Author Topic: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring  (Read 9775 times)

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5636
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« on: June 27, 2018, 02:43:46 PM »
AK was often the tie breaking vote.. Now Trump will install a right wing whack job no doubt.

How do we think that will affect the next attack on the ACA or other "entitlement programs"??

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2018, 03:19:33 PM »
AK was often the tie breaking vote.. Now Trump will install a right wing whack job no doubt.

How do we think that will affect the next attack on the ACA or other "entitlement programs"??

You nailed it - that would be my concern.  ACA, SS, Medicare.  But who knows what technicality could be challenged as unconstitutional in the future.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2018, 03:28:01 PM »
Hopefully this sounds the klaxon horn spurring Democrats to action and voters to vote D ALL THE WAY DOWN.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2018, 03:32:50 PM »
I see no silver lining and no way of stopping this.

A Democratic President expands the Court.

It seems unlikely but millenials outnumber boomers and boomers are dying. When the court is way out-of-sync with the populace, the populace makes the court fit.


Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2018, 03:36:07 PM »
I got the below in my inbox from Sen. Chris Murray; got a similar message from Sen. Kamala Harris. I'm not sure what ability the Dems have to postpone a vote, but I'm all in favor...

Quote
Earlier today, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would be stepping down from the court at the end of July. I wanted to take a moment so you knew exactly where I stand on what should happen next:

Mitch McConnell set the rule. Now, he and Senate Republicans need to follow it.

The United States Senate should not vote on any nomination until the voters have had a chance to weigh in on this court-altering decision and a new Congress is sworn in.

No vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2018, 03:46:05 PM »
I got the below in my inbox from Sen. Chris Murray; got a similar message from Sen. Kamala Harris. I'm not sure what ability the Dems have to postpone a vote, but I'm all in favor...

Quote
Earlier today, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would be stepping down from the court at the end of July. I wanted to take a moment so you knew exactly where I stand on what should happen next:

Mitch McConnell set the rule. Now, he and Senate Republicans need to follow it.

The United States Senate should not vote on any nomination until the voters have had a chance to weigh in on this court-altering decision and a new Congress is sworn in.

No vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated.

Fuck it, why not wait 2.5 years so the American people have a voice just like what happened with Merrick Garland?

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2018, 03:50:35 PM »
A Democratic President expands the Court.

I hate the fact that it has come to this, but at this point this really is our only option. That or impeach Gorsuch. Without the Supreme Court, progress is impossible.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2018, 04:01:06 PM »
A Democratic President expands the Court.

I hate the fact that it has come to this, but at this point this really is our only option. That or impeach Gorsuch. Without the Supreme Court, progress is impossible.

Well, it's not a slam dunk yet.

McCain probably won't vote and Flake isn't exactly a Trump loyalist. There's also Capito, who is more of a pro-choice Republican than not. And Murkowski and Collins. Collins may be the most vulnerable if she sides with a virulent anti-choice nominee.

They could toe the line for Gorsuch because of Kennedy. Without him, abortion is on the chopping block.


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2018, 04:05:03 PM »
A Democratic President expands the Court.

I hate the fact that it has come to this, but at this point this really is our only option. That or impeach Gorsuch. Without the Supreme Court, progress is impossible.

God forbid progress goes through the democratic process and within constitutional constraints. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2018, 04:12:25 PM »
A Democratic President expands the Court.

I hate the fact that it has come to this, but at this point this really is our only option. That or impeach Gorsuch. Without the Supreme Court, progress is impossible.

God forbid progress goes through the democratic process and within constitutional constraints.

Thankfully, expanding the Court is within constitutional constraints.

TempusFugit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Location: In my own head, usually
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2018, 04:16:07 PM »
Nothing is ever as good as it seems or as bad as it seems.  This too shall pass.  etc, etc...

I'd say let's at least, if we could, please agree that reasonable people can take different views on the items in your list.  That there can be some middle ground on these things that don't necessarily make one side giddy and the other angry. That if we were sitting down with a couple of beers and just discussing some of these things that while we may not change anyone's mind, we might at least agree with some of the other's points of concern.

Can we agree that the supreme court has taken an outsized role in our society? That our other two branches have become unbalanced, with the executive taking too much power and the legislature too little, as the politics are easier to just let the administrative / regulatory apparatus govern without the need for those pesky on-the-record votes? Let the court decide, and then you can just shrug and say "well, I'm on your side!"

I don't know what will happen, of course, but I think it is reasonable to nominate and confirm a new justice before the next congress sits.  I understand why that will be argued about quite forcefully, but I do think that this situation is a bit different than the situation at the end of Obama's term.

First, the president picks the nominee, the senate just confirms.  The president is in a position of greater power to 'choose the candidates' as it were.   In that case, we were guaranteed to have a new president, regardless of which party won. In this case, the same president is going to submit the nominee. Had Obama's nominee gone through the hearings, do you think the Republican senate would have confirmed him under those circumstances, or would it just have been a theater for political grandstanding with a forgone conclusion?  An opportunity to get everyone even angrier?

Second, the justice in this case (Kennedy) is a middle of the spectrum judge.  His replacement, even if it is someone who is to the right (probably) doesn't change every outcome.  The last few days have shown that Kennedy already voted with the 'conservative' justices on many important cases.  In contrast, when Scalia died, he was a staunch pillar of the conservative wing on the court.  Had he been replaced with a liberal wing justice, that would have changed many more potential outcomes.  It would have been a much more dramatic shift of the court.  It would be more like the scenario of Ruth Bader Ginsberg retiring and being replaced with a conservative justice. 

That scenario will happen soon enough, I imagine.  God help us when it does, given the state of discourse in this country.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2018, 04:28:13 PM »
A Democratic President expands the Court.

I hate the fact that it has come to this, but at this point this really is our only option. That or impeach Gorsuch. Without the Supreme Court, progress is impossible.

God forbid progress goes through the democratic process and within constitutional constraints.

