The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Frank Cannon on June 27, 2018, 06:07:57 pm
-
Just breaking.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html)
-
SOURCE: CNBC
URL: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html)
by Jacob Pramuk
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire from the highest U.S. court, giving President Donald Trump another chance to fundamentally reshape the top of the judiciary.
This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
-
I can't believe what a bad day the Commie Leftists are having. This is going to send them off the rails because now Trump gets to install another Conservative.
-
So, even if the president nominates another conservative, it’s still pretty much gonna remain 5–4.
I’ll take that – for now anyway.
-
Just breaking.
Another Gorsuch please! :smokin:
-
Just breaking.
A clone of Scalia would work just fine.
-
So, even if the president nominates another conservative, it’s still pretty much gonna remain 5–4.
I’ll take that – for now anyway.
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.
-
Another Gorsuch please! :smokin:
Another Scalia, please!!!
-
Going to be tough for the Senate to get someone confirmed before the November midterms... :shrug:
-
Topics merged.
-
Another Scalia, please!!!
That works too! :cool:
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.
The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk
Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.
A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.
That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html)
-
Going to be tough for the Senate to get someone confirmed before the November midterms... :shrug:
I thought of that also, but nowhere in the Constitution that I'm aware of and correct me if I'm wrong, does it say how many justices have to serve. The SCOTUS can continue to operate as is.
-
At any rate with Gorsuch siding against big labor and Kennedy retiring ... it does make for a simply marvelous day!
-
SOURCE: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-kennedy-retire-trump-can-solidify-court-s-majority-conservative-n887066 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-kennedy-retire-trump-can-solidify-court-s-majority-conservative-n887066)
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc
The president is likely to nominate someone more conservative than Kennedy, a swing vote who has sometimes sided with liberals on key opinions, including on the landmark ruling that legalized gay marriage.
Now, if we could only get Ginsburg to retire this year as well .... (what will it take?)
-
Good news!
-
Going to be tough for the Senate to get someone confirmed before the November midterms... :shrug:
I think they actually will, but if not, they'll confirm in the lame duck session if we don't hold the Senate.
It's in the bag.
-
:dancer: Oh yeah!
-
Going to be tough for the Senate to get someone confirmed before the November midterms... :shrug:
Yes it will. McCain will not make it to DC for the vote. They may have to rely upon Heitkamp and Manchin, if the RINOs go wobbly.
The GOP looks just as likely to lose as gain seats in November, so the timing may not make a difference ultimately.
-
I can't believe what a bad day the Commie Leftists are having.
About as bad as German soccer fans.
-
And the hits just keep on coming! WHAT A GREAT DAY!
-
A clone of Scalia would work just fine.
It has to be somebody young, and yet a proven originalist. Another Souter would undo the Gorsuch nomination. There is no margin for error here, so I hope the right people are being consulted.
-
A clone of Scalia would work just fine.
From your lips to God's ear.
-
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.
I agree. Kennedy was okay but we could not totally count on him. If Trump can find someone as good or almost as good as Gorsuch, we'll be ahead of the game.
Kagan wants out but she'll hang tough till 2020.
-
SOURCE: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/anthony-kennedy-retires-supreme-court/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/anthony-kennedy-retires-supreme-court/index.html)
Trump will push for swift confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice -- before the midterms
From CNN's Jeff Zeleny
A senior White House official says President Trump will push for the swift confirmation of a Supreme Court justice "before the midterm elections."
A list of well-established conservatives is in place, so a nomination is expected to come "within weeks," the official said.
-
Gorsuch was probably the closest available to a Scalia clone. A true textualist.
-
About as bad as German soccer fans.
What's a soccer?
-
Gorsuch was probably the closest available to a Scalia clone. A true textualist.
There are several excellent candidates on the president's list. My picks are Mike Lee or Don Willett.
-
Now if only Ginsburg would retire (voluntarily or courtesy of the grim reaper).
-
There are several excellent candidates on the president's list. My picks are Mike Lee or Don Willett.
How about I turn this thread into a bar room brawl and suggest Ted Cruz?
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.
The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk
Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.
A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.
That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html)
This ^ ^ may well end up being what "saves our Republic". Oh happy day!!!!
-
Hardiman was on the last short list and is in his early 50s.
-
The second SCOTUS nomination is the one to be wary of (pardon the sentence-ending preposition). That's the one that usually goes to a crony.
We'll see Trump's true character with who he nominates to replace the court's predominant "swing" justice. Cautious optimism is warranted here.
-
Trump cited his 'List of 25'. It must be the list that Ted Cruz gave him.
-
How about I turn this thread into a bar room brawl and suggest Ted Cruz?
Of course Ted would be excellent, but he already stated that he wasn't interested and we need him desperately in the Senate.
-
How about I turn this thread into a bar room brawl and suggest Ted Cruz?
He would be an excellent choice but I think he really wants to stay where he is for the present.
-
Now if only Ginsburg would retire (voluntarily or courtesy of the grim reaper).
This would send the left into full-on panic mode. Secret Service would need to be assigned to every GOP senator.
-
Now if only Ginsburg would retire
Yes, agreed. After all, it's got to be more comfortable to nap in your own bed than in a chair on the bench.
-
He would be an excellent choice but I think he really wants to stay where he is for the present.
Loathed by RINOs and Dems alike, they’d confirm him quickly just to get him out of Congress :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Yes, agreed. After all, it's got to be more comfortable to nap in your own bed than in a chair on the bench.
Comfort doesn't matter to radical leftists. Ginsburg will hang on until the bitter, literal END.
-
Trump cited his 'List of 25'. It must be the list that Ted Cruz gave him.
I wonder if Ted's list will end up being like Cheney's VP list.
-
How about I turn this thread into a bar room brawl and suggest Ted Cruz?
How about I ratchet up the fight and say Ted will need the SC job anyway after he loses his election to Beatoff.
(https://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/3/32127/2469784-3869084197-image.jpg)
-
Of course Ted would be excellent, but he already stated that he wasn't interested and we need him desperately in the Senate.
Particularly if Trump appoints Lee (long shot, I know), McConnell would insure confirmation of either one of these guys just to get them out of his hair.
-
GMTA @goodwithagun
-
How about I ratchet up the fight and say Ted will need the SC job anyway after he loses his election to Beatoff.
(https://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/3/32127/2469784-3869084197-image.jpg)
: :mauslaff: :mauslaff: :mauslaff:
-
He would be an excellent choice but I think he really wants to stay where he is for the present.
Perhaps..but...then again, he may view this is his one last (perfect) opportunity. Who knows what the future will bring, after all.
-
Topics merged.
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement will come from Trump's list of 25 potential names
Michelle Mark
12m
Here are the original names:
• Keith Blackwell
• Charles Canady
• Steven Colloton
• Allison Eid
• Raymond Gruender
• Thomas Hardiman
• Raymond Kethledge
• Joan Larsen
• Mike Lee
• Thomas Lee
• Edward Mansfield
• Federico Moreno
• William Pryor
• Margaret A. Ryan
• Amul Thapar
• Timothy Tymkovich
• David Stras
• Diane Sykes
• Don Willett
• Robert Young
<..snip..>
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11)
-
This Guy's gotta be to old, by now.
(http://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/15/79/731579256ba7622c251a2494851cf05c.jpg)
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement will come from Trump's list of 25 potential names
Michelle Mark
12m
Here are the original names:
• Keith Blackwell
• Charles Canady
• Steven Colloton
• Allison Eid
• Raymond Gruender
• Thomas Hardiman
• Raymond Kethledge
• Joan Larsen
• Mike Lee
• Thomas Lee
• Edward Mansfield
• Federico Moreno
• William Pryor
• Margaret A. Ryan
• Amul Thapar
• Timothy Tymkovich
• David Stras
• Diane Sykes
• Don Willett
• Robert Young
<..snip..>
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11)
Not a bad choice on the entire list but at this point in history Mike Lee gets my vote!
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement will come from Trump's list of 25 potential names
Michelle Mark
12m
Here are the original names:
• Keith Blackwell
• Charles Canady
• Steven Colloton
• Allison Eid
• Raymond Gruender
• Thomas Hardiman
• Raymond Kethledge
• Joan Larsen
• Mike Lee
• Thomas Lee
• Edward Mansfield
• Federico Moreno
• William Pryor
• Margaret A. Ryan
• Amul Thapar
• Timothy Tymkovich
• David Stras
• Diane Sykes
• Don Willett
• Robert Young
<..snip..>
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11)
Quick! Do a poll!!!
-
The second SCOTUS nomination is the one to be wary of (pardon the sentence-ending preposition). That's the one that usually goes to a crony.
We'll see Trump's true character with who he nominates to replace the court's predominant "swing" justice. Cautious optimism is warranted here.
I concur. It's a bit too early to celebrate.
-
Trump should nominate Judge Don Willett to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat
by Tom Rogan
| June 27, 2018 03:02 PM
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's decision to retire at the end of July means that President Trump will have the responsibility of nominating a replacement justice. He should nominate U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett.
While Willett is best known for his active, amusing, and somewhat quirky Twitter feed (which has sadly long been inactive), his service would bring three key benefits to the Supreme Court.
First, Willett retains a superb legal reputation among judges, attorneys, and other legal minds. Although Willett is not defined by rulings on significant legal debates, he is widely regarded for his focused and deliberative appraisal of the law. It is important that Trump nominate someone who has the legal credentials to win perceivable suitability to sit in judgment on the nation's highest court.
Put another way, Trump must not pick a partisan and Willett isn't that. ... More at Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-should-nominate-judge-don-willett-to-fill-justice-anthony-kennedys-seat)
-
My brother and I discussed it and he thinks it may be a female from the list.
-
Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida
Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator
Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah
Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa
Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)
Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas
Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/06/27/with-kennedy-retiring-who-will-replace-him-n2495092
-
The Latest: Trump met with Kennedy, discussed replacement
WATE-TV ^ | June 27, 2018
SOURCE: https://www.wate.com/news/politics/the-latest-kennedy-to-retire-trump-to-nominate-new-justice/1268296200 (https://www.wate.com/news/politics/the-latest-kennedy-to-retire-trump-to-nominate-new-justice/1268296200)
President Donald Trump says he met with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy at the White House on Wednesday shortly before the announcement of the justice's retirement.
Trump says he discussed with Kennedy some potential replacements but declined to say which names were mentioned. The president says in the Oval Office that he will choose Kennedy's successor from a list of 25 names that have been under consideration.
The president says Kennedy was at the White House for about 30 minutes....
(Excerpt) Read more at above link ...
I personally hope that this was just a courtesy meeting. I am uncomfortable with a Justice Kennedy recommendation.
-
About as bad as German soccer fans.
@dfwgator
Aw, I have a friend in Germany & she's dying, lol.
-
Hey Bro, Don't forget about your Sister
(https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=http://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2016/03/maryanne.jpg&w=1484&op=resize&opt=1&filter=antialias)
-
My brother and I discussed it and he thinks it may be a female from the list.
There are a couple on the list who would be fine IMHO.
-
I'm with Bigun----Mike Lee would be an outstanding choice.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/rBwqa9p.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NHJts5M.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sfkoEfx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mNbyTh1.jpg)
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
-
Ted was on FOX and backed Lee as a nominee.
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
@Cyber Liberty
No. I do not. Not now.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/FKZPVwg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fWPgobd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/q3UBYlg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tt3Qd8B.jpg)
-
Ted was on FOX and backed Lee as a candidate.
I predict that Trump will NOT nominate Mike Lee. And no, it has nothing to do with Ted backing him.
-
Ted was on FOX and backed Lee as a nominee.
My choice has been validated! 888high58888
-
I suggest Roy Moore, just to see some heads explode.
(KIDDING. He probably wouldn't survive confirmation.)
-
Ted was on FOX and backed Lee as a nominee.
Lee would be the wisest choice at this juncture. He would easily be replaced in UT with another GOP'er. He would be easier to get through congress since he is one of them. He is young and right wing.
-
Lee would be the wisest choice at this juncture. He would easily be replaced in UT with another GOP'er. He would be easier to get through congress since he is one of them. He is young and right wing.
888high58888
And he is a strict constructionist.
-
I suggest Roy Moore, just to see some heads explode.
(KIDDING. He probably wouldn't survive confirmation.)
Why, @jmyrlefuller, you're not trolling, are you?
Why do you think heads would explode? Moore's a non-entity.
Lee would be great, but I'd also be very happy with Don Willett.
-
888high58888
And he is a strict constructionist.
I don't care if he knows how to build houses. He is solid Right Wing.
