U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Anthony Kennedy retiring
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 27, 2018
Author: me
Post Date: 2018-06-27 14:15:14 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 7458
Comments: 55
Per WaPo. Put the Dems on suicide watch right now.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: GrandIsland (#15)
And the Left knows it. The Lefties are probably praying to their gods for her health every night. They're still so pissed that she didn't retire so 0bama could replace her. But, no-o-o-o-o, she was too precious and couldn't just step down.
Perhaps she wanted to be replaced by the first female president. And then a funny thing happened on the way to oval office. With the swingman likely moving from Kennedy to Roberts, the Court will make a clear move to the right. It will be a long, lonely and frustrating session for Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. It can't be much fun to be a highly partisan Supreme Court justice and be irrelevant.
Jameson might park his car in the garage tonight and leave it running.
He's more the type to buy an Evil Gun and massacre some helpless people, in a church or school or at a political event. At least, he gives off that vibe.
I hope God tees up the decrepit old bridge troll and the Dumb Latina soon as well.
It'll be fun for us to watch though. This also raises the odds that 0bamaCare will repeal itself over the fee/penalty/tax. I don't see how Roberts manages to save it twice. Which would be the end of any 0bama legacy.
Except for the massive pile of doubled debt that all went to Odumbass's cronies.
Unfortunately Roy Moore is an old fart who's likely to croak soon, giving President Pocahontas the opportunity to nominate another justice in addition to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement. That evil old bat will hang in the rafters of SCOTUS, until Trump is gone in 2021, if not sooner. Passed out, after sucking up too much of Anthony Kennedy's "Fine California Wine". Lesbians concerned.
She might. But maybe not. Things can go south healthwise very quickly with people over 80 (or with seniors who are younger). We've all seen it before.
When he’s found, his skin will have a nice pink color.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If only... But let's move on to who is topping the list to replace Kennedy. If that name sounds somewhat familiar -- last week a district court ruled that the CFPB was unconstitutional. In doing so, the judge ignored the main opinion of a decision from another jurisdiction and instead adopted the reasoning of the dissent which declared the CFPB was unconstitutional. The author of that dissent? Judge Brett Kavanagh. And why did Kavanagh reach that decision? Glad you asked. Courts have found the law creating the CFPB unconstitutional in that it creates a "Director" running it, who is, in theory, a member of the Executive Branch, but then puts that Director unconstitutionally beyond the reach of the actual Executive, the President, stating that he can only be fired for cause. One court reviewing this en banc chose to say that part is unconstitutional, but it can be "severed" from the rest of the law, and the law just rewritten by judge's fiat to say the Director can be fired by the president, like any other executive officer, for any reason. Actually, a clarification: I think the rule is that members of a committee exercising executive power can be made fire-proof (or fireable only for cause), but you can't vest that kind of unfireable power in a singular head, as a Director is. But one district judge says, "Nah, bro," and finds that that the can-only-be-fired-for-cause provision is part of the heart of the CFPB, and therefore cannot simply be severed/written out of the bill. As that part is unconstitutional, and cannot be severed from the bill creating the CFPB, the whole law is unconstitutional, and the CFPB is unconstitutional and null and void itself. It strikes the CFPB as a party from the suit (against various defendants, including the NFL), finding it simply has no authority to act at all, in any capacity. Obviously, a jurist from Trump's list who is that willing to outrage the liberal establishment would make an attractive hard-Right choice for Trump. Fauxcahontas would be in full war paint, ready to scalp him since CFPB is her baby.
You are another fucking DWEEB using short term messages into political dynamite. Why? As an opinion, you are FUCKED UPPED like the rest of the world.
I can't take your messages seriously. After long study of your posts here, I have concluded that you have been captured by some pimp from the violent cartels and have been turned out as a cartel sex slave. You spend your days servicing anemic Canadian sex tourists and swarthy Central American narco-terrorists. And they force you to post these misleading messages here at LF. If you are being held hostage, you can signal that to us in code by "denying" that you are a cartel sex slave. I'm sure G.I. will try to help free you from your present state of sexual degradation, granting sexual favors for as little as a peso (2 pesos for anal).