I want progressive legislation to go through the democratic process, but a conservative Supreme Court will overturn even the mildest sliver of progressive legislation on the flimsiest legal pretense. They decide what "constitutional constraints" means and they won't decide in favor of progress.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2018, 04:29:27 PM »
Second, the justice in this case (Kennedy) is a middle of the spectrum judge.  His replacement, even if it is someone who is to the right (probably) doesn't change every outcome.  The last few days have shown that Kennedy already voted with the 'conservative' justices on many important cases.  In contrast, when Scalia died, he was a staunch pillar of the conservative wing on the court.  Had he been replaced with a liberal wing justice, that would have changed many more potential outcomes.  It would have been a much more dramatic shift of the court.  It would be more like the scenario of Ruth Bader Ginsberg retiring and being replaced with a conservative justice. 

Kennedy was a moderate for important votes, however. He voted with the left on the Planned Parenthood case re-affirming Roe. He voted with the left in Obergefell, which made gay marriage legal.

So while it's a nice platitude that "This, too, shall pass," real lives could be affected in significant ways. We're not discussing the internet sales tax, after all (which was also 5-4, with Kennedy voting on the majority side).

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2018, 04:33:14 PM »
Nothing is ever as good as it seems or as bad as it seems.  This too shall pass.  etc, etc...

I'd say let's at least, if we could, please agree that reasonable people can take different views on the items in your list.  That there can be some middle ground on these things that don't necessarily make one side giddy and the other angry. That if we were sitting down with a couple of beers and just discussing some of these things that while we may not change anyone's mind, we might at least agree with some of the other's points of concern.

Can we agree that the supreme court has taken an outsized role in our society? That our other two branches have become unbalanced, with the executive taking too much power and the legislature too little, as the politics are easier to just let the administrative / regulatory apparatus govern without the need for those pesky on-the-record votes? Let the court decide, and then you can just shrug and say "well, I'm on your side!"

I don't know what will happen, of course, but I think it is reasonable to nominate and confirm a new justice before the next congress sits.  I understand why that will be argued about quite forcefully, but I do think that this situation is a bit different than the situation at the end of Obama's term.

First, the president picks the nominee, the senate just confirms.  The president is in a position of greater power to 'choose the candidates' as it were.   In that case, we were guaranteed to have a new president, regardless of which party won. In this case, the same president is going to submit the nominee. Had Obama's nominee gone through the hearings, do you think the Republican senate would have confirmed him under those circumstances, or would it just have been a theater for political grandstanding with a forgone conclusion?  An opportunity to get everyone even angrier?

Second, the justice in this case (Kennedy) is a middle of the spectrum judge.  His replacement, even if it is someone who is to the right (probably) doesn't change every outcome.  The last few days have shown that Kennedy already voted with the 'conservative' justices on many important cases.  In contrast, when Scalia died, he was a staunch pillar of the conservative wing on the court.  Had he been replaced with a liberal wing justice, that would have changed many more potential outcomes.  It would have been a much more dramatic shift of the court.  It would be more like the scenario of Ruth Bader Ginsberg retiring and being replaced with a conservative justice. 

That scenario will happen soon enough, I imagine.  God help us when it does, given the state of discourse in this country.

This is all bullshit. The Trump administration is much, much worse than it seems. Modern Republicans don't want middle ground on these things; they explicitly want liberals to be angry and they're succeeding, spectacularly. Obama was president until January 2017 and he had the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices until then, and the seat he should have gotten appointed was stolen from him, plain and simple.

BudgetSlasher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2018, 05:42:37 PM »
I see no silver lining and no way of stopping this.

A Democratic President expands the Court.

It seems unlikely but millenials outnumber boomers and boomers are dying. When the court is way out-of-sync with the populace, the populace makes the court fit.

Only after Congress and the president amend 28 U. S. C. §1

Quote
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869.)

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2018, 05:47:56 PM »
Only after Congress and the president amend 28 U. S. C. §1

It's hard to do, but at least it only requires a change in law and not a constitutional amendment. Though I wouldn't put it past a conservative Supreme Court to rule that a change to the law expanding the court is unconstitutional for (bullshit reason X).

aaahhrealmarcus

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Missouri
  • Declutter. Decommodify. Denerdify.
    • Minimally Nerdy
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2018, 05:56:03 PM »
Justice Kennedy knows he will be replaced by a white nationalist. Apparently that's what he wants.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2018, 06:05:37 PM »
Ginsburg is not in great health.  Once the stacking is done they can push things back to 1923.

meghan88

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Location: Ontario
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2018, 07:54:51 PM »
It seems unlikely but millenials outnumber boomers and boomers are dying. When the court is way out-of-sync with the populace, the populace makes the court fit.

I hope.  But I watched Idiocracy again last weekend and I am not so convinced that it's a generational thing.  Bread and circuses, and history keeps repeating.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2018, 08:15:50 PM »
It seems unlikely but millenials outnumber boomers and boomers are dying. When the court is way out-of-sync with the populace, the populace makes the court fit.

I hope.  But I watched Idiocracy again last weekend and I am not so convinced that it's a generational thing.  Bread and circuses, and history keeps repeating.

I don't think it's a matter of the next generation being more intelligent, but perhaps they will be better prepared to navigate this newfangled world wide web. I've seen more than a couple boomers (intelligent ones, I think) getting caught up in some beliefs where they probably would've known better if it wasn't for the all consuming nature of the filter bubble.

On the other hand, what new technologies might exist 10 years from now that then 40-50 year olds won't understand? And admittedly, plenty of younger people are buying into various madnesses over the internet as well.

EvenSteven

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2018, 08:42:54 PM »
Plan B has a 4 year shelf life. Side hustle opportunity?

TempusFugit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Location: In my own head, usually
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2018, 08:54:18 PM »
...God help us when it does, given the state of discourse in this country.

This is all bullshit. ...

(sigh.)

The Trump administration is much, much worse than it seems. Modern Republicans don't want middle ground on these things; they explicitly want liberals to be angry and they're succeeding, spectacularly.

