Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3529
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by TimothyC » 2018-06-27 02:12pm

AP wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy say Wednesday he is retiring, giving President Donald Trump the chance to cement conservative control of the high court.

The 81-year-old Kennedy said he is stepping down after more than 30 years on the court. A Republican appointee, he has held the key vote on such high-profile issues as abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, guns, campaign finance and voting rights.

Without him, the court will be split between four liberal justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents and four conservatives who were named by Republicans. Trump's nominee is likely to give the conservatives a solid majority and will face a Senate process in which Republicans hold the slimmest majority, but Democrats can't delay confirmation.

Trump's first high court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed in April 2017.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-27 02:35pm

So the Supreme Court will become little more than a rubber-stamp for the far Right for the foreseeable future, the chances of Trump's pardon powers being limited or Trump being indicted go down, and the chances of avoiding a choice between fascism and civil war go down.

Granted, the "Right-wing" Justices, particularly Roberts, don't always rule in line with far Right views, but the travel ban ruling and Roberts' lame defense of it have shaken my faith in Roberts' impartiality.

My big question is: will Kennedy retire/be replaced before the new Congress comes in? Presuming that his replacement will be rammed through by Ryan and McConnel before the new Congress comes in, well, see above.

In either case, what this means is that basically everything is now riding on the 2018 elections. Because as it stands, the last meaningful check on the far Right, the last branch of the Federal Government that was not critically compromised (though even that is questionable after the travel ban ruling), is about to be gutted. Either we retake one or both houses of Congress, or there is no real check on Trump other than civil disobedience, or armed revolt.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-27 03:10pm

McConnel confirms that they will vote to replace Kennedy this fall. Because when there's a vacancy under a Democrat, we have to wait until after the election to fill it. But when there's a vacancy under Republicans FILL IT FILL IT NOW BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Though with McCain absent for health reasons, he has only fifty votes, meaning that one Republic defection will scuttle a far Right nominee if the Democrats remain united. And Flake has said that he will block Trump's judicial nominations until there is a vote on tariffs.

Its a slim hope, but if there are ANY Republicans on the fence... lobby the fuck out of them. Remind them that their legacy will be determined by whether they vote to make the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for Trump.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 1618
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by FireNexus » 2018-06-27 05:26pm

That’s the ballgame.

TRR, will you marry me?
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-27 05:37pm

Four questions I want to see asked of any nominee:

1. Do you believe that the President's power to pardon is absolute?

2. Do you believe that a sitting President can be indicted?

3. Do you believe that a sitting President can be subpoenaed?

4. Do you believe that a President has absolute authority to fire and replace appointees, or can firing someone who is investigating him potentially constitute Obstruction of Justice?
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 17733
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Rogue 9 » 2018-06-27 06:17pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 02:35pm
My big question is: will Kennedy retire/be replaced before the new Congress comes in? Presuming that his replacement will be rammed through by Ryan and McConnel before the new Congress comes in, well, see above.
It's a small thing, but Paul Ryan has zero influence on a judicial nomination. Confirming Presidential appointees is the domain of the Senate alone.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-27 06:34pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
2018-06-27 06:17pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 02:35pm
My big question is: will Kennedy retire/be replaced before the new Congress comes in? Presuming that his replacement will be rammed through by Ryan and McConnel before the new Congress comes in, well, see above.
It's a small thing, but Paul Ryan has zero influence on a judicial nomination. Confirming Presidential appointees is the domain of the Senate alone.
You are correct.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12125
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Elheru Aran » 2018-06-27 07:45pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 06:34pm
Rogue 9 wrote:
2018-06-27 06:17pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 02:35pm
My big question is: will Kennedy retire/be replaced before the new Congress comes in? Presuming that his replacement will be rammed through by Ryan and McConnel before the new Congress comes in, well, see above.
It's a small thing, but Paul Ryan has zero influence on a judicial nomination. Confirming Presidential appointees is the domain of the Senate alone.
You are correct.
Which does not prevent Ryan and McConnell from conniving, of course, but the decision power will ultimately rest with the Senate. The main thing we can hope for is that enough waverers can be kept indecisive for long enough that the nomination is not confirmed until after the election, but IIRC the actual elected person is not sworn in until the new year so they might still try to push a lame duck vote...
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-27 07:58pm