Do you possess any credentials to support or otherwise create into an authenticate summary report besides sitting around a fukin' "YEP, I can eat a pil of beans and fart on everyone." Get ir, pal?
A questionable poll ^^^^. Don Willett = MAGA 2) Don Willett 4) Brett Kavanaugh 6) Mike Lee
You're only saying that because a couple of swarthy Central American narco-terrorists are forcing you to post that. And to submit to their perverted sodomy. I can only hope that G.I. will know how to rescue you. I'm picturing something like Rambo IV. You, of course, will be the Damsel In Distress.
His vote will be needed for confirmation. No justice would join the Court by voting for himself. And it would thin the Senate ranks further. After Trump lost Sessions' safe AL seat via Strange and Moore, he won't go for anything that makes it harder for the Senate GOP. I had been worried about voter turnout in the fall elections since the low-info voters who supported the prez when elected all tend to disappear and the other party picks up lots of seats in any president's first midterm. I thought that only a major gun massacre in the fall and consequent screams by the Left for a big gungrab could arouse the voters enough to hold off Pelosi as Speaker and keep control of the Senate. Clearly, this confirmation will be conducted more as a central GOP political issue to rouse the voters rather than as a regular judicial confirmation. Trump got a lot of reluctant votes just for the judicial appointments. A lot of people made it clear they couldn't stand Trump but wanted to deny Dems any court appointments. This is Trump's chance to score a midterm victory with exactly that issue to bring out those reluctant voters again.
Another possibility: Amy Coney Barrett, 7th Circuit, former clerk to Antonin Scalia, former Notre Dame professor, member Federalist Society, on Trump's list.
Barrett is youngest, under 50. She got attacked for being too Catholic by Feinstein, she recently had a full vetting by the FBI and Dems and libmedia. Looks good on paper but perhaps not experienced enough. Also there will be resistance to promoting her from her current court of appeals (a very high honor) and then appointing her again so soon to a higher court like USSC. I think the GOP may go for a strong conservative, more bold and less circumspect about it than Gorsuch. It would likely cause a Dem meltdown and provide a lot of fodder for the fall midterms. Turnout, turnout, turnout. Especially those reluctant voters who voted for Trump just for the judges. This is probably going to be the most politicized appointment to the Court in our history. And the 2018 election may end up being all about this justice, far more than the Dem attempt to do the same with the Merrick Garland nomination in 2016.
Too Catholic?? That's a hoot considering Fineswine was raised as one and claims to have great respect for Catholicism. So does this mean that Barrett is too Progressive or too Conservative since the church has both in it's ranks?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame. That's usually fairly Catholic. Wiki: In a letter to Feinstein, Jenkins wrote: Citing the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, Eisgruber asked U.S. Senators to "refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views ... [b]ecause religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship".[11] During her hearing, Barrett said: "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[12] On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line vote of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[13][14] On October 30, 2017 the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[15] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017.[16] She received her commission on November 2, 2017. I don't think Feinstein is Catholic. Jewish on both sides of her family, married to three guys with Jewish names, etc.
Kavanaugh, 53, is a former clerk to the man he could replace on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. He was named to the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2003, but his confirmation was not without conflict. Kavanaugh worked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the investigation of President Bill Clinton, and Senate Democrats argued he was too partisan to serve on the court. His nomination languished for three years, before Kavanaugh was finally confirmed in 2006. He was sworn in by Kennedy. Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Kennedy to be a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. With him are his wife Ashley and President George W. Bush. I've got a sneaking suspicion that this guy was recommended by Kennedy during his meeting with Trump. Could last for decades.
We'll never know. I just posted a fresh review of the supposed top 5 picks. Kavanagh doesn't look as good after I read Shapiro's estimation of his record. Kavanagh could be another weak sister, like Roberts. We can't make that mistake again.
You are another fucking DWEEB using short term messages into political dynamite. Why? As an opinion, you are FUCKED UPPED like the rest of the world. Yeah! Her actual Injun name is Princess Gray Beaver. Get it right, folks.