Does it surprise you that the Republicans (as a generalization) feel exactly the same way about the Democrats and the former president who led them?   Each team feels that they are the aggrieved party.  Just swap the words in your sentence.  And isn't that sad?  That everyday Americans now get angry with one another over this level of politics.  When in reality we probably agree on 80% of things.  The forces at work here (the political parties, the media, big corporations such as Facebook, even the Russians for heaven's sake) are playing us for the irrational humans that we are.  Everything is black and white with no room for compromise or for nuance.  Only the extremes are heard.   Some of it is no longer even intentional, but more like a natural resonant frequency that is building upon itself and making things worse and worse. 


Obama was president until January 2017 and he had the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices until then, and the seat he should have gotten appointed was stolen from him, plain and simple

In point of fact, he had the authority to nominate someone for the position.  The US Senate has the role of confirming that nominee.  My point was that his nominee wouldn't have been confirmed. 


Don't worry too much over this.  There is a long history of presidents nominating someone who turns out to vote entirely differently than they would have predicted.  And just a few short years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat.  If he even knew what that was.  It's entirely likely that some shiny thing or loud noise will distract him right as he's naming the nominee and he'll mess it up anyway. 


Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
    • Military Saints
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2018, 09:34:37 PM »
I guess I'll be the outlier and chime in that I will be quite happy if another person like Neil Gorsuch is appointed. I wasn't thrilled with the recent sales tax ruling but I'm quite happy with all the other important decisions in the last week or so.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2018, 10:03:44 PM »
Does it surprise you that the Republicans (as a generalization) feel exactly the same way about the Democrats and the former president who led them?

It doesn't surprise me, but it does disappoint me, because the difference between the two presidents is plainly obvious as night and day. Any reasonable person paying attention *should* be able to see that Obama was making a good-faith effort to improve the country for everyone while Trump is a corrupt narcissistic buffoon whose only concern is personal profit and self-glorification, and the GOP backing him are spineless sociopaths only concerned with consolidating power.

The forces at work here (the political parties, the media, big corporations such as Facebook, even the Russians for heaven's sake) are playing us for the irrational humans that we are.

It's mostly Fox News and Russia.

Everything is black and white with no room for compromise or for nuance.

There is room for compromise and nuance, but Republicans don't want it and won't allow it.

In point of fact, he had the authority to nominate someone for the position.  The US Senate has the role of confirming that nominee.

Mitch McConnell never even allowed a vote on Obama's nomination. It would be one thing if the nomination were brought to a vote in front of the entire Senate and the Senate as a whole voted the nomination down, but there was no vote. It wasn't the whole Senate, it was just one person, Mitch McConnell, who sat on the nomination for almost a full year and did nothing with it. There's zero precedent for that. It's a bullshit tactic. Then, after obstructing Obama's judicial nominations at all levels for years, as soon as Trump became president McConnell ended the filibuster for judicial nominations and Trump immediately started packing the courts with conservative judges at all levels. Now Trump is in the same situation as Obama, able to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court in an election year, and McConnell has the gall to go on TV spouting bullshit about how the American people won't stand for any delay in the nomination process. It's baldly hypocritical, but McConnell does not care because he feels no shame.

I'm tired of mincing words and I'm tired of playing civil. Civility gets you nowhere when you've got opponents waging war on you with scorched-earth, zero compromise tactics. Republican politicians do not act in good faith. They are AGGRESSIVELY AND RELENTLESSLY EVIL. They're lying hypocrites who don't care what it takes as long as they win *and they ARE WINNING, HANDILY*. It's not even close.

I see no way out of this. I really see no path from here back to a functional democracy. I feel like the United States (and with it, the world) is entering a state of permanent dystopia, and I have no hope to see my nieces and nephews prosper in such a world. My only slight comfort is the knowledge that I don't have any children myself.

Bro-mero

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2018, 11:15:14 PM »
This is the exact nightmare that worried me the most about Trump and GOP Control of all 3 branches of Government.

Democrats have an extremely tough path to winning back the Senate this fall, so Trump will likely have another 2 years to nominate any additional SCJs if, God forbid, there are more vacancies to fill.

This is going to hurt America for quite awhile, but hopefully this spurs action from Democrats in 2020 and beyond.

Godspeed.

Bro-mero

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2018, 11:18:53 PM »
I guess I'll be the outlier and chime in that I will be quite happy if another person like Neil Gorsuch is appointed. I wasn't thrilled with the recent sales tax ruling but I'm quite happy with all the other important decisions in the last week or so.

You enjoy watching unions getting decimated and partisan gerrymandering continuing to control our elections?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 11:20:34 PM by Bro-mero »

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2018, 11:48:51 PM »
STOP.  Just STOP.  This is not dystopia.  This is not hopeless.  This is a brief period in time in which the opposite party is in charge.  It has happened numerous times before.  This time is not really that different.  It just feels different because it is being spearheaded by an objectively crude person.  Look, I'm a moderate Republican.  I know for some people that means nothing else I say matters, but try to have some perspective.  Kennedy wasn't all that moderate.  A conservative judge will be replaced by a conservative judge.  Don't forget Kennedy brought you Citizens United along with Obergefell.

Democrats didn't vote in 2016.  They lost.  Elections have consequences.  It will suck on the national level for Democrats for at least the next two years.  At the same time, Democrats had the presidency and both chambers of Congress from 2008 - 2010.  Obama was the president until 2016.  If Republicans made it through 8 years of Obama and you somehow believe they now rule everything, surely you can see a way forward when there are elections in a few months.  Vote.  Fight for your values.  Fight at the local level.  Pendulums swing.  Life continues.  There's no need for hyperbole. 

I find Trump odious.  From my point of view, he has gutted the number of moderate Republicans running for Congress.  He has made Republican synonymous with "pure evil" to an entire generation of Americans.  He has turned considered conservative discourse into sycophantic propaganda.  I think Republicans have won the battle but may have lost the long-term war.  I suspect demographics may still be destiny, but dead cats can bounce high.  Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon will fight against Trump just as Texas, Alabama, etc. fought against Obama.  I'm hoping Trump makes the Left believe in federalism.