-
Too bad Kennedy can't take Ginsburg with him.
Sotomayor is also garbage, but unfortunately probably not as near involuntary retirement.
-
Sen. Lee is a pipe dream, he was too much a Trump adversary before, during and after the GOP Convention. We all know Trump doesn't forget $hit like that. His name is on that list just as a buy out for Cruz's endorsement. IMHO
-
Exactly the scenario I envisioned as I gave up on my Never Trump position. And now the kook left has more to lose their minds about.
-
Plenty of good reasons to expect the Left to fight, and possible GOP trouble from "moderates," as well
1. Pay back for delays leading to Gorsuch
2. All other, including delay until 2021
-
Sen. Lee is a pipe dream, he was too much a Trump adversary before, during and after the GOP Convention. We all know Trump doesn't forget $hit like that. His name is on that list just as a buy out for Cruz's endorsement. IMHO
That.... plus.... Romney in the Utah senate... WILL run again for president. Trump won't want any USSC justice that may have a perceived loyalty to one of his opponents.
-
How about I turn this thread into a bar room brawl and suggest Ted Cruz?
Ted would be a supreme supreme but he is worth more to us as a Senator and possible President. He is only in his forties. I really don't want to see him stuck in the Court.
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
Arrrrgh! I sure hope not.
-
So, even if the president nominates another conservative, it’s still pretty much gonna remain 5–4.
I’ll take that – for now anyway.
With Kennedy it has been 4.5 but it could be 5.0
-
This would send the left into full-on panic mode. Secret Service would need to be assigned to every GOP senator.
Ginsburg will not retire. She loves being on the Court. It is her hobby and keeps her out of the pool hall. And Ruth is not in as bad health as people think. That dozing picture does not accurately represent her physical health. She has a trainer and works out.
-
McConnell: Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee this fall
By Jordain Carney - 06/27/18 02:40 PM EDT
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that the Senate will vote in the fall to confirm President Trump's forthcoming nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent … We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall," McConnell said from the Senate floor.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394454-mcconnell-senate-will-vote-on-supreme-court-nominee-this-fall (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394454-mcconnell-senate-will-vote-on-supreme-court-nominee-this-fall)
-
How about I ratchet up the fight and say Ted will need the SC job anyway after he loses his election to Beatoff.
(https://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/3/32127/2469784-3869084197-image.jpg)
That won't happen but if it does, I am renouncing my Texas heritage.
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
No.
-
The Hell you will, McConnell!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/09/13/422B090400000578-4679312-US_Senator_Charles_Schumer_pictured_in_April_2017_in_Washington_-m-12_1499604642602.jpg)
-
Hey Bro, Don't forget about your Sister
@corbe You are just evil.
-
My choice has been validated! 888high58888
You're on a roll and I am more than fine with your choice ... since it's Ted's also :amen:
-
If you really REALLY want to make Liberals heads 'splode and reveal them for the hypocrites that they are...someone should talk Trump into convincing Janice Rogers Brown into taking the nomination.
Anyone who Barack Obama went to the floor of the senate and characterized her judicial activism as, "Social Darwinism" is exactly what we need on the court.
-
Trump could nominate Obama and the Dems would portray him as an out-of-touch right-wing extremist
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
My thought was more of a libertarian.
-
If you really REALLY want to make Liberals heads 'splode and reveal them for the hypocrites that they are...someone should talk Trump into convincing Janice Rogers Brown into taking the nomination.
Anyone who Barack Obama went to the floor of the senate and characterized her judicial activism as, "Social Darwinism" is exactly what we need on the court.
Nice evil thought.... but she's already about 70 and probably deemed too old. I suspect Trump will nominate a 'younger' female.... either Sykes or Eid. But time will tell.
-
Trump could nominate Obama and the Dems would portray him as an out-of-touch right-wing extremist
I wonder if the media would bring up or if during the nomination hearing Oba would be asked why he voluntarily gave up his law license in 2008?
:whistle:
-
Nice evil thought.... but she's already about 70 and probably deemed too old. I suspect Trump will nominate a female.... either Sykes or Eid. But time will tell.
Ok lets go younger...Priscilla Owen and/or Bill Pryor. Now is the time to solidify the Conservative nature of the SCOTUS and make sure we have some people on there who don't view the Constitution as a "living document".
-
Cruz has enemies in the Senate who would screw him over at a moment's notice. It really needs to be an active judge, guarded with his social commentary, and well qualified according to the ABA. Give the libs nothing to work with, and let them makes fools of themselves prior to the election.
-
Ok lets go younger...Priscilla Owen and/or Bill Pryor. Now is the time to solidify the Conservative nature of the SCOTUS and make sure we have some people on there who don't view the Constitution as a "living document".
Hmm... yeah. That might be a good pick (Owen). I'm not crazy about Pryor tho.
-
Cruz has enemies in the Senate who would screw him over at a moment's notice. It really needs to be an active judge, guarded with his social commentary, and well qualified according to the ABA. Give the libs nothing to work with, and let them makes fools of themselves prior to the election.
Screw the ABA and all their minions! They have exactly zero credibility these days!
-
If you are the Democrats:
The temptation would be to wait for confirmation until after the midterms. However, that would make the midterms about "Who do you want as a Supreme Court judge?" which might hurt the Democrats. But they can throw endless amounts of money into key Senate races and perhaps make a good showing. Imagine all the commercials with little girls bleeding to death after banging around their cervix with coat hangers.
-
My thought was more of a libertarian.
Trump knows Kennedy was the swing vote. He won't go center this time. Maybe next time, when Ruth BaderZzzz retires.
-
OFFS!!
Patti Goss Dodt shared a link to the group: Democratic Underground.
20 mins ·
How convenient... Either Trump or one of his cronies paid off this guy to get out now.
****slapping
-
Screw the ABA and all their minions! They have exactly zero credibility these days!
There are many who disagree, and few (if any) votes to spare during the confirmation.
-
It will never happen, but I'd love to see Louie Gohmert. He's very sharp, consistently conservative, and totally down home. Would change the whole tone of the court.
-
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Please please please not him. He went after Roy Moore for acknowledging God.
"Of course, I will continue to acknowledge God, just as everyone in this court said prayer before today's court proceedings acknowledged God".... - Roy Moore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk)
-
Hmm... yeah. That might be a good pick (Owen). I'm not crazy about Pryor tho.
This one opinion from Pryor caught my eye:
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups (11th Cir. 2009). Pryor wrote for a unanimous panel upholding a Georgia law that required all registered voters in Georgia to present a government-issued photo identification to be allowed to vote in person. The law also required Georgia to issue, free of charge, a "Georgia voter identification card" to any registered Georgia voter who lacked an acceptable form of identification. The panel concluded that the NAACP and voters had standing to challenge the law, but that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to enjoin the law because the burdens on voters from the law were insignificant and the state had legitimate interests in preventing voter fraud
You know at some point the whole voter ID thing is gonna be up before the SCOTUS someone with that view of it that has written decisions on Voter ID could be very important to have on the bench.
-
There are many who disagree, and few (if any) votes to spare during the confirmation.
I think you will find few republicans among those who disagree.
-
Much is going to depend on the politics between now and November and the nominee of course.
The unions and traditional Dim constituencies are going to be super motivated to get their voters out. The turtle can talk about a fall vote but if the polling numbers in October are disastrous for the GOP you can bet the individual Senators are going to do what ever is necessary to preserve their cushy job and as always the Country be dammed.
-
He should nominate Hillary so that she could be investigated via her Senate vetting.
-
It will never happen.....
Of course not. He is not on the list. We have a list. The person will come from the list. The list is kept in a sock drawer when not in use. When it is needed, it is pulled out and a name is chosen from it. No other names shall ever be considered other than those on the list.
-
This one opinion from Pryor caught my eye:
You know at some point the whole voter ID thing is gonna be up before the SCOTUS someone with that view of it that has written decisions on Voter ID could be very important to have on the bench.
Good point.
-
It will never happen, but I'd love to see Louie Gohmert. He's very sharp, consistently conservative, and totally down home. Would change the whole tone of the court.
I love Louie Gohmert, but he's not on the list, is he? How old is Louie?
-
Of course not. He is not on the list. We have a list. The person will come from the list. The list is kept in a sock drawer when not in use. When it is needed, it is pulled out and a name is chosen from it. No other names shall ever be considered other than those on the list.
Yes, and thanks for explaining it.
-
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Please please please not him. He went after Roy Moore for acknowledging God.
"Of course, I will continue to acknowledge God, just as everyone in this court said prayer before today's court proceedings acknowledged God".... - Roy Moore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk)
Thumbs down for anyone cheap enough to go after Roy Moore.
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
@Cyber Liberty
It may come down to who he talks to before he makes the decision, so I hope not.
-
He should nominate Hillary so that she could be investigated via her Senate vetting.
Now that would be awesome. She would get drug through the mud and beat up just to end up not getting the votes again......Hilarious!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/VrSZDlpRaHYje/giphy.gif)
-
It will never happen, but I'd love to see Louie Gohmert. He's very sharp, consistently conservative, and totally down home. Would change the whole tone of the court.
Maybe we'd finally settle case law concerning aspersions and asparagus.
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=DE4fCcsw6Fs#)
-
Not a bad choice on the entire list but at this point in history Mike Lee gets my vote!
Mark Levin and Larry O'Connor agree with you. 888high58888
-
@Cyber Liberty
It may come down to who he talks to before he makes the decision, so I hope not.
With a current majority of 51, RINOs are lining up to apply demands under threats of vetoes. Flake...Corker...you name it.
-
I'm late to the discussion. Anybody think the President will go out of his way to get a "centrist" Justice, to "maintain balance" on the Court? I'm sure McConnell is pushing for that. Maybe a nice liberal female.
Arrrrgh! I sure hope not.
Hope not what? That the president will go out of his way to select a centrist, or that anybody would think he would? :laugh:
-
I can't believe what a bad day the Commie Leftists are having. This is going to send them off the rails because now Trump gets to install another Conservative.
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
-
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
I recommend everyone read that link. It is the feel good page of the century.
-
Feinstein: Senate should follow 'McConnell standard,' wait to vote on Supreme Court justice
By Justin Wise - 06/27/18 04:18 PM EDT
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants the Senate to apply the "McConnell standard" and wait until after the midterm elections to vote on a Supreme Court justice that will succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“Leader McConnell set that standard in 2016 when he denied Judge Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard," Feinstein said shortly after Kennedy announced his retirement.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/homenews/394492-feinstein-senate-should-follow-mcconnell-standard-wait-to-vote-on-supreme-court (http://thehill.com/homenews/394492-feinstein-senate-should-follow-mcconnell-standard-wait-to-vote-on-supreme-court)
-
My brother and I discussed it and he thinks it may be a female from the list.
Some good ones on there. I like Allison Eid -- the lefties absolutely despise her. And she's only 53.
Nice bonus is that nominating a female right before the midterms is a good politics, too. But bottom line...she's a great judge. And really, that's a great list.
-
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
Hehehehe......I dare someone to post this over there....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dgqc5Q5WsAAZGRH.jpg)
-
Just some random thoughts...
Where do we stand in the Senate on this?
The best that can be hoped for is 50 votes with Mike Pence breaking the tie.
Flake, in his last parting shot, will vote "no" for any conservative nominee, perhaps any nominee at all (just to spite Mr. Trump).
Collins of Maine is doubtful, not to be trusted nor relied upon. But "possible".
Murkowski -- will have to be wooed. Give her something to buy her vote. The end [almost] justifies the means here. She can be bought. If that's what it takes, it's what it takes.
McCain -- absolutely a no vote, but with a bit of luck, he'll be dead before the final vote and a new senator will have been installed in his place.
McConnell -- will he do what has to be done, including overriding or ending a filibuster? That's the $64,000 question.
And stay the course, Mr. Trump --- pick someone TO THE RIGHT of Gorsuch.
Shove this down the throats of the democrat-communists!
-
I'm not interested in who will be "conservative" or "center" or "liberal." I'm interested in who will construe the Constitution properly, it being so---and too often forgotten, on all sides of the ideological divide---that construing the Constitution properly will not always mean that the result will be to one or another mob's liking.
-
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
It's like election night all over again.
So much fun.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36275996_2030607160295927_6373974575297855488_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=175aedf14be60759bd456a37993addf3&oe=5BE62CE1)
-
I'm not interested in who will be "conservative" or "center" or "liberal." I'm interested in who will construe the Constitution properly, it being so---and too often forgotten, on all sides of the ideological divide---that construing the Constitution properly will not always mean that the result will be to one or another mob's liking.