Astute. Even if Roberts is the new Kennedy, it will still be more conservative than having Kennedy on the Court. I saw a paragraph that brought your remark to mind. Kennedy leaving the bench in a fit of conservative glory? Roberts rising to be a swing vote as he was on 0-care and as the new swing vote? Maybe some of each? Anyway, the concrete numbers show that Kennedy clove to the conservative SCOTUS and ignored the lib SCOTUS in his final term. And that had to be a deliberate choice. And Roberts may have known of Kennedy's intention to retire even well before Trump did, which might have made Roberts more eager to carve out his new swing vote role. Having gotten rid of Kennedy, Roberts may well rise to be the new swing vote. Exactly as Kennedy himself became the "swing vote" following the Sandra Day O'Connor retirement. (Didja know that old bat was still hearing cases in 2016 as an adjutant judge or something? Along with a staffed federal judge's office. Yeeesh. Can't they ever just go away quietly?)
To sum it up: *****drink*****
I'm very concerned that buckaroo is being sexually trafficked by perverted Central American narco-terrorists. You need to take this seriously.
Looks good on paper but perhaps not experienced enough. Limited experience on the bench. Whatever experience she has on the bench is that much more than Mike Lee. I would favor someone with a proven track record on the bench. Another Gorsuch would do fine. Another female mentioned is: Allison Eid, 10th Circuit (2017), Trump nominee to succeed Gorsuch, on Trump list, Colorado Supreme Court (2006-17), clerked for Clarence Thomas (1993-94). Another possibility is Amul Thapar, Indian (India) ethnicity, 6th Circuit (2017), U.S. District Court, Eastern District Kentucky (2008-17), on Trump's list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee Also Thomas Lee, Associate Justice Utah Supreme Court (2010-present). Mike Lee's older brother. On Trump's list. Wikipedia: [...] A 2016 paper written by Jeremy Kidd of the Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law and others attempted to measure the "Scalia-ness" of various potential nominees to the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia's death. The study created a "Scalia Index Score" combining the various measures of "Scalia-ness," and Lee scored highest. The study found that Lee was the most likely to endorse or engage in originalism in judicial opinions, was second most likely to cite Scalia's non-judicial writings in opinions, and the third most likely to write separately when not writing the majority opinion.[14] The study was updated again in 2018, adding new variables and more names, and Lee again scored the highest. In a 2016 article, Professor John McGinnis of the Northwestern University School of Law argued that Lee was similar to Scalia in being "capable of pressing the intellectual case for following the Constitution as written" because of Lee "has pioneered the application of corpus linguistics to law," and further wrote that if elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, "Lee would create a transmission belt from the best work of originalists in the academy to the Supreme Court." Hannah Clayson Smith, writing in the National Review, praised Lee as a possible successor to Scalia because of Lee's similar jurisprudential style to the late Justice, but noted that with respect to Lee's views on judicial precedent, "Justice Lee is more like Justice Thomas than like Justice Scalia." Smith noted that Lee (like Thomas) has repeatedly advocated for overruling precedent that he views as "contrary to the original meaning of the Utah constitution," even if precedent takes a different approach. There is someting to be said for a prolific writer from the bench with a lot of Scalia-ness. As for people with much experience on the Federal bench, anyone nominated between Jan 1989 and Jan 2017 was nominated by either a Bush, a Clinton, or an Obama. That could make recent Trump appointees from State benches look attractive. Their bench history would be better known to the Trump administration and the Federalist Society (advising Trump) than the general public. Once someone is named, their bench history would be scrutinized in a hurry.
His only escape... is a buckshot sandwich. Methinks all the family he left behind in the states would look forward to no more embarrassment associated with having to tell others, they are related to Ba ba ba Bucky.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Wait. Mary Magdalene O'Feinstein isn't Catholic? WHO KNEW?
And Notre Dame is missing a gargoyle. Sooner or later Ruthie is going to fly back to Paris.