Elections have consequences but the next election is always only two years away.  America has made it through much worse.  The "Right" has more to fear going forward than the "Left."  Just my $.02.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2018, 12:04:44 AM »
STOP.  Just STOP.  This is not dystopia.  This is not hopeless.  This is a brief period in time in which the opposite party is in charge.  It has happened numerous times before.  This time is not really that different.  It just feels different because it is being spearheaded by an objectively crude person.  Look, I'm a moderate Republican.  I know for some people that means nothing else I say matters, but try to have some perspective.  Kennedy wasn't all that moderate.  A conservative judge will be replaced by a conservative judge.  Don't forget Kennedy brought you Citizens United along with Obergefell.

Democrats didn't vote in 2016.  They lost.  Elections have consequences.  It will suck on the national level for Democrats for at least the next two years.  At the same time, Democrats had the presidency and both chambers of Congress from 2008 - 2010.  Obama was the president until 2016.  If Republicans made it through 8 years of Obama and you somehow believe they now rule everything, surely you can see a way forward when there are elections in a few months.  Vote.  Fight for your values.  Fight at the local level.  Pendulums swing.  Life continues.  There's no need for hyperbole.

I find Trump odious.  From my point of view, he has gutted the number of moderate Republicans running for Congress.  He has made Republican synonymous with "pure evil" to an entire generation of Americans.  He has turned considered conservative discourse into sycophantic propaganda.  I think Republicans have won the battle but may have lost the long-term war.  I suspect demographics may still be destiny, but dead cats can bounce high.  Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon will fight against Trump just as Texas, Alabama, etc. fought against Obama.  I'm hoping Trump makes the Left believe in federalism.

Elections have consequences but the next election is always only two years away.  America has made it through much worse.  The "Right" has more to fear going forward than the "Left."  Just my $.02.

Supreme court justices are appointed for life. That's not a "brief period of time". It's a lifetime. The Supreme Court is literally *supreme*, it has the power to override anything any other branch of government does. Even if Democrats sweep the presidency and both branches of congress, we won't be able to do anything without it surviving the veto of the Supreme Court. It's not hyperbole. This is really, really bad.

And I did vote for in 2016, for Clinton, and so did millions of other Americans. In fact 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Doesn't matter, Trump is the one now in power. That's not a functional democracy. That's dystopia.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 12:36:04 AM by Norioch »

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2018, 12:31:40 AM »
It is a functional democracy.  It is not a dystopia.  I couldn't post this in many countries around the world - see Russia, North Korea, Yemen, etc.  I told my Republican friends that the sky wasn't falling in November 2008.  Now the Left believes the Republicans will run everything indefinitely.  The pendulum has simply swung to the right. It will swing back.  It will swing again after that.  RBG, Breyer and Thomas are not young.  Three seats will likely be up for grabs before 2024.  Fight at the local and state levels.  A conservative Supreme Court is likely to allow states to have more of a say in their own laws.  State legislators are not appointed for life.  State judges are not typically appointed for life.  History rhymes.  I'm not saying the current situation is ideal for the Left...I'm just saying there is no need for hysteria.     

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2018, 12:44:01 AM »
None of "the pendulum" matters without the Supreme Court, and in my lifetime the Supreme Court has never swung left. At best it's been mostly conservative but with one swing vote, and that swing vote is now gone and the court is going to go harder right than it's ever been in my life. Don't talk to me about "states rights". The Supreme Court has only ever used that excuse to allow states to write terrible laws but never lets states write good laws, and that pattern is going to get much, much worse now. Every terrible law will be upheld, and every attempt at progressive law will be struck down mercilessly.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2018, 12:52:09 AM »
I don't have a positive opinion on Trump but I think SCOTUS is relative bastion of reason in the quagmire that is the Federal Government. You might hate Alito or Ginsburg but they are probably both smarter and better informed than you, along with the rest of the court. Read several decisions and dissensions and you will see very clearly how, unlike any other branch of government, SCOTUS must embrace some aspects of rationalism by explaining their decisions within the confines of Constitutional law & legal precedent. Remember that the same fuel that generates such disdain for our better institutions provides fodder for the campaigns of derelicts such as Trump.

Leisured

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 73
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2018, 06:54:04 AM »
I am Australian, and am puzzled that justices of the US Supreme Court seem to have the right to allow their personal political beliefs to influence their judgments.

In Australia, our Constitution specifies that the Federal Government has the power to legislate on marriage. The Constitution does not define marriage. Australia recently had a national referendum of gay marriage, which was carried in favor, and people at the time pointed out that the referendum was unnecessary, as the Federal government could just legislate for gay marriage.

Some people would regard abortion as murder, so the Supreme Court will be involved on this matter.

I understand that the US Supreme Court judges on gerrymandering, while in Australia we have had an independent commission for electoral boundaries for decades. Gerrymandering, that is grossly distorted electoral boundaries for political gain, is obviously undemocratic, and a Federal government created the Australian Electoral Commission. I do not think that our Supreme Court was involved.

I have read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and it so vaguely worded that there is considerable scope for disagreement about how to implement the Second Amendment in the modern world.

Can anyone enlighten me?


accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2018, 07:50:24 AM »
Can anyone enlighten me?

No, sorry. We don't get it either. It's mostly bull shit for the ultra wealthy.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2018, 08:14:29 AM »
I am Australian, and am puzzled that justices of the US Supreme Court seem to have the right to allow their personal political beliefs to influence their judgments.

In Australia, our Constitution specifies that the Federal Government has the power to legislate on marriage. The Constitution does not define marriage. Australia recently had a national referendum of gay marriage, which was carried in favor, and people at the time pointed out that the referendum was unnecessary, as the Federal government could just legislate for gay marriage.

Some people would regard abortion as murder, so the Supreme Court will be involved on this matter.

I understand that the US Supreme Court judges on gerrymandering, while in Australia we have had an independent commission for electoral boundaries for decades. Gerrymandering, that is grossly distorted electoral boundaries for political gain, is obviously undemocratic, and a Federal government created the Australian Electoral Commission. I do not think that our Supreme Court was involved.

I have read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and it so vaguely worded that there is considerable scope for disagreement about how to implement the Second Amendment in the modern world.

Can anyone enlighten me?