Of course they will, if we drag it out that long. These men spit on the will of the people.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10119
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Elfdart » 2018-06-28 12:05am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 03:10pm
McConnel confirms that they will vote to replace Kennedy this fall. Because when there's a vacancy under a Democrat, we have to wait until after the election to fill it. But when there's a vacancy under Republicans FILL IT FILL IT NOW BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Though with McCain absent for health reasons, he has only fifty votes, meaning that one Republic defection will scuttle a far Right nominee if the Democrats remain united. And Flake has said that he will block Trump's judicial nominations until there is a vote on tariffs.

Its a slim hope, but if there are ANY Republicans on the fence... lobby the fuck out of them. Remind them that their legacy will be determined by whether they vote to make the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for Trump.
The problem is that three Dems voted for Gorsuch in the stolen seat, so you'll need more defections.

I wish liberals would quit pining for moderate Republicans (who don't exist), the courts, the intelligence/law enforcement services or army generals with hearts of gold to come and save us. That kind of fairy tale thinking is what landed us in the pile of shit to begin with -like the DNC's brilliant strategy (spelled out by Charles Schumer) of whoring for these "moderates", hoping to land two of these unicorns for every lefty they pissed on and pissed off.

It's probably too late for the Kennedy seat, but there are a few possible remedies:

1) If the Democrats take back the Senate, they should block any and all Trump appointees -no exceptions.

2) If they take both houses and the presidency in 2020, they should pack the shit out of the courts immediately. If that means the Supreme Court has 15 justices instead of 9, so be it. Ditto for all federal courts.

3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.

4) Since the GOP squeals like stuck pigs no matter what the Democrats do, by all means stick them. And remind them that like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.
"The actual smallest viable human unit is Jordan Peterson’s dick"

----Allen Ventano

User avatar
Raj Ahten
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2063
Joined: 2006-04-30 12:49pm
Location: Back in NOVA

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Raj Ahten » 2018-06-28 12:29am

Once the next cuckoo land Federalist Society justice is appointed we're fucked. I expect abortion rights to not last the year and that's just the tip of the iceberg. A wide range of environmental laws, economic regulation and civil rights legislation will also be shitcanned in short order. If you think I'm being alarmist just look at Federalist Society's website. They are the ones writing Trump's shortlist. We can look forward to far right dominance on the supreme court and therefore federal governance for at least the next 30 years as it would be stretching it for Ginsburg to last through Trump's term as well.


I also have zero confidence that democrats in the senate will be able or willing to be able to put up any sort of resistance to whomever the new justice will be is. Their track record is abysmal and Mcconnell will just change whatever rules are being used as a delaying tactic if history is any guide.

User avatar
Raj Ahten
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2063
Joined: 2006-04-30 12:49pm
Location: Back in NOVA

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Raj Ahten » 2018-06-28 12:35am

Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-06-27 07:45pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 06:34pm
Rogue 9 wrote:
2018-06-27 06:17pm

It's a small thing, but Paul Ryan has zero influence on a judicial nomination. Confirming Presidential appointees is the domain of the Senate alone.
You are correct.
Which does not prevent Ryan and McConnell from conniving, of course, but the decision power will ultimately rest with the Senate. The main thing we can hope for is that enough waverers can be kept indecisive for long enough that the nomination is not confirmed until after the election, but IIRC the actual elected person is not sworn in until the new year so they might still try to push a lame duck vote...
I don't buy it that there are any waverers in the senate. Why should we believe anyone would have second thoughts? Gorsuch got sent through damn fast and he's a total fruitloop. There is no better way to fire up the base than appointing a supreme court justice. In fact delaying the vote is also bad for the democrats given how many red state seats they have to defend or take this upcoming election. If the right wasn't motivated equally to the left before this appointment was on the line, they sure as hell will be now.

Patroklos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Patroklos » 2018-06-28 02:00am

The polls show there is nothing you can do to galvanize Republican voter participation than court nomination issues, the effect is not nearly as notable for Dem voters. If the Dems succeed and leave this nomination hanging out there through November they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The Senate is already a long shot for them, leaving this hanging is slamming the door.