That's absolutely true. Although properly construed, the Constitution in most cases gives results that please conservatives.
Statutory construction is a different matter.
-
It's like election night all over again.
So much fun.
It's like upside down world:
It's time to start planning your exit strategy. I'm planning mine. There is the old quote "Why would you want to join a club that doesn't want you?" and now it's time. Plan well, plan for the long term because they are playing the long game on this one and at this point America is done. No joke folks, no more hope for Mueller or the blue wave. Done. Putin, the Kochs, the Mercers, McConnell, etc. - they won. It's just stupid to be thinking otherwise at this point.
Explore your options and push your boundaries - unless you want to live under the latest version of the Nazi regime.
Trump's walls might used be for keeping folks in instead of out.
Never hurts to make sure that passport is up to date, or to explore whether you have any family overseas that you didn't know about.
-
I recommend everyone read that link. It is the feel good page of the century.
It has certainly made my year Frank!
I'm gonna enshrine the entire thread in it's very own Flash Drive! :silly: :beer:
-
@Cyber Liberty
It may come down to who he talks to before he makes the decision, so I hope not.
That’s funny. Because, in business Trump’s habit was to take in as much input, read up on it, listen to as much advice as possible, and then decide. Whatever he decided, it was always his decision. I expect the same here.
-
Nice bonus is that nominating a female right before the midterms is a good politics, too.
That was basically his point - nominate a good female choice and let the Democratic 'war on women' begin.
-
Democrats and the MSM can rage all they want. Have an aneurysm for all I care. Back in 2012 and 2015, it felt as if the country were being taken away. SCOTUS played a central role in that, and hopefully this means it will be a while before that feeling comes back.
-
It's like upside down world:
@Sanguine
Drama queens.
-
With a current majority of 51, RINOs are lining up to apply demands under threats of vetoes. Flake...Corker...you name it.
@Cyber Liberty
Just when I thought I didn't give a rip about politics anymore.
:terror:
-
Whew doggiess..... sure is sticky out here...an I ain't a talkin' 'Bout the Humitity either.
Liberal heads...I'd say brains... but then Ya'll know I was lyin'. Anyways the head parts are coverin' everything.
Had to change into my winter goloshes. :amen:
-
I'm sending that page to my old friend Repubmommy from TOS. It's been years since she posted there, what with working to keep three daughters to keep in Catholic school, but she told me about the DU trolling. She'll love it.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36275996_2030607160295927_6373974575297855488_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=175aedf14be60759bd456a37993addf3&oe=5BE62CE1)
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
(Or ... Once again we see how big a miracle .... ^-^)
-
The way I'm seeing this right now.... Justice Kennedy did President Trump no huge favor by announcing retirement at this time.
It's all the incentive the DEMS need to rouse the base to come out in the mid-terms.
By "base", I mean college students and minorities and of course, illegal immigrants who try/will vote.
Sure this is simply a GOP-POTUS selected replacement by same...but.....
-
Just some random thoughts...
Where do we stand in the Senate on this?
The best that can be hoped for is 50 votes with Mike Pence breaking the tie.
Flake, in his last parting shot, will vote "no" for any conservative nominee, perhaps any nominee at all (just to spite Mr. Trump).
Collins of Maine is doubtful, not to be trusted nor relied upon. But "possible".
Murkowski -- will have to be wooed. Give her something to buy her vote. The end [almost] justifies the means here. She can be bought. If that's what it takes, it's what it takes.
McCain -- absolutely a no vote, but with a bit of luck, he'll be dead before the final vote and a new senator will have been installed in his place.
McConnell -- will he do what has to be done, including overriding or ending a filibuster? That's the $64,000 question.
And stay the course, Mr. Trump --- pick someone TO THE RIGHT of Gorsuch.
Shove this down the throats of the democrat-communists!
Good to see you here @Fishrrman
I did see a list of potential (conservative) women nominees on the news, it would not surprise me to see that.
Honorables Amy Barret.....Allison Eid...and that list goes on... just as long as they are representative of our values, that's what is important, well, true, they should be Constitutional Constructionists at that.
It might be time for a woman to be nominated.
-
@Sanguine
Drama queens.
(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fst2.depositphotos.com%2F6367796%2F9451%2Fv%2F950%2Fdepositphotos_94510580-stock-illustration-pop-art-comics-drama-queen.jpg&sp=6aa2407e62e5e964e702d23020a0f870)
-
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.
Kennedy was worse than a windsock.
I distinctly recall an interview he gave to someone on NPR years back (the link is probably lost). He smugly declared he KNEW he was the swing vote, and he freely gave it to whichever side invited him to the best cocktail parties.
I agree with you that this would solidify a 5-4 majority on the court. Now if Ruth Baader-Meinhoff would just cash in her Civil War pension and slink away, there'd be a 6-3 SCOTUS for a generation to come.
But, while this is tremendous news, there is NO guarantee that any nominee DJT picks will see a vote come up in the Senate. The GOPe will, as always, cringe and bow to the hysterical demands of the Left. Always have, always will.
-
It's like election night all over again.
So much fun.
The best part about DU on election night was the fact the were taken offline. They had no outlet for spleen venting.
-
The way I'm seeing this right now.... Justice Kennedy did President Trump no huge favor by announcing retirement at this time.
It's all the incentive the DEMS need to rouse the base to come out in the mid-terms.
By "base", I mean college students and minorities and of course, illegal immigrants who try/will vote.
Sure this is simply a GOP-POTUS selected replacement by same...but.....
Good observation
-
The way I'm seeing this right now.... Justice Kennedy did President Trump no huge favor by announcing retirement at this time.
It's all the incentive the DEMS need to rouse the base to come out in the mid-terms.
By "base", I mean college students and minorities and of course, illegal immigrants who try/will vote.
Sure this is simply a GOP-POTUS selected replacement by same...but.....
It had to be now...just in case we should loose the Senate.
Ram it through, get it done. Watch the left get even more frenzied and neo-fascist nutzi. Such all works to our advantage.
As for the left blue wave... I do not see it. What elections they have won are not by producing bigger numbers than they can. It is by our voters not voting ..for whatever reason. Hard to see any more rage helping them do that.
I think we show up in NOV.
-
The way I'm seeing this right now.... Justice Kennedy did President Trump no huge favor by announcing retirement at this time.
It's all the incentive the DEMS need to rouse the base to come out in the mid-terms.
By "base", I mean college students and minorities and of course, illegal immigrants who try/will vote.
Sure this is simply a GOP-POTUS selected replacement by same...but.....
Maybe ... but the Federal and Supreme Courts are EXTREMELY important to Republicans and even Independents. We understand the courts' influence continues for at least a generation (too much math for a democrat).
I believe this issue stays in the "R" column. Yeah!! ^-^
-
(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fst2.depositphotos.com%2F6367796%2F9451%2Fv%2F950%2Fdepositphotos_94510580-stock-illustration-pop-art-comics-drama-queen.jpg&sp=6aa2407e62e5e964e702d23020a0f870)
@Sanguine
Lmao
What does this mean....are we all going to die, or something? Did I miss the news about a meteor headed this way?
(https://i.imgur.com/UXKAWTC.jpg)
-
@Sanguine
Lmao
What does this mean....are we all going to die, or something? Did I miss the news about a meteor headed this way?
(https://i.imgur.com/UXKAWTC.jpg)
Oh, no! That could be serious. :laugh:
-
@Sanguine
Lmao
What does this mean....are we all going to die, or something? Did I miss the news about a meteor headed this way?
(https://i.imgur.com/UXKAWTC.jpg)
It's the end of the world as they know it, but I feel fine. :whistle:
-
Just some random thoughts...
Where do we stand in the Senate on this?
The best that can be hoped for is 50 votes with Mike Pence breaking the tie.
Flake, in his last parting shot, will vote "no" for any conservative nominee, perhaps any nominee at all (just to spite Mr. Trump).
Collins of Maine is doubtful, not to be trusted nor relied upon. But "possible".
Murkowski -- will have to be wooed. Give her something to buy her vote. The end [almost] justifies the means here. She can be bought. If that's what it takes, it's what it takes.
McCain -- absolutely a no vote, but with a bit of luck, he'll be dead before the final vote and a new senator will have been installed in his place.
McConnell -- will he do what has to be done, including overriding or ending a filibuster? That's the $64,000 question.
And stay the course, Mr. Trump --- pick someone TO THE RIGHT of Gorsuch.
Shove this down the throats of the democrat-communists!
There really isn't anyone who is more of a staunch judicial conservative than Neil Gorsuch. Perhaps you can find a conservative activist, but I wouldn't want that either.
The vote for Gorsuch was 54-45. It's going to be tough to defeat this nominee. That's kind of why I'd like Allison Eid. Staunch conservative, and it would be really tough for the GOP female Senators to oppose a woman.
-
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
Liberal tears the best!
-
Fantom wrote:
"It had to be now...just in case we should loose the Senate.
Ram it through, get it done. Watch the left get even more frenzied and neo-fascist nutzi. Such all works to our advantage."
Agreed.
I'm thinking that a forceful effort by Republicans to get the nominee confirmed before the election (hopefully before the first Monday in October) will give the entire party a boost in the November elections.
Perhaps just a small boost, but ANYTHING will be welcome and needed.
If the Pubbies won't stand tall for the nominee, it's going to cost them on illikshun day!
-
Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times are both reporting that the favorite is Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, 53, is a federal appellate court judge based in Washington, D.C., who previously clerked for Kennedy. Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the appellate court took three years from his nomination in 2003 until he was confirmed by a 57-36 vote in May 2006.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appellate-judge-d-c-circuit-seen-early-favorite-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist-203121934.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/appellate-judge-d-c-circuit-seen-early-favorite-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist-203121934.html)
More likely, this is wishful thinking from Bloomberg and the LA Times, though he is on the list.
-
Liberal tears the best!
Yep, now that the Krocodile tears over ..."Separate the Babbies" are superseded by what the leftist maggots really care 'Bout.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10796933 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10796933)
To which I do a happy dance...
-
So, even if the president nominates another conservative, it’s still pretty much gonna remain 5–4.
I’ll take that – for now anyway.
On social issues Kennedy sided with the liberals. He authord the ruling for same sex marriage. The LGBQT community are saddend by this announcement.
-
On social issues Kennedy sided with the liberals. He authord the ruling for same sex marriage. The LGBQT community are saddend by this announcement.
Why are they sad? They got what they wanted. They should now go off to be fruitful and multiply.
-
Fantom wrote:
"It had to be now...just in case we should loose the Senate.
Ram it through, get it done. Watch the left get even more frenzied and neo-fascist nutzi. Such all works to our advantage."
Agreed.
I'm thinking that a forceful effort by Republicans to get the nominee confirmed before the election (hopefully before the first Monday in October) will give the entire party a boost in the November elections.
Perhaps just a small boost, but ANYTHING will be welcome and needed.
If the Pubbies won't stand tall for the nominee, it's going to cost them on illikshun day!
And if the quisling sect of Senators..we all know who they are. If they stop it, then it will bring out our voters to see we have at least 58 Senators.
It is a Paton strategy... "Hold 'Em by the nose...Kick 'Em in the ass"
-
Why are they sad? They got what they wanted. They should now go off to be fruitful and multiply.
Only if fudge babies count.
-
@Frank Cannon
Enjoy .. the tears are delicious!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29 (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142096216#post29)
Think it's ugly now, you wait until Ginsburg retires or passes. If during Trumps term or terms I would not want my fishing boat under any tall bridge, because the sky could be raining Lefties.
-
On social issues Kennedy sided with the liberals. He authord the ruling for same sex marriage. The LGBQT community are saddend by this announcement.
June 29, 1992 - Angers conservatives by coauthoring, with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, the opinion of the court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to uphold Roe v. Wade.
-
March 1, 2005 - Writes the majority opinion for the 5-4 ruling in Roper v. Simmons stating that executing killers who were under age 18 when they committed their crimes is unconstitutional.
-
Good he is going.
Trump needs to find another Bork so we can get what we should have gotten 30 years ago, but didn't cause the fat Kennedy slob.
-
June 26, 2015 - Kennedy writes the landmark majority opinion of the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 US states.
-
So, even if the president nominates another conservative, it’s still pretty much gonna remain 5–4.
I’ll take that – for now anyway.
Where have you been? Kennedy has been a disaster for years, as he 'swings' to and fro.
There is no way we do not get an improvement here.
-
June 23, 2016 - Kennedy writes the majority opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the right of universities to consider race as one factor in admissions.
-
I predict somebody similar to Kennedy. That way, rulings won’t change drastically and it will give RBG a false sense of security. She retires and BOOM, Trump replaces her with a strict constructionist.
