2
   

We're Going Nuclear! Justice Kennedy is resigning.

 
 
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 01:46 pm
Justice Kennedy, the so-called "swing justice" because of his ability to vote on either side of the political chasm, is retiring as of July. This means we will likely have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

I predict that the Democrats will do everything possible to block Trump's nominee. I predict that the Republicans will "go nuclear" and get rid of the filibuster so they can confirm Trump's nominee before the midterms.

I don't think this is a good thing for the country right now.

 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 01:59 pm
@maxdancona,
It was kind of obvious since he completely rolled over on the last two key decisions, going against his previous statements from the bench. The Republicans already went nuclear on the last justice, so I don't expect anything different.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 02:12 pm
@engineer,
The term "nuclear option" has a very specific meaning. I was referring to that.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 02:49 pm
Jeffrey Toobin is suggesting that in 18 months, Roe v. Wade will be dead. Abortion will be illegal in dozens of states.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 02:53 pm
Rudy Giuliani maybe?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 02:54 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Jeffrey Toobin is suggesting that in 18 months, Roe v. Wade will be dead. Abortion will be illegal in dozens of states.



I seriously doubt that. Gentleman's bet that is lasts through all 8 years of Trump's Presidency?
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 02:57 pm
@McGentrix,
Do you lose the bet if Trump doesn't last 8 years (he might not last 4)?

Or does the bet extend to the next president?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 03:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Do you lose the bet if Trump doesn't last 8 years (he might not last 4)?

Or does the bet extend to the next president?


I don't lose. Ever. Lol
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 03:24 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I don't lose. Ever. Lol


No one on the internet ever does.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 03:29 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

..... I predict that the Democrats will do everything possible to block Trump's nominee. I predict that the Republicans will "go nuclear" and get rid of the filibuster so they can confirm Trump's nominee before the midterms.

I don't think this is a good thing for the country right now.



If I'm not mistaken the rules for Nominations already require only a majority in the Senate and I believe that was done under Former Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In any event it's hard to imagine that we will fail to replace Justice Kennedy.

Now we're waiting on Justice Ginsberg.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 03:40 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I predict that the Republicans will "go nuclear" and get rid of the filibuster so they can confirm Trump's nominee before the midterms.
The filibuster has already been gotten rid of. There is no need to get rid of something that no longer exists.

maxdancona wrote:
I don't think this is a good thing for the country right now.
Sure it is. We currently have only four votes in favor of enforcing the Constitution. Now we'll have five.

And just look at this:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Age 85
Stephen Breyer: Age 79

One day soon the Supreme Court will be composed of seven "Constitution enforcers" arrayed against two "Obama appointees".
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 08:34 pm
@McGentrix,
There are two, maybe three, gentlemen in these pages.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 08:46 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
maxdancona wrote:
I don't think this is a good thing for the country right now.
Sure it is. We currently have only four votes in favor of enforcing the Constitution. Now we'll have five.
I heard an analyst tonight make a case that Roberts is a bit of a liberal. So maybe we are really going from three Constitution defenders to four.

But the next one after this will definitely take us to five. Presuming of course that we get a solid pick for this current replacement.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 08:49 pm
@oralloy,
The sincere, but rather exaggerated, partisanship in your posts, is cute.

Yeah... I know, you only posts the facts and your word is truth, blah, blah, blah... it still makes me chuckle.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 09:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The sincere, but rather exaggerated, partisanship in your posts, is cute.
I'm not sure what you mean.

The partisanship thing refers to support for the Constitution I presume. But where is the exaggeration?

maxdancona wrote:
Yeah... I know, you only posts the facts and your word is truth, blah, blah, blah... it still makes me chuckle.
Facts are a great comfort to me.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 04:11 am
@georgeob1,
Reed did no such thing as it relates to Supreme Court nominations.

I suspect that you know that and that you know your guy McConnell is the one responsible for that travesty.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 05:54 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Reed did no such thing as it relates to Supreme Court nominations.
If the Democrats had not maliciously blocked Bush's nominees for no reason, the Republicans would not have retaliated by trying to block Obama's nominees.

If the Democrats had not used the nuclear option to force Obama's nominees, the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option to force Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

I suspect that the Democrats have learned no lessons.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 09:23 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Reed did no such thing as it relates to Supreme Court nominations.

I suspect that you know that and that you know your guy McConnell is the one responsible for that travesty.


I was mistaken when I wrote it. The change occurred under Majority Leader McConnel.. In any event no further changes will be needed for majority vote confirmations of USC nominees.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 09:38 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

In any event no further changes will be needed for majority vote confirmations of USC nominees.


...indeed; to much dismay for half the country.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 10:09 am
Partisanship aside, I think the 60 vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees is good for the country no matter which party is in power. The Supreme Court is an important institution. The minority party should have a say.

Does anyone feel that making Supreme Court judges a purely political process where the majority party wins is good for the country in general?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » We're Going Nuclear! Justice Kennedy is resigning.
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 12:05:45