This same calculus was surely a close second consideration for McConnell during the Scalia vacancy.

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2754
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2018-06-28 09:39am

Elfdart wrote:
2018-06-28 12:05am
1) If the Democrats take back the Senate, they should block any and all Trump appointees -no exceptions.

2) If they take both houses and the presidency in 2020, they should pack the shit out of the courts immediately. If that means the Supreme Court has 15 justices instead of 9, so be it. Ditto for all federal courts.

3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.

4) Since the GOP squeals like stuck pigs no matter what the Democrats do, by all means stick them. And remind them that like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.
Great idea! Let's perpetuate the cycle of zero-sum partisanship that has led to near complete government deadlock for the better part of a decade, confirm for the die-hard right-wingers all of their conspiracy theories that the left wants to dismantle democracy, and generally continue to erode our government institutions in order to pave the way for more populist presidents! Burn the whole fucking thing down, man!

User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7717
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Lagmonster » 2018-06-28 10:48am

You know, it never seemed like a better time for everyone to agree to dissolve the union and start over. Otherwise the cycle of ascendant ideologies taking turns viciously and smugly beating down on each other will continue until you guys start shooting each other again, and frankly a large swath of the rest of earth really needs your money, so we can't fucking have that.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10375
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-28 11:02am

I mean at 81, I think he's entitled to retire.

I've seem a lot of hostility about this: I he notable less likely to toe the republican line, than Trump's pick? If he was a republican nominee anyway.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2919
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by U.P. Cinnabar » 2018-06-28 11:23am

The concern is someone worse will take his place.

Or, I think a job just opened up for Roy Moore.
"Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone amongst God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of Death.."
—29th Scroll, 6th Verse of Ape Law

"The Constitution's a piece of paper. A kick in the head is a jolt."
—Stanley "Ray" Kowalski
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
---NRA motto

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-28 12:42pm

Elfdart wrote:
2018-06-28 12:05am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-27 03:10pm
McConnel confirms that they will vote to replace Kennedy this fall. Because when there's a vacancy under a Democrat, we have to wait until after the election to fill it. But when there's a vacancy under Republicans FILL IT FILL IT NOW BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Though with McCain absent for health reasons, he has only fifty votes, meaning that one Republic defection will scuttle a far Right nominee if the Democrats remain united. And Flake has said that he will block Trump's judicial nominations until there is a vote on tariffs.

Its a slim hope, but if there are ANY Republicans on the fence... lobby the fuck out of them. Remind them that their legacy will be determined by whether they vote to make the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for Trump.
The problem is that three Dems voted for Gorsuch in the stolen seat, so you'll need more defections.
That does not automatically guarantee that the same Democrats will vote for Kennedy's replacement, especially since we are no longer in the "Trump's new, give him a chance" phase that some Democrats were dumb enough to fall for, that Gorsuch (as Scalia's replacement) essentially maintained rather than significantly shifting the existing balance of the court, and that Democrats now will be facing imminent midterms where they will depend on votes from people who DO NOT want to see them vote in a far Right Justice.
I wish liberals would quit pining for moderate Republicans (who don't exist), the courts, the intelligence/law enforcement services or army generals with hearts of gold to come and save us. That kind of fairy tale thinking is what landed us in the pile of shit to begin with -like the DNC's brilliant strategy (spelled out by Charles Schumer) of whoring for these "moderates", hoping to land two of these unicorns for every lefty they pissed on and pissed off.

It's probably too late for the Kennedy seat, but there are a few possible remedies:
Normally, I'd agree with most of that, although you should not dismiss the significance of the Mueller investigation and other investigations into Trump (even if they ultimately rely largely on Congressional support to protect them and to act on their conclusions). And hoping for "army generals with hearts of gold" to save us is essentially calling for a military coup, which is not what I'd call a "fairy tale" solution.

