balladofwindfishes
Member
We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Do you really want to spend the next year or two in a constant state of panic that this year might be the year he retires?
Rumors of Justice Kennedy's Impending Retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court
- Thread starter TangoAlphaLima
- Start date
- Status
We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Do you really want to spend the next year or two in a constant state of panic that this year might be the year he retires?
SSPssp
Member
If he doesn't play ball they will.
elrechazado
Banned
Oh ok, we are doing immature fantasy then? In that case, I'd like three more Obama terms and emission free solar powered cars please.
excelsiorlef
Member
Umm the EC is in the Constitution
Diprosalic
Banned
That's what every sane person said. I campagned so hard amongst #neverhillary people to at least consider the damage that will do but alas..
Psychoward
Banned
Maybe by then they'll actually believe in climate change, it'll be hard not to.
also, in all honesty, this is the expected outcome after November
we reaped so many wins in the court from the warren era/brennan/o'connor + kennedy during rehnquist and roberts courts
it was bound to swing back eventually. live by the sword; die by the sword.
Ginsburg/Breyer could die of old age whenever. even if Kennedy doesn't retire, I highly doubt the court swings any direction but more conservative
we reaped so many wins in the court from the warren era/brennan/o'connor + kennedy during rehnquist and roberts courts
it was bound to swing back eventually. live by the sword; die by the sword.
Ginsburg/Breyer could die of old age whenever. even if Kennedy doesn't retire, I highly doubt the court swings any direction but more conservative
GoldenEye 007
Member
She does deserve to get shit on for that.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Kennedy (80) retiring or dying wouldn't do much to shift anything in the SCOTUS. He was appointed by Regan. Now Ginsburg (84) or Breyer (78) dying or retiring would be a significant shift as they were appointed by Bill Clinton.
All of this adding justices talk is scaring me because if it's so possible there is no reason Trump can't do it right now.
He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Kennedy doesn't retire?
He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Kennedy doesn't retire?
TumblingHippo
Member
As someone who'd like to not lose more of their civil liberties than it's already sliding back towards, I hope that when things get worse for PoC, LGBT, and minority religions, the cowards on this forum who wag their fingers at civil unrest will shut up for once.
I guess the last hope is that the court rules in favor of actual law and not harsh conservatism that ...
I guess the last hope is that the court rules in favor of actual law and not harsh conservatism that ...
lol who am I kidding.
Diprosalic
Banned
They just tell themselves that it was gonna happen anyway and nothing we would've done could've changed it.
ClosingADoor
Member
Literally the thing everyone with a bit of a brain was afraid of. We can see some justices either retiring or just pass away from old age in the next years. And that will screw up the US for possibly decades more.
Precisely.
elrechazado
Banned
If Roberts doesn't retire??
You do realize that the fantasies of white supremacists everywhere is becoming a reality day by day under Trump, right? Weak willed people who think anything is unrealistic or a fantasy are the ones Trump and the GOP are steamrolling over right now.
the swing that trump is going to implement in the lower federal courts with all his appointments is more distressing than SCOTUS imo
it takes forever for cases to get appealed up
in the meanwhile, a flood of heritage foundation/fed soc appointments will dominate the lower courts for the next lifetime
it takes forever for cases to get appealed up
in the meanwhile, a flood of heritage foundation/fed soc appointments will dominate the lower courts for the next lifetime
George Washington
Member
No they won't; that would be political suicide. They would lose the electorate that got them into the White House and be decimated in the midterms. Most of Trump's voters are still supporting him.
Trump is going to have at least one more nomination and then 1-2 more if he wins reelection.
Autodidact
Banned
A law passed by Congress governs the number of judges on the bench. Any law changing the number of judges would have to pass both houses of Congress and a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
So no, Trump can't do it.
Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. Trump can't a rabidly conservative pick past a Democratic Senate.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
You do. Because republicans would do it in a heartbeat. You open that pandoras box, dammit.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
Then why haven't they done it already?
elrechazado
Banned
That's some great rhetoric that has nothing to do with the point discussed, as I and others have pointed out.
Keep up the Constitution abolishing fantasies.
GoldenEye 007
Member
The filibusterer is on borrowed time. It can be done away with at anytime and I have a feeling it'll be coming soon. It was already thrown out by Dems for lower court judges and regular appointments. It was just thrown out by the GOP for SCOTUS justices.