-
Where have you been? Kennedy has been a disaster for years, as he 'swings' to and fro.
There is no way we do not get an improvement here.
Word.
-
I predict somebody similar to Kennedy. That way, rulings won’t change drastically and it will give RBG a false sense of security. She retires and BOOM, Trump replaces her with a strict constructionist.
Nein, Nyet...f'cing no.
You strike when the iron is hot.
No quarter, no prisoners...they do not give us that.
-
Trump: Kennedy retired now because he’s ‘confident in me to make the right choice’ to replace him
By Justin Wise - 06/27/18 08:49 PM EDT
President Trump on Wednesday said that Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court because he knew Trump would pick the right replacement to "carry on his great legacy."
"I’m very honored that he chose to do it during my term in office," Trump said during a rally in Fargo, N.D. "Because he felt confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy. That’s why he did it."
Trump added that his nominee to fill the Supreme Court's vacancy will be on the bench for 40 to 45 years. Kennedy served 30 years on the high court.
<..snip..>
(emphasis mine)
http://thehill.com/homenews/394543-trump-justice-kennedy-retired-during-my-term-because-i-can-carry-out-his-legacy (http://thehill.com/homenews/394543-trump-justice-kennedy-retired-during-my-term-because-i-can-carry-out-his-legacy)
-
He should nominate Hillary so that she could be investigated via her Senate vetting.
Best. Idea. Ever.
-
June 26, 2015 - Kennedy writes the landmark majority opinion of the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 US states.
Obergefell is as bad or even worse than Roe. It usurps rights Constitutionally reserved for the States.
-
Nein, Nyet...f'cing no.
You strike when the iron is hot.
No quarter, no prisoners...they do not give us that.
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
-
Aside from being a swing vote, people have to remember Kennedy was a third in line give up choice, after Bork was rejected and Ginsburg withdrew at 4:20PM.
-
Nein, Nyet...f'cing no.
You strike when the iron is hot.
No quarter, no prisoners...they do not give us that.
I agree, I was just posting what Trump fans would consider 73rd dimensional chess.
-
Nein, Nyet...f'cing no.
You strike when the iron is hot.
No quarter, no prisoners...they do not give us that.
You are exactly right.
Gingsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, all women, all the worst liberals ever on the court.
NO more women nominees. O'Connor was just like Kennedy, a swing vote.
-
Think it's ugly now, you wait until Ginsburg retires or passes. If during Trumps term or terms I would not want my fishing boat under any tall bridge, because the sky could be raining Lefties.
Indeed!
But I've got this unease...gnawing at me.
Justice Kennedy's announced retirement is lighting that fuse we all talked about the other day.
Just look anywhere on social media and cable news.
Going to be a violent, bloody Summer, IMO.
-
You are exactly right.
Gingsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, all women, all the worst liberals ever on the court.
NO more women nominees. O'Connor was just like Kennedy, a swing vote.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Where have you been? Kennedy has been a disaster for years, as he 'swings' to and fro.
There is no way we do not get an improvement here.
Hmmm...only on social issues.
And, at 72..frankly I don't give a damn.
I'll grudgingly give him chops for coming our way 5-4 the majority of the time.
As somebody else just said....it's a status quo appointment. But we should embrace it.
...shuddering at what could've been. :laugh:
-
Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·
David Martosko
â€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.
_____________________________
:laugh:
-
Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·
David Martosko
â€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.
_____________________________
:laugh:
That's a thought that should frighten even the squishiest RINO.
-
Where have you been? Kennedy has been a disaster for years, as he 'swings' to and fro.
There is no way we do not get an improvement here.
We don't know who he wants here. I'm reserving opinion on what we we're getting. Chinless may tell him he's not going to fight for another conservative (I'm still not all that sure about Gorsuch yet).
-
That's a thought that should frighten even the squishiest RINO.
....or NT'er. :bolt:
:laugh:
-
We don't know who he wants here. I'm reserving opinion on what we we're getting. Chinless may tell him he's not going to fight for another conservative (I'm still not all that sure about Gorsuch yet).
Status Que does not cut it.
If Trump does not put a Bork/Scalia up.. then he is a pos... Bring on Ted in 2020.
-
Going to be a violent, bloody Summer, IMO.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQhv1OnCQw#)
-
Hmmm...only on social issues.
And, at 72..frankly I don't give a damn.
I'll grudgingly give him chops for coming our way 5-4 the majority of the time.
As somebody else just said....it's a status quo appointment. But we should embrace it.
...shuddering at what could've been. :laugh:
I don't want a status quo appointment. It's going to take a solid conservative to start cleaning out the swamp of the Nine Robed Tyrants.
-
Status Que does not cut it.
If Trump does not put a Bork/Scalia up.. then he is a pos... Bring on Ted in 2020.
The deal may have been to choose a true Centrist.
I'm not going to forget that in my lifetime, Negroes couldn't eat/drink/shit in the same place as white people. Times indeed do change.
Sure, I'd love to see Senator Lee get the gig. But for this pick, I'd accept a Kennedy clone.
But with the next pick, I'm with ya! :laugh:
-
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.
The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk
Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.
A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.
That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html)
81 poor guy he missed retirement. He might get to have a chair in the shower with a view?
Well its about time. Now lets see about Roe V Wade.
-
The deal may have been to choose a true Centrist.
I'm not going to forget that in my lifetime, Negroes couldn't eat/drink/shit in the same place as white people. Times indeed do change.
Sure, I'd love to see Senator Lee get the gig. But for this pick, I'd accept a Kennedy clone.
But with the next pick, I'm with ya! :laugh:
The last time Cupid aimed for a "centrist," he hit Souter.
-
The last time Cupid aimed for a "centrist," he hit Souter.
LOL! Point taken.
-
The deal may have been to choose a true Centrist.
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.
-
The deal may have been to choose a true Centrist.
I'm not going to forget that in my lifetime, Negroes couldn't eat/drink/shit in the same place as white people. Times indeed do change.
Sure, I'd love to see Senator Lee get the gig. But for this pick, I'd accept a Kennedy clone.
But with the next pick, I'm with ya! :laugh:
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.
-
The deal may have been to choose a true Centrist.
I'm not going to forget that in my lifetime, Negroes couldn't eat/drink/shit in the same place as white people. Times indeed do change.
Sure, I'd love to see Senator Lee get the gig. But for this pick, I'd accept a Kennedy clone.
But with the next pick, I'm with ya! :laugh:
As I posted earlier in this thread as part of Trump’s “planâ€.
-
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.
I don’t think he meant what you thought.
-
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.
Whoa there, paint. You're working up a lather.
"With you" begins and ends in demanding a "Bork or Scalia" for the next pick.
:laugh:
-
News flash .... DATELINE: 06-27-18
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.
WTF is "racist" about pointing out that America has changed during my lifetime?
I resent your virtue-signaling ass. I never judged "Conservatives" here. You're either drunk right now, or stoned.
@mystery-ak @Mod1 @anybodytheeffelse
You explain to me and the membership where the hell I deserve this shit?
[/quote]
-
WTF is "racist" about pointing out that America has changed during my lifetime?
I resent your virtue-signaling ass. I never judged "Conservatives" here. You're either drunk right now, or stoned.
@mystery-ak @Mod1 @anybodytheeffelse
You explain to me and the membership where the hell I deserve this shit?
Just for the record, I don't understand the accusation of racism either.
-
He should nominate Hillary so that she could be investigated via her Senate vetting.
ARE YOU MAD!?
She Who Must Not Be Named has proven Herself the most ruthless womyn ever to stalk the halls of power. A disciple of Saul Alinsky who has used the Rules for Radicals extensively in clawing Her way to power. A compulsive liar. A consummate fraud.
Do you really honestly think that the Senate Committee would do anything other than throw softballs, lionize Her "lifelong" career in government "service", and allow Her to high-five everybody on the way out of the chamber? Like She did for Benghazi?
Eight years of "Co-President" and destroying people's lives. Eight years of the Senate, with nothing to show for it except fewer dead bodies. Four years as Secretary of State, WITH dead bodies. Four more years of deep-state corruption, pay-to-play scams, and compromising national security.
And you want to possibly grant Her access to the highest court in the land, destroying the Constitution and more lives, and die on the bench after DJT leaves office, just in time for a Socialist President to appoint a fellow traveler.
The Red Queen must never again walk the halls of power. That day would spell the doom of whatever republic remains.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dguo6uvVMAAhXgf.jpg)
-
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 was thinking a 'promise' to not make this one an ideologue. ...a Roy Bean. That's all.
But the thought of another Souter? No thank you.
So, to paraphrase @Cyber Liberty, ...Aim High and to the Right.
-
Just for the record, I don't understand the accusation of racism either.
Thank you, sir.
I was merely pointing out that a SCOTUS should take current culture and society into consideration while ruling.
...once in a while. :laugh:
-
@Once-Ler
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/TC2T2oFx9muMbwN7CY4KfQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz03MTE-/https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1DCa_o4pqyE/maxresdefault.jpg.cf.jpg)
You’re gonna need a bigger bench.
-
WTF is "racist" about pointing out that America has changed during my lifetime?
I resent your virtue-signaling ass. I never judged "Conservatives" here. You're either drunk right now, or stoned.
@mystery-ak @Mod1 @anybodytheeffelse
You explain to me and the membership where the hell I deserve this shit?
@DCPatriot you don't. I think someone misread and/or misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
-
WTF is "racist" about pointing out that America has changed during my lifetime?
I resent your virtue-signaling ass. I never judged "Conservatives" here. You're either drunk right now, or stoned.
@mystery-ak @Mod1 @anybodytheeffelse
You explain to me and the membership where the hell I deserve this shit?
Your words are clear.
You s'port a "centrist". Because in your words .."the world has changed", Negroes are not banned from drinking at "white only" any more.
Sorry, I do not think Clarence is an Uncle Tom. Nor do I think another Gorsuch/Alito/Scalia intend to return us to that or advocate for that.
If I misinterpret your words, maybe you can explain why you brought them up in the context of a Conservative appointment along the lines of ...say Thomas?
-
Please Gentlemen let's move past this unfortunate misunderstanding we are all adults here, right? Thank you.
-
Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·
David Martosko
â€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.
_____________________________
Thanks for the nightmares @DCPatriot
-
Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·
David Martosko
â€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.
_____________________________
:laugh:
Three Our Father's and three Hail Mary's as your penance for frightening the children with that image.
Go forth and sin no more.
-
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.
Somewhere in another Dimension where no one plays chess, No one is worried that President Cruz will nominate anything BUT a Constitutionalist to the SC.
-
Somewhere in another Dimension where no one plays chess....
That still wouldn’t explain Gary Kasparov’s helicopter.
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WsZjmPtyxzU#)
-
If there's one thing I know for dead last certain, it's that @DCPatriot is no racist. I've only known him here, and for a couple of years, and we butt heads on certain matters as often as we agree on certain matters, but racism doesn't occupy one cell in his brain or one vessel in his heart.
If there's another thing I know for dead last certain, it's that recalling the days when black men and women lived under the nefarities of Jim Crow does not make one a racist, it makes one only too well aware that, at enough times in our history, the United States has made grave errors and done its level best to correct most of them. It isn't racist but it is willful blindness to ignore those errors, and to fail to learn from them.
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.
-
p.s. Even in jest, the earlier posting of a Supreme Court portrait with Chris Christie as one of the justices is only slightly less nauseating than the thought of learning diplomacy from Attila the Hun.
-
Fair 'Nough Mod8.
Certainly we here pick enough fights. We all make comments that pr*ck the ire of others at times. Points , counterpoints have been made. Each reader capable of deciding the merits.
I hold no grudge @DCPatriot :beer:
Having said that..... yes Mod8, you knew this was coming. Let the next obama appoint the "centrist". Us Conservatives have appointed to many.
-
If there's one thing I know for dead last certain, it's that @DCPatriot is no racist. I've only known him here, and for a couple of years, and we butt heads on certain matters as often as we agree on certain matters, but racism doesn't occupy one cell in his brain or one vessel in his heart.
If there's another thing I know for dead last certain, it's that recalling the days when black men and women lived under the nefarities of Jim Crow does not make one a racist, it makes one only too well aware that, at enough times in our history, the United States has made grave errors and done its level best to correct most of them. It isn't racist but it is willful blindness to ignore those errors, and to fail to learn from them.
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.
A sincere thank you, @EasyAce
You've expressed my intent and feelings. I'm humbled.