But considering the stakes here, I see no harm in trying to lobby a few of the... if not moderate, then less extreme/less committed to Trump of the Republican Senators, since its the only hope, however, slim, of blocking a potential theocratic fascist/Trump loyalist nominee. And its not completely hopeless; there are a few Senators who vote against Trump at least some of the time, and the occasional bill has been blocked or delayed before now. This time around, with McCain gone, we need only one defection. Note also that the typical time span for approving a Supreme Court Justice is reportedly about 140 days- which would put it past the midterms and into the lame duck session. While I expect McConnel to try to ram it through as fast as possible, delaying or voting down Trump's initial nominee might conceivably stall it until the new Senate comes in next year. Considering the likely price of failure (control of the Supreme Court by far Right theocrats for the foreseeable future), its at least worth trying, rather than writing off from the outset.

Such lobbying should not however include conceding core parts of the Democratic platform, of course.
1) If the Democrats take back the Senate, they should block any and all Trump appointees -no exceptions.
Agreed.
2) If they take both houses and the presidency in 2020, they should pack the shit out of the courts immediately. If that means the Supreme Court has 15 justices instead of 9, so be it. Ditto for all federal courts.
I actually don't support this. Set that precedent, and you can bet every party thenceforth will pack the court until a Constitutional Amendment is passed prohibiting it. Its no good winning a short-term victory if it sets you up for a long-term defeat. Packing the court would effectively permanently destroy the impartiality and credibility of the Supreme Court.

A better option would be to a) try to block Kennedy's replacement now, and b) try to impeach Trump's appointees if possible, or declare Trump's appointees invalid if it turns out that Trump colluded with Russia, on the grounds that his Presidency is illegitimate. Of course, declaring a Presidency illegitimate has no precedent, and would be a Constitutional crisis that would have to be ruled on by the court- in which case, it would be reasonable to demand that both Trump appointees recuse themselves due to conflict of interest.
3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.
This is long overdue, but not really related to this issue.
4) Since the GOP squeals like stuck pigs no matter what the Democrats do, by all means stick them. And remind them that like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.
Well, we're going to be called socialists anyway- might as well own it, rather than compromise to score points.
Raj Ahten wrote:
2018-06-28 12:29am
Once the next cuckoo land Federalist Society justice is appointed we're fucked. I expect abortion rights to not last the year and that's just the tip of the iceberg. A wide range of environmental laws, economic regulation and civil rights legislation will also be shitcanned in short order. If you think I'm being alarmist just look at Federalist Society's website. They are the ones writing Trump's shortlist. We can look forward to far right dominance on the supreme court and therefore federal governance for at least the next 30 years as it would be stretching it for Ginsburg to last through Trump's term as well.


I also have zero confidence that democrats in the senate will be able or willing to be able to put up any sort of resistance to whomever the new justice will be is. Their track record is abysmal and Mcconnell will just change whatever rules are being used as a delaying tactic if history is any guide.
Yeah, write the situation off as hopeless, no point trying to do anything, and then blame it on the Democrats! Maybe you'll convince enough voters that Both Parties Are Just As Bad and that Nothing Matters and... oh, wait, that's how we got into this mess.
Patroklos wrote:
2018-06-28 02:00am
The polls show there is nothing you can do to galvanize Republican voter participation than court nomination issues, the effect is not nearly as notable for Dem voters. If the Dems succeed and leave this nomination hanging out there through November they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The Senate is already a long shot for them, leaving this hanging is slamming the door.

This same calculus was surely a close second consideration for McConnell during the Scalia vacancy.
With all due respect, its pretty clear which horse you back in American politics, and I'm not inclined to take strategy advice from the enemy, especially when that advice is "Give us a huge win without contest right before the election, otherwise we'll win!"
Lagmonster wrote:
2018-06-28 10:48am
You know, it never seemed like a better time for everyone to agree to dissolve the union and start over. Otherwise the cycle of ascendant ideologies taking turns viciously and smugly beating down on each other will continue until you guys start shooting each other again, and frankly a large swath of the rest of earth really needs your money, so we can't fucking have that.
Dissolving the Union is not something that would occur instead of shooting at each other. It is something that would only occur after shooting had become, or as an immediate prelude to shooting beginning. Seriously, there is no remotely plausible scenario where the Union is dissolved that does not involve a prolonged civil war with probably hundreds of thousands or millions of dead people.