They don't have the "right" to, it's just that once you accept that they are the final arbiter on what the constitution and statutes say and mean, then you are dependent on having people apply principled reasoning and not just acting as super legislators.  Unfortunately most people in the U.S. want the supreme court acting as super legislators, they just want them to act as super legislators that agree with them. 

You can look on this forum and see all the hysterics about what "the supreme court did" with respect to Trump's travel restrictions.  In reality, the supreme court's hands were tied to the extent they wanted to actually not contribute to a further departure from a republican form of government.  Congress has long been held to have plenary power with respect to immigration.  Congress delegated authority to the President to just about exercise his discretion in any way he pleases with respect to prohibiting aliens or classes of aliens from being allowed into the country.  I personally think that was a poor decision on Congress's part and an overly broad delegation, but it's what they did.  A lot of people wanted the court to just come in and say, that was a poor decision and since trump doesn't like muslims, the courts should take that delegated authority away.  There was just no legal justification presented to allow them to do so.  What's really disturbing was that the travel restrictions themselves were undoubtedly legal on their face, and four members signed off on the argument that "yea, but he said some nasty stuff before, so the court should just take away his ability to issue facially valid orders because he is tainted." 

So when you see people flipping out about having another originalist or textualist on the court, when they are acting hysterical, it is because they want the court to act as super legislators in their favor and they know they won't get that again for a while.  When you see people just disappointed by it, it is because even the judges that try to be unbiased have priors that affect their decisions in truly close cases.  And that's why you saw the right break norms to prevent Garland, because that would have put the balance of the court at two justices pretty much all in on acting as super legislators for the left, two more that were willing to do so for the pet issues, and then Garland who at the very least, was extremely deferential to adminsitrative agencies and the government in general.   
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 08:16:57 AM by Jrr85 »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5015
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2018, 08:22:31 AM »
I am Australian, and am puzzled that justices of the US Supreme Court seem to have the right to allow their personal political beliefs to influence their judgments.

In Australia, our Constitution specifies that the Federal Government has the power to legislate on marriage. The Constitution does not define marriage. Australia recently had a national referendum of gay marriage, which was carried in favor, and people at the time pointed out that the referendum was unnecessary, as the Federal government could just legislate for gay marriage.

Some people would regard abortion as murder, so the Supreme Court will be involved on this matter.

I understand that the US Supreme Court judges on gerrymandering, while in Australia we have had an independent commission for electoral boundaries for decades. Gerrymandering, that is grossly distorted electoral boundaries for political gain, is obviously undemocratic, and a Federal government created the Australian Electoral Commission. I do not think that our Supreme Court was involved.

I have read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and it so vaguely worded that there is considerable scope for disagreement about how to implement the Second Amendment in the modern world.

Can anyone enlighten me?

They don't have the "right" to, it's just that once you accept that they are the final arbiter on what the constitution and statutes say and mean, then you are dependent on having people apply principled reasoning and not just acting as super legislators.  Unfortunately most people in the U.S. want the supreme court acting as super legislators, they just want them to act as super legislators that agree with them. 

You can look on this forum and see all the hysterics about what "the supreme court did" with respect to Trump's travel restrictions.  In reality, the supreme court's hands were tied to the extent they wanted to actually not contribute to a further departure from a republican form of government.  Congress has long been held to have plenary power with respect to immigration.  Congress delegated authority to the President to just about exercise his discretion in any way he pleases with respect to prohibiting aliens or classes of aliens from being allowed into the country.  I personally think that was a poor decision on Congress's part and an overly broad delegation, but it's what they did.  A lot of people wanted the court to just come in and say, that was a poor decision and since trump doesn't like muslims, the courts should take that delegated authority away.  There was just no legal justification presented to allow them to do so.  What's really disturbing was that the travel restrictions themselves were undoubtedly legal on their face, and four members signed off on the argument that "yea, but he said some nasty stuff before, so the court should just take away his ability to issue facially valid orders because he is tainted." 

So when you see people flipping out about having another originalist or textualist on the court, when they are acting hysterical, it is because they want the court to act as super legislators in their favor and they know they won't get that again for a while. When you see people just disappointed by it, it is because even the judges that try to be unbiased have priors that affect their decisions in truly close cases.  And that's why you saw the right break norms to prevent Garland, because that would have put the balance of the court at two justices pretty much all in on acting as super legislators for the left, two more that were willing to do so for the pet issues, and then Garland who at the very least, was extremely deferential to adminsitrative agencies and the government in general.

And that would be why Mitch McConnell blocked nominations until he got the person he wanted.

Quote
Within an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in Feb. 2016, McConnell announced that he would block any Obama replacement. Republicans followed his lead by denying a Senate confirmation hearing to Obama’s choice for the court, Merrick Garland. It was a cynical tactic, and it worked: the seat sat empty for a year and Trump went on to fill it with Gorsuch, a staunch conservative.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2018, 08:24:46 AM »
So when you see people flipping out about having another liberal pick on the court, when they are acting hysterical, it is because they want the court to act as super legislators in their favor and they know they won't get that again for a while.

Fixed it for you.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2018, 08:36:09 AM »
I guess I'll be the outlier and chime in that I will be quite happy if another person like Neil Gorsuch is appointed. I wasn't thrilled with the recent sales tax ruling but I'm quite happy with all the other important decisions in the last week or so.
When I was in school, most of the important and historical SCOTUS decisions that we were taught about were progressive decisions striking down long held bigotry in America. Many recent decisions have moved towards once again legalizing bigotry. It is disheartening to see so many Americans proudly proclaim their approval of those rulings.

The pendulum will swing back again, but it does take decades to happen.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2018, 08:37:56 AM »
So when you see people flipping out about having another liberal pick on the court, when they are acting hysterical, it is because they want the court to act as super legislators in their favor and they know they won't get that again for a while.

Fixed it for you.

Certainly lots of people on the right would like the court to act as super legislators, but for the most part, there's no comparison to what the left has done through the courts and what the right has done. 

Qualified immunity is a major thing that has been judicially created and that was a mistake (although I'm not sure that's even an issue on most people's radar on either side).  Compare that to the left that has virtucally completely flipped our constitutional setup, with virtually anything within the federal government's power unless it is expressly prohibited.  Basically the only precedent that is still good invovles the women against violence act and issues involving commandeering of state or local governments. 