@Fantom We're good! :beer:
-
Democrats have a risky long shot at blocking Trump's next Supreme Court pick
Earlier this month, University of Miami political scientist Gregory Koger, a specialist in filibustering and legislative obstructionism, explained on Vox.com that, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “a majority … shall constitute a quorum to do business†in the Senate — meaning that Democrats can basically shut the place down by refusing to vote on anything.
With only the barest 51-vote majority — and one of their own, Arizona Sen. John McCain, on extended leave in Arizona as he grapples with what is likely to be terminal brain cancer — Republicans would have difficultly mustering a quorum without at least some Democratic help. “In the month of June, there have been an average of 1.8 Republican absences across 18 roll call votes,†Koger wrote, “so even if McCain returned to the Senate, the majority would struggle to consistently provide a floor majority.†If McCain doesn’t return, and all 49 Democrats refuse to participate, the 50 Republican senators left in Washington would fall one short of a quorum. (The Senate precedents on quorums do not mention whether Vice President Mike Pence could contribute a 51st vote.)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-risky-longshot-blocking-trumps-next-supreme-court-pick-214353853.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-risky-longshot-blocking-trumps-next-supreme-court-pick-214353853.html)
Schumer doesn’t have the stones to try this.
-
Someone fully Endorsed your THIRD POINT today @EasyAce
Ted Cruz: I don’t want to see a conservative court!
The Right Scoop Jun. 27, 2018 5:34 pm by The Right Scoop
Ted Cruz was on Fox News today to weigh in on the Supreme Court vacancy and at one point explained that he doesn’t want a conservative court. If you want, skip ahead to just before the 3 minute mark. Or watch the whole thing:
<..Video at Link below..>
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-i-dont-want-to-see-a-conservative-court/ (http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-i-dont-want-to-see-a-conservative-court/)
Endorses Sen. Lee at the end.
-
Somewhere in another Dimension where no one plays chess, No one is worried that President Cruz will nominate anything BUT a Constitutionalist to the SC.
Isn't that the dimension where Cruz is arrested and sentenced to death for the string of murders known to all as the Zodiac Killings? In that dimension Cali has the death penalty and uses it.
-
A sincere thank you, @EasyAce
@DCPatriot
No thanks necessary, my friend.
You've expressed my intent and feelings. I'm humbled.
For your kind words I should be humbled!
-
@Fantom We're good! :beer:
@DCPatriot
Hey, if we can't "light 'Em" up every now and then... this would be a sewing circle .
-
Someone fully Endorsed your THIRD POINT today @EasyAce
Ted Cruz: I don’t want to see a conservative court!
The Right Scoop Jun. 27, 2018 5:34 pm by The Right Scoop
Ted Cruz was on Fox News today to weigh in on the Supreme Court vacancy and at one point explained that he doesn’t want a conservative court. If you want, skip ahead to just before the 3 minute mark. Or watch the whole thing:
<..Video at Link below..>
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-i-dont-want-to-see-a-conservative-court/ (http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-i-dont-want-to-see-a-conservative-court/)
Endorses Sen. Lee at the end.
I'm with Ted.
-
JUST IN: Here are the top FOUR picks that Trump will interview for the Supreme Court
The Right Scoop Jun. 27, 2018 10:01 pm by The Right Scoop
According to CBS, we have four top candidates now that Trump intends to interview for the high court:
•Amy Coney Barrett
•Raymond Kethledge
•Brett Kavanaugh
•Amul Thapar
<..snip..>
http://therightscoop.com/just-in-here-are-the-top-four-picks-that-trump-will-interview-for-the-supreme-court/ (http://therightscoop.com/just-in-here-are-the-top-four-picks-that-trump-will-interview-for-the-supreme-court/)
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36364658_2141820246035879_2600724541655220224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d3f4daeb3aea4f4eb281efcf8034bac2&oe=5BE0C585)
-
JUST IN: Here are the top FOUR picks that Trump will interview for the Supreme Court
The Right Scoop Jun. 27, 2018 10:01 pm by The Right Scoop
According to CBS, we have four top candidates now that Trump intends to interview for the high court:
•Amy Coney Barrett
•Raymond Kethledge
•Brett Kavanaugh
•Amul Thapar
<..snip..>
http://therightscoop.com/just-in-here-are-the-top-four-picks-that-trump-will-interview-for-the-supreme-court/ (http://therightscoop.com/just-in-here-are-the-top-four-picks-that-trump-will-interview-for-the-supreme-court/)
Oh. According to CBS. You can throw that right the eff away.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36364658_2141820246035879_2600724541655220224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d3f4daeb3aea4f4eb281efcf8034bac2&oe=5BE0C585)
And who the hell is Matt Kovach? Your Aesthetician?
-
Someone fully Endorsed your THIRD POINT today @EasyAce
@corbe
If only I could take the credit for planting the thought into his mind!
Cruz argues that he doesn’t want a conservative court that is mandating conservative policy outcomes. He believes that’s the job of the legislature. No, Cruz says he wants a court that is faithful to the Constitution and the law as it is written.
His only need for adjustment would be to remind anyone listening that the law as written doesn't always align to the Constitution, and that when that is the case a conscientious judge must rule accordingly, too. But he probably doesn't need me to remind him of that.
-
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.
-
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!
Exactly!
But he also said what I was saying...I don't want @INVAR -type ideologue on the Supreme Court. :laugh:
-
This could be the sleeper.
(https://www.marathi.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/albert-pirro-images.jpg)
* sorry @Emjay
-
This could be the sleeper.
(https://www.marathi.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/albert-pirro-images.jpg)
* sorry @Emjay
No she can't. Know why? She's not on the list. If a person is not on the list that parson isn't worth discussing, because......they are not on the list.
-
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.
And, that means stare decisis is not a legitmate way to determine constitutionality.
-
The McConnell Angle:
Amul Thapar is the front runner because he's a ethnic minority and a good friend of Mitch McConnell's and is from Kentucky.
-
Indeed!
But I've got this unease...gnawing at me.
Justice Kennedy's announced retirement is lighting that fuse we all talked about the other day.
Just look anywhere on social media and cable news.
Going to be a violent, bloody Summer, IMO.
A violent insurrection is coming as sure as the sun rises tomorrow. And it could be ad early as this summer. They were just waiting for the right rallying point, and this could be it.
-
ARE YOU MAD!?
She Who Must Not Be Named has proven Herself the most ruthless womyn ever to stalk the halls of power. A disciple of Saul Alinsky who has used the Rules for Radicals extensively in clawing Her way to power. A compulsive liar. A consummate fraud.
Do you really honestly think that the Senate Committee would do anything other than throw softballs, lionize Her "lifelong" career in government "service", and allow Her to high-five everybody on the way out of the chamber? Like She did for Benghazi?
Eight years of "Co-President" and destroying people's lives. Eight years of the Senate, with nothing to show for it except fewer dead bodies. Four years as Secretary of State, WITH dead bodies. Four more years of deep-state corruption, pay-to-play scams, and compromising national security.
And you want to possibly grant Her access to the highest court in the land, destroying the Constitution and more lives, and die on the bench after DJT leaves office, just in time for a Socialist President to appoint a fellow traveler.
The Red Queen must never again walk the halls of power. That day would spell the doom of whatever republic remains.
That’s her, alright. You summed it up nicely.
And yet, that two-time loser...still won’t go away!
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36364658_2141820246035879_2600724541655220224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d3f4daeb3aea4f4eb281efcf8034bac2&oe=5BE0C585)
I hope the little shit is “literally in tearsâ€. If he wants to see Nazis and death camps, he need look no further than his own mirror.
-
Exactly!
But he also said what I was saying...I don't want @INVAR -type ideologue on the Supreme Court. :laugh:
Agree. The extremes on both sides want to impose their ideologies on the rest of us, which was never the intent of the constitution. “All†men are created equal, even those with differing opinions, republicans and democrats, regardless of demographics. Thankfully, the founders gave us a working document, a blueprint for a civil society.
President Trump will make his selection based not on ideology, but on the candidate’s fidelity to the constitution. Of that I am certain.
-
@DCPatriot you don't. I think someone misread and/or misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
Thanks, @txradioguy
Perhaps, I butchered what I was trying to convey.
At 72 years of age, I personally recall the segregation of African-Americans. In fact, my point is that back then they weren't addressed as such.
It was wrong. it was cruel. But 9 SCOTUS judges, a House and Senate allowed it....until 'one day'.
I chose race to illustrate my point..obviously poorly. But, it could be women getting the vote, etc..
-
Agree. The extremes on both sides want to impose their ideologies on the rest of us, which was never the intent of the constitution. “All†men are created equal, even those with differing opinions, republicans and democrats, regardless of demographics. Thankfully, the founders gave us a working document, a blueprint for a civil society.
President Trump will make his selection based not on ideology, but on the candidate’s fidelity to the constitution. Of that I am certain.
888high58888
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dguo6uvVMAAhXgf.jpg)
@Once-Ler
LOL
-
If there's one thing I know for dead last certain, it's that @DCPatriot is no racist. I've only known him here, and for a couple of years, and we butt heads on certain matters as often as we agree on certain matters, but racism doesn't occupy one cell in his brain or one vessel in his heart.
If there's another thing I know for dead last certain, it's that recalling the days when black men and women lived under the nefarities of Jim Crow does not make one a racist, it makes one only too well aware that, at enough times in our history, the United States has made grave errors and done its level best to correct most of them. It isn't racist but it is willful blindness to ignore those errors, and to fail to learn from them.
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.
@EasyAce
Yes to everything you wrote.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36364658_2141820246035879_2600724541655220224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d3f4daeb3aea4f4eb281efcf8034bac2&oe=5BE0C585)
@DCPatriot
That drama princess ought to take his sputtering spark to Broadway.
-
I can't believe what a bad day the Commie Leftists are having. This is going to send them off the rails because now Trump gets to install another Conservative.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/364bed85abc6a6b0c6fee19ee769e4f2/tenor.gif?itemid=8853358)
-
Thanks, @txradioguy
Perhaps, I butchered what I was trying to convey.
At 72 years of age, I personally recall the segregation of African-Americans. In fact, my point is that back then they weren't addressed as such.
It was wrong. it was cruel. But 9 SCOTUS judges, a House and Senate allowed it....until 'one day'.
I chose race to illustrate my point..obviously poorly. But, it could be women getting the vote, etc..
@DCPatriot
No, DC, it wasn’t a poor choice. It was fine. You were perfectly clear; you were just describing a point in time. I hope we never become so politically correct that we hesitate to speak about race, sex, or whatever because somebody might pounce. Especially when simply stating historical fact.
-
Watch for Flake to make stopping the President's nomination his swan song.
-
Not a bad choice on the entire list but at this point in history Mike Lee gets my vote!
Both Lee and Cruz are needed in the Senate.
-
@Old Sarge
To read your private messages, look at the top of the page and click on "Messages", then click "Read Your Messages". My messages to you are there.
-
Right now, we have 4 legislators on the Supreme Court, working for the Democratic Party. They vote in lock step with no interest in the Constitution. They vote against the First Amendment at every turn. They will be hard to overcome because they don't ever waver from the Party agenda. Even with Kennedy getting replaced, it will still be tough.
We are at least two more judges away from getting those Nazi death camps we covet so much.
-
Nein, Nyet...f'cing no.
You strike when the iron is hot.
No quarter, no prisoners...they do not give us that.
No quarter. We already gave up ground when Scalia suddenly died and we replaced with Gorusch.
Although he appears ok, he is not the same as a proven lion like Scalia. Gorusch still has to prove himself over the years to say otherwise.
-
Right now, we have 4 legislators on the Supreme Court, working for the Democratic Party. They vote in lock step with no interest in the Constitution. They vote against the First Amendment at every turn. They will be hard to overcome because they don't ever waver from the Party agenda. Even with Kennedy getting replaced, it will still be tough.
We are at least two more judges away from getting those Nazi death camps we covet so much.
You said it way better than I tried to and failed.
-
Right now, we have 4 legislators on the Supreme Court, working for the Democratic Party.
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.
-
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.
:amen: and she has no concept of what a Justice should be!
-
WTF is "racist" about pointing out that America has changed during my lifetime?
I resent your virtue-signaling ass. I never judged "Conservatives" here. You're either drunk right now, or stoned.
@mystery-ak @Mod1
You explain to me and the membership where the hell I deserve this shit?
@DCPatriot
The member said to you: "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."
You said you are in your 70s and remember when blacks couldn't be with whites in normal living activities. It was definitely not racist when you said that. I am a few years older than you are, I was born in Texas but my parents were from Arkansas, and they brought to Texas the way they were brought up.