In all probability, if the Union were dissolved now, there would be no "start over". Just a perpetually Balkanized US, at war with itself.

I am so tired of people wanting to just BURN IT ALL NOW as the solution to our problems, without giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system. Again, that's how we got into this mess.
Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-28 11:02am
I mean at 81, I think he's entitled to retire.

I've seem a lot of hostility about this: I he notable less likely to toe the republican line, than Trump's pick? If he was a republican nominee anyway.
He usually voted R on close votes, but not always- for example, he voted in favor of Roe v Wade and Gay Marriage IIRC.

Trump will likely also pick someone personally loyal to him, who he believes will protect him from the Mueller investigation/indictment.

And yeah, I do blame Kennedy. Hell, even if he was dying, every day he remained on the Court would be a slightly higher chance of Trump not getting his appointee through before the next Congress. Millions of people will likely suffer and be deprived of their rights, and thousands will likely die, as a direct consequences of the rulings the Court will make with another Trump appointee on the bench, not to mention the direct assaults on the rule of law and democratic principles Trump is engaged in. Kennedy knew what he was doing, who he was giving control of the Court to. He's 81? Well, better men than him have died in the service of their country.
U.P. Cinnabar wrote:
2018-06-28 11:23am
The concern is someone worse will take his place.

Or, I think a job just opened up for Roy Moore.
I doubt that will happen. They'll want someone younger, so they can get as many years of Constitution-fucking out of them as possible.

Plus, Roy Moore is so blatantly awful even by Republican standards that he is a pick that might actually lead to multiple Republican defections (as well as pretty much ensuring a unanimous Democratic opposition).
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13154
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: Tysons Corner Microwave Tower
Contact:

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Lonestar » 2018-06-28 12:42pm

Hot take here:

He's old as hell. RBG is old as hell. If we fly into a panic because someone might retire/die, then maybe we should have an age cap or some sort of staggered term limits.

Paraphrasing here, but if a Cardinal can't vote in a Papal Conclave after the age of 80, maybe we shouldn't have a Justice at that age.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10375
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-28 12:54pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
And yeah, I do blame Kennedy. Hell, even if he was dying, every day he remained on the Court would be a slightly higher chance of Trump not getting his appointee through before the next Congress. Millions of people will likely suffer and be deprived of their rights, and thousands will likely die, as a direct consequences of the rulings the Court will make with another Trump appointee on the bench, not to mention the direct assaults on the rule of law and democratic principles Trump is engaged in. Kennedy knew what he was doing, who he was giving control of the Court to. He's 81? Well, better men than him have died in the service of their country.
There's a phrase I'm reminded of here oddly enough from the 2009 Star Trek movie when an answer to one of Spock's school questions is 'when it is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory'. I would consider it praiseworthy to work yourself to death for what you believe in. I don't consider it obligatory.

Nor do I consider it moral to demand someone else to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7717
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Lagmonster » 2018-06-28 01:07pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
I am so tired of people wanting to just BURN IT ALL NOW as the solution to our problems, without giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system. Again, that's how we got into this mess.
Since you and hyperbole aren't on speaking terms, think of it as everyone being fed up enough with a government hamstrung by ideological divide to adopt a national consensus that the Constitution needs, at minimum, severe revision - if not a total re-write.

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2754
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2018-06-28 01:20pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
A better option would be to a) try to block Kennedy's replacement now, and b) try to impeach Trump's appointees if possible, or declare Trump's appointees invalid if it turns out that Trump colluded with Russia, on the grounds that his Presidency is illegitimate. Of course, declaring a Presidency illegitimate has no precedent, and would be a Constitutional crisis that would have to be ruled on by the court- in which case, it would be reasonable to demand that both Trump appointees recuse themselves due to conflict of interest.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
4) Since the GOP squeals like stuck pigs no matter what the Democrats do, by all means stick them. And remind them that like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.
Well, we're going to be called socialists anyway- might as well own it, rather than compromise to score points.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
I am so tired of people wanting to just BURN IT ALL NOW as the solution to our problems, without giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system. Again, that's how we got into this mess.
Sorry for the quote mess; not trying to cherry-pick just wanted to pull the relevant parts out from the other issues.

TRR: you do realize it's INCREDIBLY ironic for you to accuse someone else of not "giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system", in the same post that you advocate for breaking the system? You keep saying things like "this is what got us into this mess", but instead of proposing any sort of ideas for how to get OUT of this mess you just want to make this mess even messier. You talk about perpetuating the hyperpartisan system that has put our government in essential deadlock for the better part of a decade, and gleefully hope for a constitutional crisis, and then turn around and say, "NOBODY ELSE IS THINKING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS!" That's a ludicrous stance to take. An ironic one, as well, considering how vociferously you have decried the Republicans for the EXACT same tactics during Obama's term.

Look, I hate Trump and his supporters too. And I'm not even saying that the ideas you say lack merit, but you need to stop being a hypocrite and actually own up to the stance you are taking. The stance you are taking really isn't that much different from "BURN IT ALL NOW", because you are advocating for complete government shut-down and constitutional crisis, the logical consequence of which would be a massive overhaul of how the US government operates. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; indeed, I am of the opinion that our system needs a pretty massive systemic overhaul. But stop acting like you are taking some sort of middle-ground, moderate tone when you are essentially advocating for BURN IT ALL NOW. You're just too much of a coward to admit it.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-28 01:23pm

Lagmonster wrote:
2018-06-28 01:07pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
I am so tired of people wanting to just BURN IT ALL NOW as the solution to our problems, without giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system. Again, that's how we got into this mess.
Since you and hyperbole aren't on speaking terms, think of it as everyone being fed up enough with a government hamstrung by ideological divide to adopt a national consensus that the Constitution needs, at minimum, severe revision - if not a total re-write.
You said that we should "dissolve the union" in order to resolve our current political problems. My response is that that is short-sighted response, without due consideration for the consequences (especially if you believe that it would avert, rather than lead to, mass violence). Of course you are not literally suggesting burning anything: I used that as a common metaphor for "solutions" which focus entirely on breaking the status quo, without thought for the consequences or how to build something to replace it.

I agree that the Constitution needs a "severe revision". But a "total re-write" (ie a Constitutional Convention) is a non-starter. If it were held now, under the current balance of power, either the Trumpers and their allies would ram theocracy and neo-fascism down our throats, or no new version would be able to attract sufficient support to pass. In all probability, the situation would simply degenerate from there.

As satisfying as the thought may be of resolving all of our crises in one broad stroke, I don't believe that it is possible. The far more unpalatable truth is likely that there is no single fix- that we are going to have to take various problems a step at a time. And that in either case, avoiding widespread political and civil unrest may be impossible (I sincerely hope that I am mistaken on this last point).
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

Patroklos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by Patroklos » 2018-06-28 01:40pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-28 12:42pm
Patroklos wrote:
2018-06-28 02:00am
The polls show there is nothing you can do to galvanize Republican voter participation than court nomination issues, the effect is not nearly as notable for Dem voters. If the Dems succeed and leave this nomination hanging out there through November they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The Senate is already a long shot for them, leaving this hanging is slamming the door.

This same calculus was surely a close second consideration for McConnell during the Scalia vacancy.
With all due respect, its pretty clear which horse you back in American politics, and I'm not inclined to take strategy advice from the enemy, especially when that advice is "Give us a huge win without contest right before the election, otherwise we'll win!"
The advice is neutral and I note you had no actual objection to it, but your quote above perfectly encapsulates why you and your allies have no hope of accessing power anytime soon. Namely, your inability to assess things not fed to you from an agreeable mouthpiece sourced from your bubble because you see nothing but "enemies" around you.

You have zero hope of stalling the nomination anyway, doing so erases any chance you have at getting a Senate win which is the only way you can hope to stall the next one or maybe two Supreme Court vacancies for a potential post Presidential election fill, and if you bet and lose (the Senate stays R) Trump gets to pursue all of these vacancies with no interference.

You should really learn how to examine things dispassionately.