The Senate can end the filibuster.... See Trump's appointee to the SC
excelsiorlef
Member
Kennedy is an odd ball who tends to swing with the liberals on a bunch of social issues... he saved Roe v Wade back in 1992 in Casey v Planned Parenthood.
Losing him is bad.
[Millions of people are dying with no healthcare, runaway climate change starts happening, corporations treat people like slaves, Democrats can do nothing since the Supreme Court overturns all their legislation]
"Guys we better not pack the court... it could open Pandora's Box."
"Guys we better not pack the court... it could open Pandora's Box."
Autodidact
Banned
Both parties have expressed reluctance to end the legislative filibuster. Republicans know it can be used against them when (yes, people, WHEN) they lose power.
Again, we have some tentative indications that we'll be safe on this front until after the midterms, so VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS.
elrechazado
Banned
Yes they can, so again, to all of those arguing Republicans can and will do it, why haven't they immediately?
And that stopped them with the SC? They'll do it when it suits them
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Because Republicans dont want it used against them. Same reason they havent ended the fiibuster.
Going off McConnell's recent actions I legitimately don't think he cares any more. I expect it to go.
Psychoward
Banned
He can if Kennedy retires and RBG dies before 2018 or the Dems lose the midterms.
Bc they get to pack the court without it.
yellowjacket25
Member
Overturning Roe seems like a sure fire way to incite violence in this country that hasn't been seen in a while.
Autodidact
Banned
Why are they using this stressful reconciliation voodoo to pass their health care bill when they could just nuke the filibuster and put whatever they want in it?
They don't want to kill the legislative filibuster.
elrechazado
Banned
That's replacing, not packing. Replacement is Not what was being discussed in the post you quoted.
all this pack the court rhetoric is missing the point, I think
why can't we just focus on winning elections and stop relying on the most anti-democratic institution in the USA to fight our battles for us
we had a whole generation where we barely won out on a lot of issues because republicans mistakenly appointed souter/stevens/o'connor/kennedy
if bonafide conservatives dominate the court, then so be it. the focus should be on congress/executive.
this is one thing I 100% agree with obama on. change should come through votes, not supreme court justices/clerks.
why can't we just focus on winning elections and stop relying on the most anti-democratic institution in the USA to fight our battles for us
we had a whole generation where we barely won out on a lot of issues because republicans mistakenly appointed souter/stevens/o'connor/kennedy
if bonafide conservatives dominate the court, then so be it. the focus should be on congress/executive.
this is one thing I 100% agree with obama on. change should come through votes, not supreme court justices/clerks.
excelsiorlef
Member
Because you know hardcore conservative justice can just shut down change... because ultimately they are the most powerful entity in the US.
So be it... sure and when all that change comes from congress/executive you can enjoy watching it being gutted by your "so be it" conservative dominated court.
elrechazado
Banned
That's not what packing the court refers to. The entire thread of conversation you replied to is about FDR style court packing. Adding justices, not replacing. Multiple people said the Republicans will do it. They could do so and can do so, and haven't.
I'm agreeing with you.
Because they aren't going to kill the filibuster for fun. But the moment it's in the way of some pet project they will.
Etrian Oddity
Member
This. This this this.
I'm tired of all the complaining by people who choose to not even go out and vote. If you did then good for you (and I mean it), but if you didn't just gtfo there and actually make a difference.
elrechazado
Banned
This is Infowars level insane.
Autodidact
Banned
Oh, I know. I just used your comment as an initial response to his concern. I should've been clearer.
you realize kennedy is only "liberal" on some social issues, right?
did all change, barring those social issues, get shut down by the make-up of the court?
you realize the ACA, the most progressive healthcare legislation in our country's history, passed because of Roberts, right?
this notion that conservative justices are some demonic force that will make all liberal/progressive legislation impossible is just ridiculous
I don't doubt that a conservative majority court will weaken the federal government, but it's not a doomsday scenario, just like it wasn't the death knell for conservative social positions just because kennedy/o'connor were on the court
Emperor_Uriel
Member
A) Most people have no idea what Roe v. Wade is.
B) Half the country is anti-abortion anyway.
C) It's largely a women's rights issue, so you can count out a humongous portion of men who will protest issues of economics/race, but see this as "not their problem."
Autodidact
Banned
Hey, Tim Ryan hasn't ousted Nancy Pelosi just yet.
Because they are going to control the court without doing so.
That does not mean we should assume they won't use legislative manuvering when they need to.
They have shown a preference for ideology over party. They could pack courts during a trump lame duck and rely on Dem handwringing about the good of the country to not retaliate
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked