We're Going Nuclear! Justice Kennedy is resigning.

Of course it's a good idea (the 60 vote threshold I mean).

The selection and confirmation of Supreme Court Judges has always been a political process in this country. That political process is specified in the Constitution. What "non political' process do you have in mind??

The various rules for these actions adopted in the Senate have changed several times over the years.

That was perhaps a bad choice of terms on my part. You are correct it is a political process.

My feeling is that the 60 voted threshold makes it more likely that there will be deliberation, and that the concerns of the minority party will be take seriously. I feel the same no matter which party is in power.

What is your opinion about what is best for the country?

I would go as far as making the 60 vote threshold a constitutional amendment, so that neither party will be tempted to change it for short term political gain.

The current minority party in the Congress has flatly refused to work with the opposition to craft solutions acceptable to both. In a recent prominent example, Senate Minority Leader Schumer has made it clear that they will support no revision to existing immigration lay, even in the face of compromises offered by Republicans, and that they prefer to let the President attempt to deal with the contradictions in that law for their own partisan reasons. (I believe that effort will backfire in them later, but Schumer's statements make his intransigence quite clear.

This stuff accelerated during the Obama Administration when the Democrats pushed through an unread Obamacare bill rejecting any and all requests for discussions, compromise or amendment from Republicans. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The last two Supreme Court Appointments made by Democrat President Obama involved nominees selected by him who he believed would advance Democrat political Goals. Do you believe that Republicans should now behave differently?

The recent decisions of the Supreme Court make it very clear that there is indeed discussion and dissent within the court. That will continue even after Justice Kennedy's replacement is confirmed.

Constitutional amendments are easy to advocate but hard to get. The one you propose has extremely little chance of adoption, even in the unlikely event that it is even submitted.

I would support such an amendment.

I also wouldn't mind a constitutional amendment that returned the selection of US senators to state governments. As it stands now, state governments don't have enough say in the the workings of the federal government. The voice of the people is adequately represented in the federal government by the House of Representatives alone.

It's good for appeals judges as well.

Most cases are never heard by the Supreme Court, meaning the final decisions on those issues are made by the appeals judges.

If Roe v Wade gets overturned, it will be interesting to see the judicial reasoning behind it and what kind of precedent it will set for future case law.

A lot of people tend to think in terms of political majorities winning ground, but case law is actually more subtle than that. Judges can't just do whatever they want and make up reasons. They have to consider the constitution and the spirit of the law.

Well the USSC reasoning in the original Roe ruling was itself based on some arguable "emanations" from the words in the Constitution.

I believe most of the opposition to it is based on the absolutist nature of the finding, and subsequent decisions requiring others to support or be associated with abortions in various ways, and limiting State authority to regulate it.

I suspect the Court will not overturn Roe, but will act to limit its effect.

Think about this: If you kick my pregnant stomach and kill my baby, you can be charged with some form of murder.

If I choose to end my child’s life, it’s ok.

There is a HELL of a lot of grey area between the two.

The argument is easy. The ensuing reality in our society is not.

I hope it's Kavanaugh. He has a strong track record on the Second Amendment. And it's a very positive track record. Exactly what we need on the Supreme Court.

The others might be good as well, but they don't have a firm track record on the Second Amendment like Kavanaugh does.

I'll vote for the Republicans in the midterms if it's Kavanaugh.

Who would you vote for otherwise? I can't imagine you not voting for Republicans in any case.

I was thinking about the Greens. I'm generally supportive of environmental issues. Voting for them would be an expression of support for environmentalism.

The Greens are way too extreme for me. But there isn't really a risk of them gaining power so I don't really have to worry about their extremism.

I wish there was a strong Pirate Party in America. I'd vote for them in a heartbeat if they were on the ballot.

I used to try to find pro-gun Democrats and vote for them all the time. It was only after my profound outrage over the 2008 Michigan primary that I started voting for all Republicans in every race.

I have stated many times though that I will not vote for Republicans in 2018 unless they pass something like the SHARE Act, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, or the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

Since I have not seen any movement on those bills, it has been looking likely that I would not be voting for Republicans in 2018. However, I will view a Kavanaugh appointment as a big step forward in upholding the Second Amendment.

It’s Kavanaugh.

He's a good pick. He is good on the Second Amendment.

I'm sure you'll be surprised at how SHOCKED all of us are that you have somehow convinced yourself to reneg on your stated position and to do so in a way that allows you to sacrifice your beliefs and vote for the Republicans in 2018. You're so noble and strong.

Can you make a case that Kavanaugh isn't a big step forward in the defense of the Second Amendment?

If so, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Has the possibility occurred to anyone that Judge Kennedy could have resigned as part of a coordinated plan to delay the pick until the election and that the plan was so chosen because it would motivate pro-choice people into voting?

If Kennedy would have waited until after the election, then the dems might have faced another situation like under Obama where the GOP delayed the pick until after the next election. So this way, that is sure not to happen.

But the question is whether they can actually successfully delay the appointment until after the next election, and whether Trump will get re-elected by people who are just as desperate to avert dem-chosen supreme court picks.