Additionally, why does an octogenarian have to work himself to death when you, someone who believes literal 1940s equivalent Nazis are goosestepping the streets en masse, sit on your ass doing nothing but rave on internet boards? I know we like to lionize these people but when you are still on the court at 80 I see power clinging arrogance, not dutiful public servants. I know a lot of you really like RGB, but is it more important to have her specifically on the court than a 40 year younger version of her nominated by Obama when he had the Senate? If she was really down for the cause and the long term preservation of her legacy as it stands, was sticking around a smart/selfless move? These people are playing by nobodies rules but their own.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-28 02:08pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
2018-06-28 01:20pm
Sorry for the quote mess; not trying to cherry-pick just wanted to pull the relevant parts out from the other issues.

TRR: you do realize it's INCREDIBLY ironic for you to accuse someone else of not "giving sufficient thought for the consequences or what comes after you break the system", in the same post that you advocate for breaking the system?
What actions did I advocate that you feel would amount to "breaking the system"? Please give specific examples.

I agree, incidentally, that the status quo is deeply troubling in many respects. But there is a distinction between wanting to fix the way our country is run, and wanting to break it. What I want is to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law, and ultimately amend those aspects of them that are most problematic. That may indeed entail some messy confrontations, but there is a difference between a crisis on the scale of impeaching the President or passing a Constitutional Amendment, and literally dissolving the Union.
You keep saying things like "this is what got us into this mess", but instead of proposing any sort of ideas for how to get OUT of this mess you just want to make this mess even messier.
On the contrary, what I am trying to do is propose means by which we could limit the damage of Trumpism, without permanently destroying institutions which are foundational to democracy and the rule of law, such as a functioning Supreme Court.

You, in contrast, are deriding me for being "hyperpartisan" and too extreme, while at the same time attacking me for suggesting that maybe its a bad idea to literally destroy the Union. Then calling me a hypocrite while ignoring the vast contradictions in your own position.
You talk about perpetuating the hyperpartisan system that has put our government in essential deadlock for the better part of a decade, and gleefully hope for a constitutional crisis, and then turn around and say, "NOBODY ELSE IS THINKING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS!" That's a ludicrous stance to take. An ironic one, as well, considering how vociferously you have decried the Republicans for the EXACT same tactics during Obama's term.
Spare me the "both sides" crap. The current situation is not the result of a "hyperpartisan system". There is one party (the Republicans) which has systematically attempted to destroy democracy and the rule of law, and have pushed us into a corner where our only option is to obstruct them by the limited means at our disposal, or to concede control of the United States to people who lock children in cages.

And I do not "gleefully hope for a constitutional crisis". We're already in one, and I consider that extremely unfortunate. What I am hoping for is a path out of the crisis with minimal loss of life, loss of liberty, or Balkanization of the United States.
Look, I hate Trump and his supporters too.
This isn't even ultimately about liking or hating Trump and his supporters, and it sure as hell isn't about party, except insofar as the Republican Party almost unanimously backs Trump. This is about an attempt by what are effectively neo-fascists to take control of the most powerful nation on Earth. This is an existential threat which transcends short-term partisan politics, personal likes and dislikes, or even policy differences on other issues.
And I'm not even saying that the ideas you say lack merit, but you need to stop being a hypocrite and actually own up to the stance you are taking. The stance you are taking really isn't that much different from "BURN IT ALL NOW", because you are advocating for complete government shut-down and constitutional crisis, the logical consequence of which would be a massive overhaul of how the US government operates. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; indeed, I am of the opinion that our system needs a pretty massive systemic overhaul. But stop acting like you are taking some sort of middle-ground, moderate tone when you are essentially advocating for BURN IT ALL NOW. You're just too much of a coward to admit it.
I am sick to death of people misrepresenting my views and then attacking me for them. Just as I am sick of Faux Progressives who are more interested in fighting others on the Left than in fighting Neo-Fascism.

I am not advocating for "BURN IT ALL NOW" because I support challenging some aspects of the status quo while leaving others intact. I am not a hypocrite because I choose my targets, rather than lashing out at everything in sight. And I am not a coward because I do not wish to see my country (literally) burn.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

Post Reply