Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court

a reply to: Xcathdra

It happened in Texas with them fleeing to Oklahoma too.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Well, sure, but what are the odds of those Republicans actually defecting? Pretty low, because there's going to be enormous pressure on them to confirm the nominee, both from the rest of the GOP Congress, but also their constituents. Plus, its a safe assumption that even the Never Trumpers want another conservative on the Supreme Court and they know this is an opportunity that may never come again. In the end, I would expect that ALL of them are going to set aside any hard feelings toward Trump and as long as the nominee meets their conservative standards, they're going to vote to confirm that person.

As I said a day or two ago, I think the odds are significantly higher that we're going to see a handful of Democrats up for re-election in solid GOP/Trump states that are going to vote to confirm Trump's nominee, the same as happened with Gorsuch, except the pressure from their constituents to do so is likely to be even higher the closer it gets to election day.

Interesting it is being floated that Trump might put up Amy Coney Barrett

AMY

I like that she has seven children. A judge like that would be thinking of the long lasting choices her vote would have on her children, I say do it.
If the dems oppose it they are against a woman and a mother, she can't be held back politically.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Interesting it is being floated that Trump might put up Amy Coney Barrett

AMY

I like that she has seven children. A judge like that would be thinking of the long lasting choices her vote would have on her children, I say do it.
If the dems oppose it they are against a woman and a mother, she can't be held back politically.

Problem is that she's very religious a devout catholic. I don't really like my supreme court justices deciding things that effect me based on religion. It's a little scary.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Interesting it is being floated that Trump might put up Amy Coney Barrett

AMY

I like that she has seven children. A judge like that would be thinking of the long lasting choices her vote would have on her children, I say do it.
If the dems oppose it they are against a woman and a mother, she can't be held back politically.

The Americans that made up the constitution were all religious, they seemed to do ok.

Judaeo-christian principles are the bedrock of a stable civilization.
Not a huge fan of the Catholics either, I just think this is a necessary push back to the liberalism running amok.
You could also put one of the Lee's in, they are both Mormons.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I don't think I like it. She may be a good one, but I'd much prefer that Trump select someone with more of a paper trail of rulings on major issues. In particular, I haven't been able to find anything about her 2A stance and that very much worries me, as this court WILL be taking up gun rights in the next few years. And if she gets something that fundamental wrong, she's likely going to be wrong on other important Constitutional issues as well.

I don't want to take a chance on this selection. Trump needs to get it right.

originally posted by: amazing
Problem is that she's very religious a devout catholic. I don't really like my supreme court justices deciding things that effect me based on religion. It's a little scary.

As far as religion goes, the catholics are a pretty inoffensive bunch. They're weird about birth control but aside from that they're a very permissive bunch.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Interesting it is being floated that Trump might put up Amy Coney Barrett

AMY

I like that she has seven children. A judge like that would be thinking of the long lasting choices her vote would have on her children, I say do it.
If the dems oppose it they are against a woman and a mother, she can't be held back politically.

The Americans that made up the constitution were all religious, they seemed to do ok.

Judaeo-christian principles are the bedrock of a stable civilization.
Not a huge fan of the Catholics either, I just think this is a necessary push back to the liberalism running amok.
You could also put one of the Lee's in, they are both Mormons.

You do realize that as a whole, Catholics are extremely liberal?

a reply to: vor78

I would say it would depends on the arguments and actions taken.

There are 2 things to consider: 1) There is no set number of Justices that are to be on the US supreme court. It is usually an odd number. Originally it was 5 justices.

2) There are questions, of a legal nature that have come up, that will also slow down this process, and they are valid questions that should be considered in this process.

a reply to: vor78

I think this is going to be different. The first is that McCain is out of it, and it is a matter of numbers. If they lose one or senators, then the Dems will stall. However, if the Republicans can get 3 Dems then it will be a walk through. Thus it is politics going on.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think you're counting too heavily on personal animosity towards Trump being a source of division within the GOP with regard to the nominee. I think that's highly unlikely. Even Flake, Collins and Murkowski made public statements of support praising Gorsuch. They may try to bargain for concessions from Trump, but if he nominates another Gorsuch who generally meets GOP expectations for a Supreme Court nominee, they're ultimately going to fall in line. They all want another Constitutional conservative in that seat, too.