In hindsight, they should have gone with Hardiman first, then gone with Gorsuch for this second seat. But hindsight provided us no guides at the time and Gorsuch whet the voters' appetite for more. And probably helped Kennedy decide to quit now. Like you, Trump's judge team seems to value those with a record on the bench, more than some undocumented newbie.
I know, right? I was as shocked as anyone. : )
And just a few years ago, it was best to be a ghost-justice with Scalia-ish opinions and no record on the bench at all.
Justice Thomas is an example of a justice who had very limited judicial experience when appointed to the Supreme Court. He is famous for not asking questions in oral argument, and once went over ten years without asking a question. Such presumably unforeseen behavior must limit his influence on the Court. I believe Trump wants justices who are forceful in oral argument and in written opinions, and who will influence the Court. For a well-known dissenting opinion by Kavanaugh, see Seven-Sky v. Holder where he wrote a lengthy opinion arguing against Obamacare. Kavanaugh's dissent starts at page 39.
If you're betting on Kavanagh, that's not a bad bet. I think Barrett and the Indian guy are both strong contenders too. McConnell is going to wring all the politics out of this that he can, far more than Trump. And Trump's win with Gorsuch is due only to McConnell's tenacity in holding the seat open when he was the only figure who thought it would work. But it did work and Mitch the Turtle's stock rose accordingly. The 2016 election was as much about Scalia's seat as it was about Trump. And the 2018 election will be as much about Kennedy's seat as anything else (except the economy). Mitch had a big hit with Gorsuch and he'll try to repeat it.
Kinda interesting who the gamblers favor. Thapar at #2 is currently slightly favored over Barrett at #3 but Kavanagh is still the better's favorite. Washington Examiner: Oddsmakers favor Kavanaugh, Thapar, Sen. Mike Lee for Supreme Court Mike Lee is the wild card, IMO.
I think it is a bad bet. I believe Kavanaugh owes his loyalty to the Bushes and the neo-cons, rather than Trump. Trump values loyalty to Trump. I saw the importance of a Trump win being his or Hillary's ability to nominate 2 or 3 justices and reshape the Court for a couple of decades.
I think many millions of voters did vote for Trump just because they did not want the Xlintons (or and Dems) making those picks. They didn't necessarily want Trump for that job but he was standing there, all available. The important part was that he was not named Xlinton and was not a diehard Left-wing Dem. And that is good enough and does constitute a Trump mandate. The voters knew. And they made their choice, whether the libmedia and the Beltway establishment like it or not. It's worth noting that their visceral dislike of Trump probably helped put him over the top with voters. And that too constitutes a Trump mandate from the voters.
She's not Frankensteins brand of Catholic. The type who actually read the catechism on abortion.
Just one more YOUNG, conservative/libertarian minded justice (like Gorsuch) placed on that bench, and those snowflakes are fucked.
Won’t be long before that coffin dodging twat Ginsburg shits the bed.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
They're still so pissed that she didn't retire so 0bama could replace her. But, no-o-o-o-o, she was too precious and couldn't just step down.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#2)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#20. To: Tooconservative (#0)
(Edited)
Rumor has it the DL is sicker than she admits.
#21. To: nolu chan (#17)
It will be a long, lonely and frustrating session for Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. It can't be much fun to be a highly partisan Supreme Court justice and be irrelevant.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#21)
Which would be the end of any 0bama legacy.
#23. To: Tooconservative, Wino Ginsburg (#13)
(Edited)
I hear that Judge Roy Moore is available and not currently on any court.
#24. To: hondo68 (#23)
That evil old bat will hang in the rafters of SCOTUS, until Trump is gone in 2021, if not sooner.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Jameson might park his car in the garage tonight and leave it running.
#26. To: Hank Rearden, nolu chan, Vicomte13, tpaine, Liberator (#20)
Rumor has it the DL is sicker than she admits.