I think same sex marriage shoudl have been legalized long ago, but it's ridiculous to claim that it's constitutionally mandated and not a super legislative act of the courts. 

There is also nothing in the constitution regarding abortion.  Even most legal professors, at least until maybe the last decade to decade and a half, would acknowledge that while they liked the result of Roe v. Wade, it was not a decision grounded in law.

What have "conservative" judges been able to do that is in any way comparable?  Where have they completely taken a political issues out of the legislative sphere without constitutional justification?  I'm not naive enough to think judges I agree with don't let their biases impact their judgment, but what significant legislative acts have they accomplished through the courts?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 08:40:21 AM by Jrr85 »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2018, 08:44:35 AM »
What have "conservative" judges been able to do that is in any way comparable?  Where have they completely taken a political issues out of the legislative sphere without constitutional justification?  I'm not naive enough to think judges I agree with don't let their biases impact their judgment, but what significant legislative acts have they accomplished through the courts?

Oh barf dude. Why do conservatives always have to go and dry hump The Constitution?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2018, 08:47:03 AM »
Does it surprise you that the Republicans (as a generalization) feel exactly the same way about the Democrats and the former president who led them?   Each team feels that they are the aggrieved party.  Just swap the words in your sentence.  And isn't that sad?  That everyday Americans now get angry with one another over this level of politics.  When in reality we probably agree on 80% of things.  The forces at work here (the political parties, the media, big corporations such as Facebook, even the Russians for heaven's sake) are playing us for the irrational humans that we are.  Everything is black and white with no room for compromise or for nuance.  Only the extremes are heard.   Some of it is no longer even intentional, but more like a natural resonant frequency that is building upon itself and making things worse and worse. 

I get what your saying and I appreciate it, but just because someone feels a particular way does not make it true.  Try looking objectively at the situation and see if it looks like one side is more or less open to compromise.  And then the problem becomes that if one side is only nominating moderate justices (because they inherently believe in the value of compromise) while the other is nominating only extremists then that affects the way that decisions fall.


Obama was president until January 2017 and he had the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices until then, and the seat he should have gotten appointed was stolen from him, plain and simple

In point of fact, he had the authority to nominate someone for the position.  The US Senate has the role of confirming that nominee.  My point was that his nominee wouldn't have been confirmed. 


Don't worry too much over this.  There is a long history of presidents nominating someone who turns out to vote entirely differently than they would have predicted.  And just a few short years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat.  If he even knew what that was.  It's entirely likely that some shiny thing or loud noise will distract him right as he's naming the nominee and he'll mess it up anyway.

Even if we accept everything that your saying here, the precedent has now been set that neither party gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court without controlling both the Presidency and the Senate.  I hope we're ready for some long stretches without a full Supreme Court, because I image Democrats will be highly disappointed in the their party if they don't hold to that precedent.  And I doubt that Trump will nominate a non-extreme candidate even if he is highly distractible, because the extreme right has already handed him their wish list of nominees to choose from.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2018, 08:52:46 AM »
I hope we're ready for some long stretches without a full Supreme Court, because I image Democrats will be highly disappointed in the their party if they don't hold to that precedent.

And remember that revenge is wired in to humans. (It just feels so good.) When this place swings left again, conservatives are going to implode.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2018, 09:01:08 AM »
STOP.  Just STOP.  This is not dystopia.  This is not hopeless.  This is a brief period in time in which the opposite party is in charge.  It has happened numerous times before.  This time is not really that different.  It just feels different because it is being spearheaded by an objectively crude person.  Look, I'm a moderate Republican.  I know for some people that means nothing else I say matters, but try to have some perspective.  Kennedy wasn't all that moderate.  A conservative judge will be replaced by a conservative judge.  Don't forget Kennedy brought you Citizens United along with Obergefell.

Democrats didn't vote in 2016.  They lost.  Elections have consequences.  It will suck on the national level for Democrats for at least the next two years.  At the same time, Democrats had the presidency and both chambers of Congress from 2008 - 2010.  Obama was the president until 2016.  If Republicans made it through 8 years of Obama and you somehow believe they now rule everything, surely you can see a way forward when there are elections in a few months.  Vote.  Fight for your values.  Fight at the local level.  Pendulums swing.  Life continues.  There's no need for hyperbole. 

I find Trump odious.  From my point of view, he has gutted the number of moderate Republicans running for Congress.  He has made Republican synonymous with "pure evil" to an entire generation of Americans.  He has turned considered conservative discourse into sycophantic propaganda.  I think Republicans have won the battle but may have lost the long-term war.  I suspect demographics may still be destiny, but dead cats can bounce high.  Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon will fight against Trump just as Texas, Alabama, etc. fought against Obama.  I'm hoping Trump makes the Left believe in federalism.

Elections have consequences but the next election is always only two years away.  America has made it through much worse.  The "Right" has more to fear going forward than the "Left."  Just my $.02.

The next presidential election may be only 2 years away, but the next potential Supreme Court seat available for a liberal President to appoint may not be for a generation depending on how the next few years play out.  And this is after the Supreme Court has already had a conservative tilt for my entire lifetime.  If Democrats had won the last election they could have potentially given the Supreme Court a slight liberal tilt, instead we're potentially looking at a very conservative Supreme Court for decades.  I'm not usually one to let politics get me upset, but this one even got to me a bit.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2018, 09:01:39 AM »
Does it surprise you that the Republicans (as a generalization) feel exactly the same way about the Democrats and the former president who led them?   Each team feels that they are the aggrieved party.  Just swap the words in your sentence.  And isn't that sad?  That everyday Americans now get angry with one another over this level of politics.  When in reality we probably agree on 80% of things.  The forces at work here (the political parties, the media, big corporations such as Facebook, even the Russians for heaven's sake) are playing us for the irrational humans that we are.  Everything is black and white with no room for compromise or for nuance.  Only the extremes are heard.   Some of it is no longer even intentional, but more like a natural resonant frequency that is building upon itself and making things worse and worse. 