The only thing that might save this for the Dems is if they can delay a vote until after the midterms, but even the anti-Trumpers in the GOP aren't going to allow that to happen. No chance. They're going to push for a vote this fall...probably in late September...in order to get all of those red state Senate Dems on record as voting against the nominee, which will, in turn, be used in GOP campaign ads against those same red state Dems, accusing them of siding with the far-left and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer rather than supporting their much more conservative home state constituents. It'll work, too.

And the Dems know this all too well. That's why they're having a panic attack and are desperately trying to delay this vote until after the midterms. If it happens prior, the GOP is either going to peel off a handful of red state Dems to vote for the nominee, or it dramatically increases the GOP's chances of picking up seats in the Senate, which were already decent to begin with. Either way, if the vote happens before the midterms, Trump very likely gets his nominee confirmed.

The dark horse is Britt Grant, but it has been said although she seems the least likely, she is the youngest and prettiest, which could sway Trump her way.

Her PIc

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think it's unlikely she'll be the nominee, but skimming over some of the information about her, I like her considerably more than Barrett. One thing in particular that stood out is that she was involved in attempting to overturn an AWB. It's not a guarantee that I can support the nominee, but my rule of thumb is that if they're right on 2A, and she certainly appears to be, they're probably going to be right on most questions of individual and Constitutional rights.

I'm going to have to learn more about her, but right now, I think I could support her nomination.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: vor78

I would say it would depends on the arguments and actions taken.

There are 2 things to consider: 1) There is no set number of Justices that are to be on the US supreme court. It is usually an odd number. Originally it was 5 justices.

2) There are questions, of a legal nature that have come up, that will also slow down this process, and they are valid questions that should be considered in this process.

It requires an act of Congress to add more Justices, if I remember right. If not, FDR would have stacked the SCOTUS up to 15 to ram his agenda through.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's correct. It's a huge oversight in the Constitution that invites abuse by the party in power and needs to be addressed by a Constitutional amendment that sets a fixed limit on the number of justices.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
We need term limits on SC justices.

Them being able to sit up there for this long has allowed them to screw this country up.

They have way too much power and we need to amend the Constitution to begin limiting it. Allowing certain individuals to wield this much influence for such long duration (decades in many cases) is dangerous.

The entire system needs significant restructuring but term limits on these folks is a good start.

Interesting point. We definitely need to consider life expectancy. What was it when these lifelong appointments were decided? What will it be 20 years from now? 40 years from now? What if someone got a secret life extension enhancement, and so, by law, we Have To let them stay on for life, which could be well over 100 years... I think we need to put in at Least a limit based on a normal human life. "For life" should not extend beyond ~120 years of age.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: muzzleflash

I disagree as the freedom from firing or term limits allows the justices to independently make their decisions.

Good point. Not a term limit, but, perhaps an age limit... as mankind turtles itself off the cliff of transhumanism.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: vor78

I would say it would depends on the arguments and actions taken.

There are 2 things to consider: 1) There is no set number of Justices that are to be on the US supreme court. It is usually an odd number. Originally it was 5 justices.

2) There are questions, of a legal nature that have come up, that will also slow down this process, and they are valid questions that should be considered in this process.

It requires an act of Congress to add more Justices, if I remember right. If not, FDR would have stacked the SCOTUS up to 15 to ram his agenda through.

Lincoln also expanded the court, it's what gave FDR the idea to do it.

I suspect that in the next decade when Democrats do eventually get power again, they'll make a major push for another expansion. They're not going to sit by and let the Republicans have a guaranteed court through 2040 or 2050.

If they can't expand the court, they'll start impeaching justices.

Edit: Remember, impeachment only requires 50% of the house and 2/3 the Senate, it's far easier to do that than to consistently win the Presidency and Congress in order to expand the court. Start impeaching every non liberal justice, knock the court down to just Kagan and Sotomoyer, blocking any other nominations and the court is effectively restacked for a few years.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why bother? Why not just outlaw non-liberal viewpoints altogether? When you start talking about using impeachment as a tool to purge political dissent in government, that's basically what's happening.

In any case, I'm sure it would all go very smoothly for the Dems, especially at the state level.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Aazadan

Why bother? Why not just outlaw non-liberal viewpoints altogether? When you start talking about using impeachment as a tool to purge political dissent in government, that's basically what's happening.

In any case, I'm sure it would all go very smoothly for the Dems, especially at the state level.

Republicans have been using tactics as extreme as that for the past decade, perhaps longer in order to get control. That's why they have so many House seats... states are gerrymandered to hell and back.

Eventually, Democrats are going to go scorched earth as well. It will destroy our government in the process, but that's what the TP crowd is doing anyways, so they really have nothing to lose.