Per Nice Deb, a Bloomberg reporter says the top choice is Judge Brett Kavanagh. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a top contender to succeed Kennedy, per a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. https://t.co/nUxpAlS7ZF— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) June 27, 2018 District court declares CFPB unconstitutional, holds fix is to kill the whole thing https://t.co/rg1RRbrRYJ pic.twitter.com/aP7wVxYU4E— Andrew M. Grossman (@andrewmgrossman) June 21, 2018
#27. To: Tooconservative (#26)
Fauxcahontas
#28. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#27)
You are another fucking DWEEB using short term messages into political dynamite.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)
I have concluded ... blah blah bah
#30. To: buckeroo, Tooconservative (#27)
Current Prediction Statistics for Trump Supreme Court Nominee
#31. To: buckeroo (#29)
Do you possess any credentials to support or otherwise create into an authenticate summary report besides sitting around a fukin' "YEP, I can eat a pil of beans and fart on everyone."
#32. To: hondo68 (#30)
6) Mike Lee
#33. To: Tooconservative (#32)
#34. To: nolu chan (#33)
#35. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter, Liberator (#34)
Barrett is youngest, under 50. She got attacked for being too Catholic by Feinstein,
#36. To: CZ82 (#35)
(Edited)
During Barrett's hearing, she was questioned about her Catholic faith by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by University of Notre Dame president John I. Jenkins and Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber.[10] “It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this [Catholic faith] might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom 'dogma lives loudly'–which is a condition we call faith.[10]”
#37. To: CZ82, young bushbot, Tooconservative (#35)
Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
#38. To: hondo68 (#37)
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this guy was recommended by Kennedy during his meeting with Trump. Could last for decades.
#39. To: buckeroo (#27)
Fauxcahontas
#40. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#17)
With the swingman likely moving from Kennedy to Roberts, the Court will make a clear move to the right.
Kennedy has long been the Supreme Court’s “swing” vote (though he hates that term) and thus is most often in the majority in those 5-4 cases that split along conventional ideological lines. Well, this term there were 19 such hotly split decisions, just under 30 percent of the total (a bit high but within modern norms). Of those 19 decisions, 15 featured Kennedy joining the four “conservatives” and none had Kennedy joining the four “liberals.” (Two of them did have Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal bloc.) That simply hasn’t happened in the 13 years since Justice Samuel Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to put Kennedy in his vaunted role as the man in the middle.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#28)
I can't take your messages seriously.
#42. To: no gnu taxes (#41)
To sum it up:
#43. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Barrett is youngest, under 50. She got attacked for being too Catholic by Feinstein, she recently had a full vetting by the FBI and Dems and libmedia.
In his time on the court he has been a prolific writer, authoring over a quarter of majority opinions on a five-member court, and frequently issuing concurring or dissenting opinions. Lee is a pioneer in law and corpus linguistics—the application of corpus linguistics to determine ordinary meaning in statutes—being the first American judge to do so in an opinion.
#44. To: Tooconservative (#31)
I can only hope that G.I. will know how to rescue you.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#36)
I don't think Feinstein is Catholic.
#46. To: Tooconservative (#40)
(Edited)
#47. To: nolu chan (#43)
Limited experience on the bench. Whatever experience she has on the bench is that much more than Mike Lee. I would favor someone with a proven track record on the bench. Another Gorsuch would do fine.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Wait. Mary Magdalene O'Feinstein isn't Catholic? WHO KNEW?
#49. To: nolu chan (#43)
There is someting to be said for a prolific writer from the bench with a lot of Scalia-ness.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#47)
Like you, Trump's judge team seems to value those with a record on the bench, more than some undocumented newbie.
#51. To: nolu chan (#50)
#52. To: nolu chan (#50)
(Edited)
#53. To: Tooconservative (#51)
If you're betting on Kavanagh, that's not a bad bet.
The 2016 election was as much about Scalia's seat as it was about Trump.
#54. To: nolu chan (#53)
(Edited)
I saw the importance of a Trump win being his or Hillary's ability to nominate 2 or 3 justices and reshape the Court for a couple of decades.
#55. To: CZ82 (#35)
Too Catholic?? That's a hoot considering Fineswine was raised as one and claims to have great respect for Catholicism. So does this mean that Barrett is too Progressive or too Conservative since the church has both in it's ranks?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]