I get what your saying and I appreciate it, but just because someone feels a particular way does not make it true.  Try looking objectively at the situation and see if it looks like one side is more or less open to compromise.  And then the problem becomes that if one side is only nominating moderate justices (because they inherently believe in the value of compromise) while the other is nominating only extremists then that affects the way that decisions fall.


Obama was president until January 2017 and he had the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices until then, and the seat he should have gotten appointed was stolen from him, plain and simple

In point of fact, he had the authority to nominate someone for the position.  The US Senate has the role of confirming that nominee.  My point was that his nominee wouldn't have been confirmed. 


Don't worry too much over this.  There is a long history of presidents nominating someone who turns out to vote entirely differently than they would have predicted.  And just a few short years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat.  If he even knew what that was.  It's entirely likely that some shiny thing or loud noise will distract him right as he's naming the nominee and he'll mess it up anyway.

Even if we accept everything that your saying here, the precedent has now been set that neither party gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court without controlling both the Presidency and the Senate.  I hope we're ready for some long stretches without a full Supreme Court, because I image Democrats will be highly disappointed in the their party if they don't hold to that precedent.  And I doubt that Trump will nominate a non-extreme candidate even if he is highly distractible, because the extreme right has already handed him their wish list of nominees to choose from.

You consider Gorsuch extreme? 


shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2018, 09:12:35 AM »
You can look on this forum and see all the hysterics about what "the supreme court did" with respect to Trump's travel restrictions.  In reality, the supreme court's hands were tied to the extent they wanted to actually not contribute to a further departure from a republican form of government.  Congress has long been held to have plenary power with respect to immigration.  Congress delegated authority to the President to just about exercise his discretion in any way he pleases with respect to prohibiting aliens or classes of aliens from being allowed into the country.  I personally think that was a poor decision on Congress's part and an overly broad delegation, but it's what they did.  A lot of people wanted the court to just come in and say, that was a poor decision and since trump doesn't like muslims, the courts should take that delegated authority away.  There was just no legal justification presented to allow them to do so.  What's really disturbing was that the travel restrictions themselves were undoubtedly legal on their face, and four members signed off on the argument that "yea, but he said some nasty stuff before, so the court should just take away his ability to issue facially valid orders because he is tainted." 

If this is the reason that they couldn't invalidate it then why was it okay to reverse the Masterpiece decision because a council member made nasty remarks?  I thought it was because it demonstrated that the decision was made with hostility toward religion.  How do Trumps nasty comments not similarly demonstrate that the decision was made with hostility toward religion?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2018, 09:19:12 AM »
STOP.  Just STOP.  This is not dystopia.  This is not hopeless.  This is a brief period in time in which the opposite party is in charge.  It has happened numerous times before.  This time is not really that different.  It just feels different because it is being spearheaded by an objectively crude person.  Look, I'm a moderate Republican.  I know for some people that means nothing else I say matters, but try to have some perspective.  Kennedy wasn't all that moderate.  A conservative judge will be replaced by a conservative judge.  Don't forget Kennedy brought you Citizens United along with Obergefell.

Democrats didn't vote in 2016.  They lost.  Elections have consequences.  It will suck on the national level for Democrats for at least the next two years.  At the same time, Democrats had the presidency and both chambers of Congress from 2008 - 2010.  Obama was the president until 2016.  If Republicans made it through 8 years of Obama and you somehow believe they now rule everything, surely you can see a way forward when there are elections in a few months.  Vote.  Fight for your values.  Fight at the local level.  Pendulums swing.  Life continues.  There's no need for hyperbole. 

I find Trump odious.  From my point of view, he has gutted the number of moderate Republicans running for Congress.  He has made Republican synonymous with "pure evil" to an entire generation of Americans.  He has turned considered conservative discourse into sycophantic propaganda.  I think Republicans have won the battle but may have lost the long-term war.  I suspect demographics may still be destiny, but dead cats can bounce high.  Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon will fight against Trump just as Texas, Alabama, etc. fought against Obama.  I'm hoping Trump makes the Left believe in federalism.

Elections have consequences but the next election is always only two years away.  America has made it through much worse.  The "Right" has more to fear going forward than the "Left."  Just my $.02.

The next presidential election may be only 2 years away, but the next potential Supreme Court seat available for a liberal President to appoint may not be for a generation depending on how the next few years play out.  And this is after the Supreme Court has already had a conservative tilt for my entire lifetime.  If Democrats had won the last election they could have potentially given the Supreme Court a slight liberal tilt, instead we're potentially looking at a very conservative Supreme Court for decades.  I'm not usually one to let politics get me upset, but this one even got to me a bit.

If Democrats had won the election, it would not have been a slight liberal tilt.  It would have been a huge liberal tilt.  No more 1st amendment applied to political speech.  No more individual right to own guns.  General police powers for the federal government rather than the tiny bit of limitation on the commerce clause that currently remains.  If another sotamayer were appointed and confirmed, the balance would have been two judges that approach first from a partisan perspective, then RBG who is partisan on some things, then Breyer and Kagan who will apply the text but are willing to bend for certain key issues.

And the court has not had a conservative tilt for your entire lifetime unless you are younger than 12.  Even then, that depends on calling an originalist or textualist approach "conservative" rather than just respectful of the constitution. 

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2018, 09:20:19 AM »
What have "conservative" judges been able to do that is in any way comparable?  Where have they completely taken a political issues out of the legislative sphere without constitutional justification?  I'm not naive enough to think judges I agree with don't let their biases impact their judgment, but what significant legislative acts have they accomplished through the courts?

Oh barf dude. Why do conservatives always have to go and dry hump The Constitution?

Well, interpreting the constitution is the purpose of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand I disagree with Jrr85 that the Supreme Court acted as a super legislature in their gay marriage and abortion decisions. You're right that neither marriage nor abortion were mentioned in the constitution but they were not ruling on the constitutionality of allowing these things, they were ruling on the constitutionality of government decisions to deny them. The rulings stated that DOMA in the case of gay marriage and various state laws in the case of abortion were unconstitutional.