My parents were nice to blacks, but I recall my mother saying, "Blacks are all right as long as they stay in their place." A black woman would come to our house on Mondays, which was wash day, and help my mother wash clothes. I remember a large iron container outside where water was heated and clothes were washed in that, rinsed in another big container and put through a wringer, then hung on a clothes line. Mother was nice to that black lady but she was considered to be less than a white.
That was also the days of hobos, who went to houses asking for food. My mother always gave them food no matter if they were white or black.
Here is a reason for that type behavior lasting so long: A person is born into a social structure and thinks that is the way to live. They don't know anything else and think that way of living is the way it is. I knew my mother thought blacks were less than white people, and it took my growing to be an adult before I saw what was happening was wrong.
Back in that day, my mother also hated Jews because, as she said, "They killed Christ". Now there were some "Jew" owned stores in the town we had to go to when we needed certain items. She knew which stores were owned by them and would not go in them. However, I came along and had very narrow feet - AAAA. 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. That was an upscale store and I loved it. I never had a bad feeling about Jews as my mother did.
So, my parents were of a time when blacks and Jews were not equal to non-Jew whites. You and I are the generation that eventually stopped that behavior toward those people.
-
We are at least two more judges away from getting those Nazi death camps we covet so much.
Don't forget the Q military tribunals.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"Outcome-based justice" is not justice: it is a thumb on Justice's scale.
:amen: nothing less than that!
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Clarice Feldman
15 mins ·
David Martosko
â€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.
_____________________________
:laugh:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36364658_2141820246035879_2600724541655220224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d3f4daeb3aea4f4eb281efcf8034bac2&oe=5BE0C585)
LOL, I saw that on twitter last night.
That dude needs to get a life.
-
Americans who happen to be homosexual. *****rollingeyes*****
-
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.
The Constitution says what it says and not what you, Justice Kennedy, or anyone else thinks or wishes it to say. Changed circumstances have not a damned thing to do with it.
-
Clarence Thomas has been a great justice. I admire him so much.
But, hey, there is a reason for stereotyping ...it's usually true.
But why do you stereotype with respect to Amul Thapar, a superior judge by most conservatives' reckoning, just because he happens to be of Indian descent?
How much better off we'd all be if we took Martin Luther King's admonition to heart, rather than paying it lip service. Judge the man by the content of his character, not his ethnicity or membership in an arbitrary "identity" group.
But I will throw this out - Asian Americans are the biggest victims of the left's prejudices. They keep their families intact, work hard, emphasize achievement and personal responsibility, and ace most college aptitude tests. And the left insists on denigrating their chances to get into the best schools because they're not the right sort of minority.
I'd love to see that sort of "minority" perspective on the Court.
-
Americans who happen to be homosexual. *****rollingeyes*****
Have they lost their status as Americans in your view? Are they not entitled to the law's equal protection in your view?
-
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.
Short of an act of Congress, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits a State from formulating its own laws in regard to marriage, or for that matter, abortion. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
As for Equal Protection, it died the moment that one class was given special status over another at the expense of other classes. But then such are the pitfalls of judicial tyranny when the Constitution is ignored.
-
The Constitution says what it says and not what you, Justice Kennedy, or anyone else thinks or wishes it to say. Changed circumstances have not a damned thing to do with it.
And what it says is that all Americans are entitled to the law's equal protections. No exceptions. Period.
-
As for Equal Protection, it died the moment that one class was given special status over another at the expense of other classes.
Equal protection, thanks to the wisdom of the SCOTUS, is alive and well. Christians and their dogmas and prejudices aren't accorded any special status. None. Zip. Nada.
-
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 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.
It is true that throughout his tenure, you really were not sure which way he would rule.
He would just as likely rule left as he would right.
A very interesting thing happened in this last SCOTUS session.
There were 14 5-4 decisions this time.
All 5-4 decisions went to the right (or shall we say, less activist side) of the court.
In all 14 Kennedy was the 5th voice.
Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kennedy were the 5 in all 14 of these.
While his career was up and down from a conservative point of view, he sure went out with a bang.
-
Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kennedy were the 5 in all 14 of these.
Not on the internet tax decision.
-
Are they not entitled to the law's equal protection in your view?
"Equal" protection, not "superior."
-
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?
Key words = Identity politics Fairness=Progressive=Social Justice=Equity=Post modernism=Intersectionality
etc.
These are the principles of current democrats, and most of what the Left has become.
Thoose concepts guide and justify acts to shut down free speech on campuses, with violence if necessary, violence by Antifa.
So while the words are just gentle words, the methods and tactics employed are violent.
So if you envision having to man the barricades, nice to know the slogans and messaging of your opponents
-
Have they lost their status as Americans in your view? Are they not entitled to the law's equal protection in your view?
The point of Justice being blind includes being colorblind.
-
The point of Justice being blind includes being colorblind.
Then we agree.
-
It is true that throughout his tenure, you really were not sure which way he would rule.
Is that a bad thing?
A very interesting thing happened in this last SCOTUS session.
There were 14 5-4 decisions this time.
All 5-4 decisions went to the right (or shall we say, less activist side) of the court.
In all 14 Kennedy was the 5th voice.
Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kennedy were the 5 in all 14 of these.
While his career was up and down from a conservative point of view, he sure went out with a bang.
And that is why I do not want it forgotten that Justice Kennedy was a superb and impartial jurist. I sense some here are glad to see him go. I think he was one of the Court's leading lights.
-
Not on the internet tax decision.
This was an odd one to be sure.
Kennedy, wrote the opinion, that overturnned his own precedent.
Oddly, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Ginsburg, all agreed with that part of it.
From the Wall Street Journal:
"Justice Anthony Kennedy, who suggested years ago that the pre-Amazon.com precedent should be updated for the digital age, wrote for a majority that defied conventional ideological lines. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his opinion, along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch."
You could say this isn't conservative, because it raises taxes, and no conservative wants that.
However, you could say it is conservative, because it opens the states up to decide to tax or not, via the 10th Amendment.
Not making the states do it, of course, but not stopping them if they choose to.
-
...changed circumstances...
That’s a great point. When circumstances change, smart people change their thinking to incorporate the new paradigm: equal protection + social change
To do otherwise is to risk denying to some members of society the blessings of freedom that we all get to enjoy in America.
-
Is that a bad thing?
And that is why I do not want it forgotten that Justice Kennedy was a superb and impartial jurist. I sense some here are glad to see him go. I think he was one of the Court's leading lights.
I won't say the he was a bad jurist, just a moderate one, which is better than being a liberal one.
I think it boils down to this:
On most social issues that come before the court, it usually comes down to is it a 10th or 14th amendment issue.
The right would lean 10th and left 14th, but not always 100% of the time, written in stone.
Ending Jim Crow via the 14th was the right thing to do.
Allowing abortion under the 14th?
That argument is still raging today.
My own personal opinion is that the 14th is used too often to end or allow a practice that wasn't originally intended to be covered by the 14th, but I am more conservative than Kennedy, and others.
-
That’s a great point. When circumstances change, smart people change their thinking to incorporate the new paradigm: equal protection + social change
To do otherwise is to risk denying to some members of society the blessings of freedom that we all get to enjoy in America.
Can you give an example of what you're referring to vis-Ã -vis the new paradigm: equal protection + social change? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Thx.
@aligncare
-
This may be helpful:
THE RUN-DOWN: Here's What You Need To Know About Trump's Top 5 Possible Nominees
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=062818-news&utm_campaign=position2 (https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=062818-news&utm_campaign=position2)
-
This may be helpful:
If that is true and he has indeed pared the list down to those five then it should be Thomas Hardiman hands down.
With respect to Brett Kavanaugh I would remind you of this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/there_is_something_fishy_about_one_of_trumps_potential_supreme_court_nominees_.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/there_is_something_fishy_about_one_of_trumps_potential_supreme_court_nominees_.html)
-
Kennedy has been the source of that unpredictability on SCOTUS, which is why I don't want him replaced by another Kennedy.
@Cyber Liberty
Exactly!
-
My own personal opinion is that the 14th is used too often to end or allow a practice that wasn't originally intended to be covered by the 14th, but I am more conservative than Kennedy, and others.
QFT
-
Absolutely not true. That is stereotyping, pure and simple.
And Obama didn't boast about his "Wise Latina" pick.
-
The writers of and those that passed the 14th amendment into law had NO intention for it to mean what activist judges have interpreted it to mean!
-
This may be helpful:
Thanks, @Sanguine . It is good to see that the President is acting swiftly to pare down the list and announce his choice sooner rather than later. It is absolutely critical to confirm the new Justice before the election, not only because the GOP still controls the Senate, but because we don't need the SCOTUS as an issue motivating liberals to get out and vote.
Good, too, to see Hardiman and Thapar are on the list. Also Amy Barrett - who's a practicing Catholic and, as some will recall, the judge that the Dems were determined to deep-six for the temerity of having religious beliefs.
-
Thanks, @txradioguy
Perhaps, I butchered what I was trying to convey.
At 72 years of age, I personally recall the segregation of African-Americans. In fact, my point is that back then they weren't addressed as such.
It was wrong. it was cruel. But 9 SCOTUS judges, a House and Senate allowed it....until 'one day'.
I chose race to illustrate my point..obviously poorly. But, it could be women getting the vote, etc..
The sad thing is...in same areas of race we've come full circle back to separate but equal...and again it's the Democrats insisting that it be that way.
Only difference this time is that the African American community is fully behind the effort.
-
Equal protection, thanks to the wisdom of the SCOTUS, is alive and well.
Equal Protection? Hardly. We already had equal protection until 'preference was added to the equation. Now, it comes down to one preference being given special treatment over another. Just ask any polygamist about equal protection. He keeps hearing the lie from people like you about equal protection while his preference continues to be denied.
Christians and their dogmas and prejudices aren't accorded any special status. None. Zip. Nada.
Ah, so what we're really talking about here is your religious bigotry.
-
Ah, so what we're really talking about here is your religious bigotry.
Not bigotry. Separation of church and state. Thank God for it.
-
Equal Protection? Hardly. We already had equal protection until 'preference was added to the equation. Now, it comes down to one preference being given special treatment over another.
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.
-
Not bigotry. Separation of church and state.
There is nothing that prevents religion from being in the public square.
And you're loose and very Liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment is as shoddy as your interpretation of the 2nd and the 14th.
If it were up to you...nothing dealing with religion would ever be uttered outside the walls of a church.
-
Not bigotry. Separation of church and state.
Then why bring up Christians? I address the law, and you instead bring up Christians. It is a pattern with you. It's what bigots do.
Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know. Not that this has anything at all to do with the State of California being allowed to establish its own laws on marriage.
-
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
I demand no such thing. I only ask that the Constitution be followed, and that California or Vermont be allowed to establish their own marriage laws. Nothing religious about that. So stop with your bigotry against Christians. Religion has nothing to do with this.
The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.
Show me anywhere on this board where I have insisted anyone is going to he'll, you < NOPE >.
-
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.
I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.
They used the 14th amendment to allow gays to be married.
Because they weren't able to marry, they were protected from something others were not.
Divorce
Now, they get to go to court, hire lawyers, and get ugly in court, any pay a lot of money to hear exaggerated claims of what kind of s.o.b. they are from the other party.
Be careful what you wish for.
But, hey, who am I to judge?
They will have equal protection, they will also have equal suffering.
Of course, I am just kidding, but I do find it humorous.
-
I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.
Nor do I. But I am in the fight when it comes to the tyranny of the courts usurping rights delegated to States. I have no problem with Vermont legalizing same-sex marriage. But I fully support their Constitutional right to do so.
-
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.
Carving out a special protected class of citizens from the others is not equal protection.
It is the #1 reason that was a horrible ruling.
-
Nor do I. But I am in the fight when it comes to the tyranny of the courts usurping rights delegated to States. I have no problem with Vermont legalizing same-sex marriage. But I fully support their Constitutional right to do so.
I understand.
I am a 10th over 14th guy, and I didn't think this quite passed the test that the 14th should trump the 10th.
Others disagree.
I do think there are some occasions where the 14th can overrule the 10th, (Jim Crow, for example) but not nearly as often as it has.
-
Short of an act of Congress, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits a State from formulating its own laws in regard to marriage, or for that matter, abortion. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
As for Equal Protection, it died the moment that one class was given special status over another at the expense of other classes. But then such are the pitfalls of judicial tyranny when the Constitution is ignored.
Exactly. Point well taken.
-
I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.
They used the 14th amendment to allow gays to be married.
Because they weren't able to marry, they were protected from something others were not.
