Breaking News!! Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court

[Crazy Cat 42,198]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

In 2016. It's 2018.

 

Congress has the right to advise and approve the nominee, and the people are voting on a significant number of Congressional seats. Let the people decide who they want in Congress before Congress advises the President.

 

It's the logical conclusion from the GOP point of view in 2016. But as I said I think we'll find their position will be very different now.

 

 

The people have a right to determine who appoints SCOTUS nominees.....that is exactly what the Repulican leadership meant....it had nothing to do with Congress...but nice try.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, missileman said:

The people have a right to determine who appoints SCOTUS nominees.....that is exactly what the Repulican leadership meant....it had nothing to do with Congress...but nice try.

Republicans also said Congress has the right to advise and give assent.

 

And Congress is up for reelection (most of it). What happened to the people's right to choose members of Congress?

 

There are two components to a Supreme Court appointment. Presidential nomination, and Senate confirmation. The people vote for BOTH of those groups. One was up for election 2 years ago, the other is up now. It should work the same way.

 

You can't rationalise the hypocrisy here. You can embrace it, and that's fine and probably what the GOP will do, but you can't explain it away. Fortunately for them I don't think their supporters will care if they are hypocrits.

Edited June 27, 2018 by bcking

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Does anybody know of its 51 votes or 60 votes needed to confirm a justice?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

25 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Christie for SC

They did let the American public decide and we decided for MAGA and Trump. 

Bam whoop there it is

[Crazy Cat 42,198]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Does anybody know of its 51 votes or 60 votes needed to confirm a justice?

Less than 52, but more than 50

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Republicans also said Congress has the right to advise and give assent.

 

And Congress is up for reelection (most of it). What happened to the people's right to choose members of Congress?

 

There are two components to a Supreme Court appointment. Presidential nomination, and Senate confirmation. The people vote for BOTH of those groups. One was up for election 2 years ago, the other is up now. It should work the same way.

 

You can't rationalise the hypocrisy here. You can embrace it, and that's fine and probably what the GOP will do, but you can't explain it away. Fortunately for them I don't think their supporters will care if they are hypocrits.

 

   I never felt it had anything to do with an election year. Obama already had 2 appointments and they didn't want him getting a 3rd. The Republicans would have filibustered that appointment to eternity if they had to.

 

  Democrats should forget about this appointment and start thinking about having more influence on the next one. That's about all they can do ATM, and that's where they really should stay focused.

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Does anybody know of its 51 votes or 60 votes needed to confirm a justice?

 

      51 now

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, missileman said:

Less than 52, but more than 50

 

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I never felt it had anything to do with an election year. Obama already had 2 appointments and they didn't want him getting a 3rd. The Republicans would have filibustered that appointment to eternity if they had to.

 

  Democrats should forget about this appointment and start thinking about having more influence on the next one. That's about all they can do ATM, and that's where they really should stay focused.

 

      51 now

Smartasses..... I kinda figured it is 51 but I wasn't sure. I thought it may be 60 so that's why I asked.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Democrats should forget about this appointment and start thinking about having more influence on the next one. That's about all they can do ATM, and that's where they really should stay focused.

 

Seriously they need start worrying about what they are going to do about Ginsberg when and if she retires.

[Crazy Cat 42,198]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I never felt it had anything to do with an election year. Obama already had 2 appointments and they didn't want him getting a 3rd. The Republicans would have filibustered that appointment to eternity if they had to.

 

  Democrats should forget about this appointment and start thinking about having more influence on the next one. That's about all they can do ATM, and that's where they really should stay focused.

 

     

Yeah, the Dems need to concentrate on getting control of their loose cannons like Mad Maxine....

[bcking 3,157]

I should also add -

 

I'm not sure Democrats would have acted any better. If opportunities were swapped in 2016 they likely would have done the same, and would likely have tried to flip their logic in 2018 just like the GOP is doing.

 

In US Politics it is all about opportunity. Principles have gone out the window. Supreme Court is now just as political as any other section of government. 

 

I highly doubt we will get anyone Justice quite as principled as Kennedy. I'm sure Trump and the GOP don't WANT someone like that.

Edited June 27, 2018 by bcking

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I should also add -

 

I'm not sure Democrats would have acted any better. If opportunities were swapped in 2016 they likely would have done the same, and would likely have tried to flip their logic in 2018 just like the GOP is doing.

 

In US Politics it is all about opportunity. Principles have gone out the window. Supreme Court is now just as political as any other section of government. 

 

I highly doubt we will get anyone Justice quite as principled as Kennedy. I'm sure Trump and the GOP don't WANT someone like that.

Chris Christie???

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Chris Christie???

 

That was a joke right?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

That was a joke right?

Seriously just considering who all is out there that he may propose.

[jg121783 3,921]

I think Napolitano is the best choice personally because he is a strict constitutionalist and we need judges at every level who make decisions based on the constitution first and laws passed by Congress second instead of legislating from the bench. Might be wishful thinking though because I don't think Napolitano is on Trump's list of choices.

[TBoneTX 46,055]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retires-left-loses-it/

 

The insightful analysis gets even better after each "Break Transcript."

Edited June 28, 2018 by TBoneTX