Per WaPo. Put the Dems on suicide watch right now.
Anthony Kennedy retiring
| Source: | None |
| Published: | Jun 27, 2018 |
| Author: | me |
| Post Date: | 2018-06-27 14:15:14 by Tooconservative |
| Views: | 12526 |
| Source: | None |
| Published: | Jun 27, 2018 |
| Author: | me |
| Post Date: | 2018-06-27 14:15:14 by Tooconservative |
| Views: | 12526 |
Per WaPo. Put the Dems on suicide watch right now.
#6: Justified To: Tooconservative (#5)
Justified posted on 2018-06-27 14:56:04 Reply Private Reply
#7: Tooconservative To: All (#5)
Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) June 27, 2018
Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 27, 2018
Im not sold on the idea of Trump nominating people who have just gotten confirmed to the appellate court, but its certainly possible. Ryan avoids that and helps McConnell by not being someone already nominated by Trump, which might help swing a couple of red-state Democrats who will be feeling the heat in the fall. And as Guy reminded me in a subsequent tweet, Ryan got confirmed by unanimous consent in 2006.
Update: Politico got the audio from a DNC committee meeting when the news came through. Theyre not happy:
David Siders (@davidsiders) June 27, 2018
Wailing and gnashing of teeth implied, of course.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 15:08:01 Reply Private Reply
#8: Tooconservative To: Justified (#6)
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 15:08:37 Reply Private Reply
#9: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#5)
Roberts has not been entirely reliable and just the other day the Court cobbled together a majority comprised of Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. That is from Carpenter v United States (22 June 2018). Roberts also upheld Obamacare.
One of the liberals might die at the bench rather than retire and a conservative replacement could lead to reconsideration of such precedents as Roe v. Wade. As it is, lib heads have been exploding the past few days.
Kennedy is 81, turns 82 next month. Ginsburg is 85. Breyer is 79, turns 80 in August.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 15:25:59 Reply Private Reply
#10: Hondo68 To: Justified, Banana Republican Progressive, judicial activists (#1)
Trump will be able to nominate another Progressive Activist justice to legislate from the bench, like Gorsuch. An oppressive globalist police state, more taxes and spying, with Sarah Huckabee Sanders peeking in your window.
Donnell's agenda of turning America into a globalist third world s**thole marches on...
Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 15:40:21 Reply Private Reply
#11: nolu chan To: hondo68 (#10)
Yes he will!!! And you have decades to bitch about the fine, conservative opinions they deliver.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 15:44:31 Reply Private Reply
#12: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#9)
Stop trying to harsh my buzz, dude!
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 16:07:46 Reply Private Reply
#13: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#10)
I hear that Judge Roy Moore is available and not currently on any court.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 16:20:40 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#4)
Just to be clear. In 2015, Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of same sex marriage in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of factoring in race in college admissions, ruling against the reverse discrimination lawsuit 4-3.
Justice Kennedy reaffirmed the right to an abortion in 1992 in a 5-4 decision.
Justice Kennedy ruled in 2007 to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Some conservative.
misterwhite posted on 2018-06-27 16:47:34 Reply Private Reply
#15: GrandIsland To: Tooconservative (#0)
Wont be long before that coffin dodging twat Ginsburg shits the bed. Im gonna throw a huge party when that old wrinkly rug munching cunt dies.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-27 17:40:18 Reply Private Reply
#16: Tooconservative 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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 20:01:27 Reply Private Reply
#17: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#16)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 20:20:06 Reply Private Reply
#18: A K A Stone To: Tooconservative (#2)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-06-27 20:20:42 Reply Private Reply
#19: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#18)
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 20:23:50 Reply Private Reply
#20: Hank Rearden To: Tooconservative (#0)
Rumor has it the DL is sicker than she admits.
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-06-27 20:24:43 Reply Private Reply
#21: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#17)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 20:25:55 Reply Private Reply
#22: Hank Rearden To: Tooconservative (#21)
Except for the massive pile of doubled debt that all went to Odumbass's cronies.