Divorce
Now, they get to go to court, hire lawyers, and get ugly in court, any pay a lot of money to hear exaggerated claims of what kind of s.o.b. they are from the other party.
Be careful what you wish for.
But, hey, who am I to judge?
They will have equal protection, they will also have equal suffering.
Of course, I am just kidding, but I do find it humorous.
You're absolutely right. With the benefits of marriage come responsibilities. The civil contract of marriage is unique is that it can only be undone with the consent of a court, which is charged with protecting the less powerful member(s) of the marriage.
The nature of the marriage commitment is precisely why I have long supported same sex marriage. During the seventies, gay bathhouseculture ran amok, leaving thousands if not millions with an incurable, deadly disease. Marriage encourages monogamy and responsibility, and a number of my colleagues, neighbors and family members have taken the plunge. They're the salt of the earth, and just like you and me.
Damn right now that gays have the "equal protection" of marriage, they now have "equal suffering". That's exactly as it should be.
-
Clarence Thomas has been a great justice. I admire him so much.
But, hey, there is a reason for stereotyping ...it's usually true.
But it’s often enough wrong that it makes a very poor substitute for actual thought and consideration of each individual on the merits.
-
Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know.
The nearest the Constitution itself comes to addressing it, other than the First Amendment which enjoins against a state religion equal to its enjoinment against barring religious exercise, comes in Article VI, Section Three: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Emphasis mine.)
-
I demand no such thing. I only ask that the Constitution be followed, and that California or Vermont be allowed to establish their own marriage laws. Nothing religious about that. So stop with your bigotry against Christians. Religion has nothing to do with this.
Of course prejudice against gays is rooted in religion. You're right though, it isn't just Christians. Muslim dogma is equally chilling. And the fact is that many - perhaps even most - Christians have no hatred of gays, wish them the best, and will even bake them cakes. That's the nature of Christ's message of love, humility and grace.
California and Vermont can and do establish their own marriage laws. Each state determines on its own the benefits, rights, protections and responsibilities of married couple. What they cannot do, however, is extend valuable rights and protections to certain couples and not others. To that extent, the 14th amendment trumps the 10th. That's equal protection.
-
Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know.
Yes there is, just so you know.
-
Yes there is, just so you know.
Really? Exactly where is that?
-
I'm a bit confused here, @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.
But then, you say this:
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?
If the argument is that race doesn't affect rulings, then why are you intrigued by how Amul Thapar's South Asian heritage would affect "his perspective" on the Court? I mean, either it's inconsequential and shouldn't be considered, or it isn't inconsequential and should be considered.
-
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.
My issue is not with the actual result that he reached. I could see someone reaching that result through plain legal reasoning, though I disagree with it. My issue is with his reasoning, which was clearly tainted by things that had nothing to do with law. I mean, this is maudlin crap that doesn't belong anywhere in any court opinion, much less a Supreme Court opinion:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.
That reads like a newspaper editorial trying to convince legislators to support gay marriage, not a legal opinion. There are other examples in that opinion of that kind of...garbage. The man should have stuck to the legal issue, not so clearly tipped his hand regarding his personal biases.
-
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
That is as big of a bald faced lie as you've ever told on here.
The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.
You keep demanding special extra constitutional "rights" for your favorite little special interest groups above and beyond everyone else. And then call us bigots when we call you on it.
-
Yes there is, just so you know.
No there is not.
-
I'm a bit confused here, @Jazzhead
But then, you say this:
If the argument is that race doesn't affect rulings, then why are you intrigued by how Amul Thapar's South Asian heritage would affect "his perspective" on the Court? I mean, either it's inconsequential and shouldn't be considered, or it isn't inconsequential and should be considered.
No, there's also "it isn't inconsequential and it shouldn't be considered".
I am operating from the premise that Judge Thapar is not an identity-politics liberal. He is, rather, an Indian-American in the same sense that I'm a Swedish-American. Emphasis on the American, but like all Americans, a mutt. I subscribe to the school that we're a melting pot, not a mosaic, and that our rights derive from our status as individuals, not as members of an identity group.
That being said, it would be fascinating, I think, to see an Indian-American on the Court. Because he is neither of the majority nor of a favored minority - rather, to the identity-politics crowd, he is a disfavored minority, the members of which are prone to achievement, family cohesion and excellent test scores. The kind of minority that puts the lie to the premises underlying the identity crowd - that minorities by definition are victimized by the white patriarchy.
-
No there is not.
Yes, there is.
-
I understand.
I am a 10th over 14th guy, and I didn't think this quite passed the test that the 14th should trump the 10th.
I am a Tenth AND a Fourteenth Amendment guy. Obergefell violates both.
-
Yes, there is.
Totally irrelevant since this has nothing to do with church. But your weak attempt lie about what the Constitution says did not go unnoticed.
-
Totally irrelevant since this has nothing to do with church. But your weak attempt lie about what the Constitution says did not go unnoticed.
<NOPE> Do not make personal insults.
-
Yes, there is.
@Jazzhead
Where?? C'mon counselor. Show those of us that have READ the First Amendment where this mythical separation is.
I can't wait to hand you your @ss on this yet again.
-
@Jazzhead
Where?? C'mon counselor. Show those of us that have READ the First Amendment where this mythical separation is.
I can't wait to hand you your @ss on this yet again.
:bigsilly:
-
@Jazzhead
Where?? C'mon counselor. Show those of us that have READ the First Amendment where this mythical separation is.
I can't wait to hand you your @ss on this yet again.
@@@girlfight
-
@Jazzhead
Where?? C'mon counselor. Show those of us that have READ the First Amendment where this mythical separation is.
I can't wait to hand you your @ss on this yet again.
It's in the penumbras and emanations and ether of the spirit that is read into the text of the Constitution dontchaknow?
Specifically the section Jefferson wrote that was ratified by all 13 states that doesn't use those words per-se, but in 1801, Jefferson's INTENT was clear: Church should be made separate from any public expression and exercise, if not outlawed completely.
Remember it's what Judges opine and state in Case law that is where the real meaning and intents of the Constitution can be discovered.
-
It's in the penumbras and emanations and ether of the spirit that is read into the text of the Constitution dontchaknow?
Specifically the section Jefferson wrote that was ratified by all 13 states that doesn't use those words per-se, but in 1801, Jefferson's INTENT was clear: Church should be made separate from any public expression and exercise, if not outlawed completely.
Remember it's what Judges opine and state in Case law that is where the real meaning and intents of the Constitution can be discovered.
The funny thing is...Jefferson...while not doing a thing to help write the U.S. Constitution...IIRC helped wrote the Virginia State Constitution and their First Amendment mirrors that if the U.S. Constitution.
-
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.
Why single out Christians?
Is it your understanding that Muslims readily accept homosexuals?
You have an obvious agenda.
-
Remember it's what Judges opine and state in Case law that is where the real meaning and intents of the Constitution can be discovered.
@INVAR if that were true...we'd still have the Dread Scott decision...Separate but Equal...Jim Crow and Japanese Americans in internment camps.
All were decisions by the Supreme Court that some people here think is the final say on everything in the country.
-
There really isn't anyone who is more of a staunch judicial conservative than Neil Gorsuch. Perhaps you can find a conservative activist, but I wouldn't want that either.
The vote for Gorsuch was 54-45. It's going to be tough to defeat this nominee. That's kind of why I'd like Allison Eid. Staunch conservative, and it would be really tough for the GOP female Senators to oppose a woman.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DguMTslX0AABaK7.jpg)
The picture is for laughs. I agree with you. A strong conservative woman sends a virtuous message. Even some rat females with have a hard time opposing. Let's hope President Trump tries vetting his nominees now.
-
The funny thing is...Jefferson...while not doing a thing to help write the U.S. Constitution...IIRC helped wrote the Virginia State Constitution and their First Amendment mirrors that if the U.S. Constitution.
Pshaw!! Don't let facts get in the way of the agenda!
What's the matter with you?
The Court says there is a separation in the shadows of the text, and damn it anyhow - what they rule at the moment is LAW!
Unless of course they disagree with 'the Law', then they can ignore it or circumvent it.
The Law is what they say it is. Same with the Constitution and who gets special rights and privileges and whom is a bigot that needs to be put in their place to make everything equal.
-
Pshaw!! Don't let facts get in the way of the agenda!
What's the matter with you?
The Court says there is a separation in the shadows of the text, and damn it anyhow - what they rule at the moment is LAW!
Unless of course they disagree with 'the Law', then they can ignore it or circumvent it.
The Law is what they say it is. Same with the Constitution and who gets special rights and privileges and whom is a bigot that needs to be put in their place to make everything equal.
You mean like declaring the individual mandate a tax even after the proponents stood before you and argued that it wasn't?
-
Why single out Christians?
Is it your understanding that Muslims readily accept homosexuals?
You have an obvious agenda.
See my post #318.
-
You mean like declaring the individual mandate a tax even after the proponents stood before you and argued that it wasn't?
Like that and more.
They operate under the same machinations that this guy did:
(https://i.imgur.com/B0FiHGY.png)
-
The funny thing is...Jefferson...while not doing a thing to help write the U.S. Constitution...IIRC helped wrote the Virginia State Constitution and their First Amendment mirrors that if the U.S. Constitution.
@txradioguy
It may have been James Madison who had the stronger influence there, having said during the Virginia state constitution debates, Who is it who cannot see, that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions must then consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?
-
Can't wait to see if this thread makes it into his replacements tenure.
-
See my post #318.
See my post one more time. I replied to your post.
Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.
Why did you single out Christians?
-
Why did you single out Christians?
Because there aren't a lot of Richards on the board.
-
<NOPE> Do not make personal insults.
My statement was 100% accurate. Apparently, lying about what a poster has said is allowed. But calling that person a liar is not.
-
The funny thing is...Jefferson...while not doing a thing to help write the U.S. Constitution...IIRC helped wrote the Virginia State Constitution and their First Amendment mirrors that if the U.S. Constitution.
It was written by George Mason. And while Mason backed Jefferson's cause at the Convention, his side lost out to Madison.
-
Of course prejudice against gays is rooted in religion.
But for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with prejudice against gays. It has been and always will be about self-determination by the citizenry of a State per Amendment X -Bill of Rights.
This has been explained to you again and again and again and again. Yet here you are telling outrageous mean-spirited lies about what I have said. Clearly, 'truth is something you do not value.
California and Vermont can and do establish their own marriage laws.
As I said, 'truth is simply a quality that you do not value.
-
We have to keep in mind for this discussion that the original federal republic envisioned by the Framers was crushed vigorously in the early 1860s, and this destruction was enshrined by the conquerors in the 14th, in 1868. The tyranny of a huge centralized government taking precedence over the rights of the people in their respective states has come to pass.
Madison, Jefferson, Mason may have debated various forms of liberty,but that was discarded 150 years ago, as they rolled in their graves.
-
We have to keep in mind for this discussion that the original federal republic envisioned by the Framers was crushed vigorously in the early 1860s, and this destruction was enshrined by the conquerors in the 14th, in 1868. The tyranny of a huge centralized government taking precedence over the rights of the people in their respective states has come to pass.
Madison, Jefferson, Mason may have debated various forms of liberty,but that was discarded 150 years ago, as they rolled in their graves.
B I N G O ! ! !
-
My statement was 100% accurate. Apparently, lying about what a poster has said is allowed. But calling that person a liar is not.
Funny, that - isn't it?
Yet for some, they are the loudest complainers about how 'unfair' this place is.
-
But why do you stereotype with respect to Amul Thapar, a superior judge by most conservatives' reckoning, just because he happens to be of Indian descent?
How much better off we'd all be if we took Martin Luther King's admonition to heart, rather than paying it lip service. Judge the man by the content of his character, not his ethnicity or membership in an arbitrary "identity" group.
But I will throw this out - Asian Americans are the biggest victims of the left's prejudices. They keep their families intact, work hard, emphasize achievement and personal responsibility, and ace most college aptitude tests. And the left insists on denigrating their chances to get into the best schools because they're not the right sort of minority.
I'd love to see that sort of "minority" perspective on the Court.
I did not stereotype Amul. I know nothing about him. But most minorities operate from a base of who they are. Sometimes they are able to overcome that and be completely fair to everyone. Sometimes they aren't.
-
But I will throw this out - Asian Americans are the biggest victims of the left's prejudices. They keep their families intact, work hard, emphasize achievement and personal responsibility, and ace most college aptitude tests. And the left insists on denigrating their chances to get into the best schools because they're not the right sort of minority.