Otherwise I think your explanation is fair. I do wonder though, how do those who want the supreme court to act strictly within their duties feel about the decision of Korematsu v US?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2018, 09:20:34 AM »
Does it surprise you that the Republicans (as a generalization) feel exactly the same way about the Democrats and the former president who led them?   Each team feels that they are the aggrieved party.  Just swap the words in your sentence.  And isn't that sad?  That everyday Americans now get angry with one another over this level of politics.  When in reality we probably agree on 80% of things.  The forces at work here (the political parties, the media, big corporations such as Facebook, even the Russians for heaven's sake) are playing us for the irrational humans that we are.  Everything is black and white with no room for compromise or for nuance.  Only the extremes are heard.   Some of it is no longer even intentional, but more like a natural resonant frequency that is building upon itself and making things worse and worse. 

I get what your saying and I appreciate it, but just because someone feels a particular way does not make it true.  Try looking objectively at the situation and see if it looks like one side is more or less open to compromise.  And then the problem becomes that if one side is only nominating moderate justices (because they inherently believe in the value of compromise) while the other is nominating only extremists then that affects the way that decisions fall.


Obama was president until January 2017 and he had the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices until then, and the seat he should have gotten appointed was stolen from him, plain and simple

In point of fact, he had the authority to nominate someone for the position.  The US Senate has the role of confirming that nominee.  My point was that his nominee wouldn't have been confirmed. 


Don't worry too much over this.  There is a long history of presidents nominating someone who turns out to vote entirely differently than they would have predicted.  And just a few short years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat.  If he even knew what that was.  It's entirely likely that some shiny thing or loud noise will distract him right as he's naming the nominee and he'll mess it up anyway.

Even if we accept everything that your saying here, the precedent has now been set that neither party gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court without controlling both the Presidency and the Senate.  I hope we're ready for some long stretches without a full Supreme Court, because I image Democrats will be highly disappointed in the their party if they don't hold to that precedent.  And I doubt that Trump will nominate a non-extreme candidate even if he is highly distractible, because the extreme right has already handed him their wish list of nominees to choose from.

You consider Gorsuch extreme?

Yes.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-justices-were-bffs-this-scotus-term/
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 09:22:31 AM by shenlong55 »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #47 on: June 28, 2018, 09:26:06 AM »
You can look on this forum and see all the hysterics about what "the supreme court did" with respect to Trump's travel restrictions.  In reality, the supreme court's hands were tied to the extent they wanted to actually not contribute to a further departure from a republican form of government.  Congress has long been held to have plenary power with respect to immigration.  Congress delegated authority to the President to just about exercise his discretion in any way he pleases with respect to prohibiting aliens or classes of aliens from being allowed into the country.  I personally think that was a poor decision on Congress's part and an overly broad delegation, but it's what they did.  A lot of people wanted the court to just come in and say, that was a poor decision and since trump doesn't like muslims, the courts should take that delegated authority away.  There was just no legal justification presented to allow them to do so.  What's really disturbing was that the travel restrictions themselves were undoubtedly legal on their face, and four members signed off on the argument that "yea, but he said some nasty stuff before, so the court should just take away his ability to issue facially valid orders because he is tainted." 

If this is the reason that they couldn't invalidate it then why was it okay to reverse the Masterpiece decision because a council member made nasty remarks?  I thought it was because it demonstrated that the decision was made with hostility toward religion.  How do Trumps nasty comments not similarly demonstrate that the decision was made with hostility toward religion?

The nasty remarks were made by somebody acting in a judicial capacity, so that is very different, but regardless, that is working the same way as the approach to trump.  The Colorado Commission is not prohibited from penalizing the baker for refusing to make a wedding cake for same sex wedding.  They just can't show open hostility to christianity when they do so.  If they go through he trouble of putting the baker through the wringer again, and avoid making derogatory remarks on the record or showing any obvious hostility towards the baker's religion, the S. Ct. will not say "nope, you're tainted forever and cannot apply the law unless and until the makeup of your commission changes."  They'll rule on the merits of the baker's free expression claim.     

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #48 on: June 28, 2018, 09:35:44 AM »
The nasty remarks were made by somebody acting in a judicial capacity, so that is very different, but regardless, that is working the same way as the approach to trump.  The Colorado Commission is not prohibited from penalizing the baker for refusing to make a wedding cake for same sex wedding.  They just can't show open hostility to christianity when they do so.  If they go through he trouble of putting the baker through the wringer again, and avoid making derogatory remarks on the record or showing any obvious hostility towards the baker's religion, the S. Ct. will not say "nope, you're tainted forever and cannot apply the law unless and until the makeup of your commission changes."  They'll rule on the merits of the baker's free expression claim.   

Okay, I can buy that reasoning I suppose.  I guess Trump is just able to push multiple attempts through the court system faster because he's president and so was able to get to it right sooner.  Although I'm not entirely sure that he's stopped his "nasty remarks" about Muslims, I don't recall seeing any recently.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Justice Antony Kennedy retiring
« Reply #49 on: June 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM »
The nasty remarks were made by somebody acting in a judicial capacity, so that is very different, but regardless, that is working the same way as the approach to trump.  The Colorado Commission is not prohibited from penalizing the baker for refusing to make a wedding cake for same sex wedding.  They just can't show open hostility to christianity when they do so.  If they go through he trouble of putting the baker through the wringer again, and avoid making derogatory remarks on the record or showing any obvious hostility towards the baker's religion, the S. Ct. will not say "nope, you're tainted forever and cannot apply the law unless and until the makeup of your commission changes."  They'll rule on the merits of the baker's free expression claim.   

Okay, I can buy that reasoning I suppose.  I guess Trump is just able to push multiple attempts through the court system faster because he's president and so was able to get to it right sooner.  Although I'm not entirely sure that he's stopped his "nasty remarks" about Muslims, I don't recall seeing any recently.

How long ago were those videos posted to twitter?

Although I think the decision in Masterpiece v. Colorado had more to do with the bias being within the courts. Why the lower court's bias mattered is a technicality that I don't fully understand. It didn't change the actions of Masterpiece.