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-06-27 20:27:39 Reply Private Reply
#23: Hondo68 To: Tooconservative, Wino Ginsburg (#13)
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.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 20:43:17 Reply Private Reply
#24: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#23)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 20:55:59 Reply Private Reply
#25: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#18)
When hes found, his skin will have a nice pink color.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-27 21:12:59 Reply Private Reply
#26: Tooconservative To: Hank Rearden, nolu chan, Vicomte13, tpaine, Liberator (#20)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 22:52:19 Reply Private Reply
#27: buckeroo To: Tooconservative (#26)
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.
buckeroo posted on 2018-06-27 23:26:00 Reply Private Reply
#28: Tooconservative To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#27)
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).
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 23:36:38 Reply Private Reply
#29: buckeroo To: Tooconservative (#28)
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?
buckeroo posted on 2018-06-27 23:51:29 Reply Private Reply
#30: Hondo68 To: buckeroo, Tooconservative (#27)
A questionable poll ^^^^. Don Willett = MAGA
2) Don Willett
4) Brett Kavanaugh
6) Mike Lee
Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 23:52:45 Reply Private Reply
#31: Tooconservative To: buckeroo (#29)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-27 23:59:18 Reply Private Reply
#32: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#30)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 00:07:52 Reply Private Reply
#33: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#32)
Amy Coney Barrett, 7th Circuit, former clerk to Antonin Scalia, former Notre Dame professor, member Federalist Society, on Trump's list.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-28 01:40:34 Reply Private Reply
#34: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#33)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 01:49:05 Reply Private Reply
#35: CZ82 To: Tooconservative, redleghunter, Liberator (#34)
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?
CZ82 posted on 2018-06-28 07:27:01 Reply Private Reply
#36: Tooconservative To: CZ82 (#35)
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 119 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 5442.[15] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 5543 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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 07:41:52 Reply Private Reply
#37: Hondo68 To: CZ82, young bushbot, Tooconservative (#35)
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this guy was recommended by Kennedy during his meeting with Trump. Could last for decades.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-28 08:36:08 Reply Private Reply
#38: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#37)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 08:39:53 Reply Private Reply
#39: Hank Rearden To: buckeroo (#27)
Yeah! Her actual Injun name is Princess Gray Beaver.
Get it right, folks.
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-06-28 10:41:46 Reply Private Reply
#40: Tooconservative To: nolu chan, Liberator (#17)
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?)
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 12:49:36 Reply Private Reply
#41: no gnu taxes To: Tooconservative (#28)
To sum it up:
*****drink*****
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-06-28 13:34:49 Reply Private Reply
#42: Tooconservative To: no gnu taxes (#41)
I'm very concerned that buckaroo is being sexually trafficked by perverted Central American narco-terrorists.
You need to take this seriously.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 14:44:10 Reply Private Reply
#43: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#34)
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:
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.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-28 16:08:51 Reply Private Reply
#44: GrandIsland To: Tooconservative (#31)
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.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-28 17:16:38 Reply Private Reply
#45: Vicomte13 To: Tooconservative (#36)
Wait. Mary Magdalene O'Feinstein isn't Catholic? WHO KNEW?
Vicomte13 posted on 2018-06-28 18:08:25 Reply Private Reply
#46: Vicomte13 To: Tooconservative (#40)
Vicomte13 posted on 2018-06-28 18:10:30 Reply Private Reply
#47: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#43)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 21:50:52 Reply Private Reply
#48: Tooconservative To: Vicomte13 (#45)
I know, right? I was as shocked as anyone. : )
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 21:54:01 Reply Private Reply
#49: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#43)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 22:01:49 Reply Private Reply
#50: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#47)
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.
https://www.scribd.com/document/382840264/Seven-Sky-v-Holder-No-11-5047-DC-Cir-8-Dec-2011-Obamacare-Kavanaugh-Dissent-at-39
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-28 23:13:16 Reply Private Reply
#51: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#50)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-28 23:42:27 Reply Private Reply
#52: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#50)
Washington Examiner: Oddsmakers favor Kavanaugh, Thapar, Sen. Mike Lee for Supreme Court
Mike Lee is the wild card, IMO.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-29 00:20:34 Reply Private Reply
#53: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#51)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2018-06-30 00:10:10 Reply Private Reply
#54: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#53)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-06-30 01:29:10 Reply Private Reply
#55: redleghunter To: CZ82 (#35)
She's not Frankensteins brand of Catholic. The type who actually read the catechism on abortion.
redleghunter posted on 2018-07-02 01:05:15 Reply Private Reply