I'd love to see that sort of "minority" perspective on the Court.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/rO_70My1bPZQisbKFCVeFg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0zODQ7dz0zNDA-/http://www.ifsqn.com/forum/uploads/gallery_17192_42_982.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
That being said, it would be fascinating, I think, to see an Indian-American on the Court. Because he is neither of the majority nor of a favored minority - rather, to the identity-politics crowd, he is a disfavored minority, the members of which are prone to achievement, family cohesion and excellent test scores. The kind of minority that puts the lie to the premises underlying the identity crowd - that minorities by definition are victimized by the white patriarchy.
I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans. It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.
-
I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans. It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.
Not all stereotypes are false. Some are, but many are not.
Of course, with so many variables, there will always be those that do not fit the stereotype.
-
I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans. It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.
Yes, you are correct - it is a stereotype. And you're right, we all do it. What matters is the service in which a stereotype is employed. My original statement had been in response to a suggestion (paraphrasing very generally) that minorities tend to bring perspectives to the court that promote liberalism.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/rO_70My1bPZQisbKFCVeFg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0zODQ7dz0zNDA-/http://www.ifsqn.com/forum/uploads/gallery_17192_42_982.jpg.cf.jpg)
Good one! I remember well the Dancing Itos. Sure do miss Jay Leno, as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.
-
Why did you single out Christians?
Why not? Christians are a majority in this country, Muslims a tiny minority. But sure - for the record, some Muslims are as fascist as some Christians are about demanding the state impose their morality on others - even with respect to consensual behavior which harms no one else.
There - are you happy now?
-
Maybe we should nominate American-americans to the court. One's with American names like Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Estrada, Scalia, Luttig, etc.
Content of one's character is the only thing that matters. We need a justice who will hold true to the Constitution instead of one who relies on his own sense of fairness.
-
Good one! I remember well the Dancing Itos. Sure do miss Jay Leno, as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.
The miniseries on Netflix about the trial was pretty good. I wouldn't recommend watching it if you're not prepared to be upset by that travesty all over again.
-
@txradioguy
It may have been James Madison who had the stronger influence there, having said during the Virginia state constitution debates, Who is it who cannot see, that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions must then consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?
@EasyAce good point.
-
Good one! I remember well the Dancing Itos. Sure do miss Jay Leno, as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQezL9pLUN4#)
-
Pshaw!! Don't let facts get in the way of the agenda!
What's the matter with you?
The Court says there is a separation in the shadows of the text, and damn it anyhow - what they rule at the moment is LAW!
Unless of course they disagree with 'the Law', then they can ignore it or circumvent it.
The Law is what they say it is. Same with the Constitution and who gets special rights and privileges and whom is a bigot that needs to be put in their place to make everything equal.
In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.
By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.
Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.
-
In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.
By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.
Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.
Bravo, @aligncare ! Good post!
-
In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.
By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.
Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.
But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.
We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".
-
But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.
We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".
Agree. Fidelity to the constitution as written is paramount.
-
In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture.
That is one of the primary ingredients that led to the collapse of the Republic, and it is precisely upside down from what was intended.
The Founders expected the Church and religion to influence the culture, which in turn would influence political power. Instead the state is now seen as the vehicle or weapon to be used to impose whichever changing secular moral values or traditional values on a society that has become corrupt and vicious, depending on which party is in power.
Ultimately each wants control of the courts.
That is one of the primary ways tyranny is imposed against the will of a people.
The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.
Not exactly correct. The Christian Conservative has succumbed to the belief that the only way to preserve what remains of traditional values is by stopping what the Secular Humanists are doing through the courts and the State. They have largely given up trying to influence the culture through their church - and many are prohibited from doing so anymore by the state and federal government anyway (they cannot even feed the homeless in some places).
Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As societies become more corrupt and vicious, they had more need of masters" - Benjamin Franklin
-
But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.
We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".
I agree. And it appears that most of the names being considered by the President are textualists. Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court.
-
I agree. And it appears that most of the names being considered by the President are textualists. Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court.
And is that still going to be the way you look at it if the next Justice...once sworn in and seated says he or she believes Roe is unconstitutional or that there should be national firearms reciprocity or that gay "marriage" isn't a right?
To everyone here but you that shows the signs of a Textualist or a Constructionist jurist.
-
Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court.
BULLSHIT. You have been the staunchest advocate and defender OF Judicial Activism on this board.
-
BULLSHIT. You have been the staunchest advocate and defender OF Judicial Activism on this board.
Word.
I strongly agree with the statement. But I also recognize it as a lie when considering who said it.
-
Word.
I strongly agree with the statement. But I also recognize it as a lie when considering who said it.
Agree. INVAR's statement is indeed a lie. :seeya:
-
Gentlemen, the mods have asked you to abide by the few rules that TBR has. Please help us out.
-
Agree. INVAR's statement is indeed a lie. :seeya:
No it's not. He's right...you ARE a huge fanboi of legislating from the bench a.k.a. Judicial Activism.
-
“Judicial activism†is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!â€
-
“Judicial activism†is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!â€
So you see no difference between judges that use the Constitution as their road map for rulings and judges that craft ruling based on their own personal beliefs?
-
And is that still going to be the way you look at it if the next Justice...once sworn in and seated says he or she believes Roe is unconstitutional or that there should be national firearms reciprocity or that gay "marriage" isn't a right?
To everyone here but you that shows the signs of a Textualist or a Constructionist jurist.
And here I was trying to agree with folks that we need a textualist on the Court who isn't a judicial activist. Instead I am cursed and called a liar. *****rollingeyes*****
Overturning Roe v. Wade at this late date would be the height of judicial activism. The proper avenue is a Constitutional amendment, but you know damn well there is no support for that. So you crave a judicial activist to do your dirty work for you, and deny the settled expectations and rights of millions of American women.
We can expect the SCOTUS to clarify the right of the states to regulate/restrict the abortion right, just as the states can regulate and restrict the gun right. But seeking to overturn the right itself would be as activist a position as overturning Heller. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You welcome judicial activism when it favors your positions, and condemn it when it doesn't. That's hypocrisy.
-
“Judicial activism†is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!â€
No it's not. It's a clear argument against arriving at judgements that have the effect of legislation and do not follow the limits placed by the Constitution.
-
That's hypocrisy.
No, the hypocrisy is found in your advocacy of rights found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of the text of the Constitution that you then herald and insist are 'equal protection' when in-fact they are NOT equal protection advocacies, but SPECIAL RIGHTS to be afforded so as to intrude on institutions that predate the existence of this continent in written history.
Then again, you are one who insists that there is the explicit instruction to separate church and state written in the Constitution.
-
“Judicial activism†is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!â€
It is when the term is flung around hypocritically. But judges are charged with interpreting the law, not making it. That concept is a sound one, IMO, so long as it is applied to the goose as well as the gander.
-
It is when the term is flung around hypocritically. But judges are charged with interpreting the law, not making it. That concept is a sound one, IMO, so long as it is applied to the goose as well as the gander.
What does that mean? The standard against which "right and wrong" is measured is the Constitution.
-
The miniseries on Netflix about the trial was pretty good. I wouldn't recommend watching it if you're not prepared to be upset by that travesty all over again.
It was pretty good. With the public knowing more about DNA, I wonder if the oucome might have been different?
I had and have empathy for those career prosecutors, up against the Dream Team of rich lawyers.
-
It was pretty good. With the public knowing more about DNA, I wonder if the oucome might have been different?
I had and have empathy for those career prosecutors, up against the Dream Team of rich lawyers.
There were missteps made by the investigators and prosecution that were fatal errors. Most of all, it was a referendum on the King trial and riots, a couple years prior.
-
Agree. Fidelity to the constitution as written is paramount.
Gorsuch showed fidelity to the constitution when he voted against the original travel ban. He showed it again when he voted FOR the revised travel ban.
-
@Jazzhead is the same poster who says "abortion must remain legal" despite what the Constitution says. He also says that 'special Protection' trumps the Bill of Rights.
Oh sure, he claims it to be "equal" protection. Yet it is a protection that is not extended to polygamists.
For Jazzhead to claim to want Justices who rule based on the Constitution is pure unadulterated bullshit. Look no further than his elevation of 'separation of church and state' as superior to the wording of Amendment I.
-
Oh sure, he claims it to be "equal" protection. Yet it is a protection that is not extended to polygamists.
Or even the involuntary single, which they don't even recognize.
-
Or even the involuntary single, which they don't even recognize.
A serious suggestion, to deal with your obsession over being involuntarily single:
Embrace Jordan B. Peterson
Available in book form, podcast form, YouTube form.
-
Overturning Roe v. Wade at this late date would be the height of judicial activism.
Roe v. Wade is judicial activism. To overturn Roe is to overturn judicial activism.
The proper avenue is a Constitutional amendment, but you know damn well there is no support for that.
What's the point of a Constitutional amendment when the Constitution itself is being ignored?
-
Roe v. Wade is judicial activism. To overturn Roe is to overturn judicial activism.
What's the point of a Constitutional amendment when the Constitution itself is being ignored?
Nope. Whatever its provenance, it’s become as much a part of the Constitutional fabric as much else, and overturning it now would be judicial activism.
-
We can expect the SCOTUS to clarify the right of the states to regulate/restrict the abortion right
The abortion right? This ought to be good. Where in the Constitution can I find this so-called abortion right?
Good grief, man. The dishonesty of your argument is startling. The 'abortion' right was an invention of the Roe court - a textbook example of judicial activism. Yet you rail against judicial activism in your quest to protect It? Wow. Just wow.
-
Nope. Whatever its provenance, it’s become as much a part of the Constitutional fabric as much else, and overturning it now would be judicial activism.
Yep. They made the same argument about o erturning Plessy. Congrats. You and the Klan share the same legal argument.
For me, I'll go by what the Constitution says. Roe was just as wrong as Plessy. Both were derived outside the confines of the Constitution. Both should be overturned. Per the Constitution.
And I am sick of people like you offering the silly lie that following the Constitution is somehow bad.
-
What's the point of a Constitutional amendment when the Constitution itself is being ignored?
The SCOTUS would probably overturn an Amendment as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circus would find it so for sure, if it offends their sensibilities. BTW, that argument is why I stand against an Article V Convention of the States.
-
Yep. They made the same argument about o erturning Plessy. Congrats. You and the Klan share the same legal argument.
For me, I'll go by what the Constitution says. Roe was just as wrong as Plessy. Both were derived outside the confines of the Constitution. Both should be overturned. Per the Constitution.
And I am sick of people like you offering the silly lie that following the Constitution is somehow bad.
@Hoodat
You mind a little company?
-
Yep. They made the same argument about o erturning Plessy. Congrats. You and the Klan share the same legal argument.
For me, I'll go by what the Constitution says. Roe was just as wrong as Plessy. Both were derived outside the confines of the Constitution. Both should be overturned. Per the Constitution.
And I am sick of people like you offering the silly lie that following the Constitution is somehow bad.
888high58888
-
@Hoodat
You mind a little company?
Your input is always welcome, @Bigun
-
Your input is always welcome, @Bigun
"The Constitution is not a living organism. It is a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it does not say."
Antonin Scalia
-
3 of the 5 on the narrowed down short list are women per the Daily Mail. Not sure where they got that from.
-
Hoodat's a blessing to this forum.
-
3 of the 5 on the narrowed down short list are women per the Daily Mail. Not sure where they got that from.
@TomSea
If DM said three, that’s wrong. According to Trump on Air Force One to reporters, he has it narrowed down to five, with two being women.
I don’t care if it’s a woman or not, and I wish it would stop being a factor.
-
@TomSea
If DM said three, that’s wrong. According to Trump on Air Force One to reporters, he has it narrowed down to five, with two being women.
I don’t care if it’s a woman or not, and I wish it would stop being a factor.
Makes sense to counter the abortion-rights fear foisted upon women by the DEMS and MSM. :shrug:
-
Hoodat's a blessing to this forum.
Thank you for your encouragement. I have a lot of passion for our Constitution.
-
@TomSea
I don’t care if it’s a woman or not, and I wish it would stop being a factor.
Agreed. If appointing a woman is a necessity, then save it for Ginsburg's seat.
-
@TomSea
If DM said three, that’s wrong. According to Trump on Air Force One to reporters, he has it narrowed down to five, with two being women.
I don’t care if it’s a woman or not, and I wish it would stop being a factor.
OK, I might not have remembered right, it shouldn't be a factor but all 4 women so far on the Court have been liberals...
-
If DM said three, that’s wrong. According to Trump on Air Force One to reporters, he has it narrowed down to five, with two being women.
Two women? That means there will be a swimsuit runoff. Trump will select the hottest SCOTUS in history. Believe me.