Kennedy knows that Trump will pick someone from his previously-published list.  But I can't see any more specificity than that.

Also...any such "deal" would be unwritten, and completely unenforceable anyway.  Trump is going to appoint who he wants, and he's not the kind of guy to let the other side off easily when he's got a winning hand.  He'll probably come as close to another Gorsuch as he can get.

I think so too, Major.  Plus there's 'the list'  He's said the nominee will come from it and I believe him.  I haven't vetted everyone on the list but I doubt if there is a moderate or 'centrist' on it. 

I'm not sure there is a centrist in the world.

[Millee]

I'm glad it's morning because your post here would give me nightmares.  And that alternate universe was too dam close.  Thank you, Mr. President.

That's basically horrifying!

[Emjay]

News flash .... DATELINE: 06-27-18

<NOPE> @DCPatriot  says he will support Ted Cruz in 2020 if President Trump appoints another moderate/liberal to SCOTUS after replacing Kennedy with a clone... or worse.

Sorry DC, that does not cut the mustard with me.

If Trump caves on this.. he will keep the status quo with another ginsgberg.

P.S. BTW... Your racist shot about Negros and where they could or could not drink decades.... five of them ago. Shows your own bigotry... about real Conservatives... as if another Scalia, Alito,Gorsusch... or heaven forbid a Thomas...no doubt an Uncle Thomas in your view.

Somehow brings back those times.

You just showed me a window into your soul. #notappealing.

Cheap shot @Fantom.  You are usually much more rational.  Anyone over 60 remembers those things DC mentioned.  They were bad, but they were reality.  And it wasn't that long ago.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree, on both points.  Note that Justice Kennedy joined the majority in all of these cases.  He was a superb Justice, who ruled with conservative instincts firmly in mind, but without ideology.  If President Trump can nominate another of his caliber,  I will be satisfied.

He was better than the full-out activists on the left, but I found some of his opinions to be unreadable legally, full of flowery bullshit about personal feelings and love that had nothing to do with the language of the Constitution, and everything to do with his personal feeling/ideology.  In those cases, he was as much of a legislator as the Wise Latina.

I will say that on "drier" issues to which he did not have an emotional reaction, he was pretty good at following the text and original intent.

[Jazzhead]

  Ethnic minorities or so-called 'minorities' of any ilk have a built in prejudice that might affect their rulings.

Absolutely not true.   That is stereotyping, pure and simple.   Trump's not going to nominate a identity-politics liberal.  He's going to nominate a judicial conservative.    Has Clarence Thomas' race affected his rulings? 

[Emjay]

Absolutely not true.   That is stereotyping, pure and simple.   Trump's not going to nominate a identity-politics liberal.  He's going to nominate a judicial conservative.    Has Clarence Thomas' race affected his rulings?

Clarence Thomas has been a great justice.  I admire him so much. 

But, hey, there is a reason for stereotyping ...it's usually true. 

[Jazzhead]

He was better than the full-out activist, but I found some of his opinions to be unreadable legally, full of flowery bullshit about personal feelings and love that had nothing to do with the language of the Constitution, and everything to do with his personal feeling/ideology.  In those cases, he was as much of a legislator as the Wise Latina.

I know you are referring to Kennedy's rulings regarding Americans who happen to be homosexual.  I disagree that he had anything at all in common, as a matter of judicial philosophy, with the Wise Latina.   As I see it, he had the wisdom to apply the Constitution's protections in the context of changed circumstances.   The Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection applies to us all.   

[GrouchoTex]

LOL, I saw that on twitter last night.
That dude needs to get a life.