Justice Kennedy Retiring

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 05:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Is there anyone that is opposed to term limits for Supreme Court Justices (or senators or representatives)?

Yes for SCOTUS. Not sure for Congress.

SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political. While there is no chance it is ever completely non-political, establishing term limits on the court would mean that it would become more beholden to political whims and it would be used even more as a political football. It would lose a degree of independence as a third, co-equal branch of government.

For Congress, I am more concerned about tightening down the rules on them. Campaign finance (which would really require a constitutional amendment at this point thanks to Citizens United), an end to gifts from lobbyists, and a law against Representatives, Senators, or their staff from entering lobbying for a period of time after leaving office (if not indefinitely) would solve a lot of the problems existent in Congress more effectively than any term limits would.

[Belsnickel]

I really dislike the calls for Democrats to obstruct until the election based on the precedent set during 2016. I have been thinking, though, that I think it would be prudent to make the argument that any confirmation should wait until the report from Mueller. I don't think anything is going to come from it, but it would be good to wait.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 03:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just saw SCOTUS Blog tweet that effective 31 July, Kennedy is retiring.

Brett Kavanaugh's name has been rumored to be floated by Senate Republicans as a replacement.

Edit to add: Kennedy is a more right-wing Justice, though he has been a swing vote on some heavy hitting 5-4 decisions. Kavanaugh took three years to get through the process for his lower court appointment because of concerns over partisanship and it took a lot of wheeling and dealing to get him there. If he is nominated I would expect a filibuster.

NO filibuster is possible with a SCOTUS nominee.  As long as Trump nominates a judge that can get all 51 GOP votes then that judge is in.  The one positive for the Dems in this regard is McCain.  He may not be up to voting and he will certainly demand a more moderate, though certainly more conservative than the Dems would like, candidate.

(06-27-2018, 04:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Will we have to wait until after the November elections to have hearings on a potential replacement?

Many people say that is the way it is supposed to work.

No, because the GOP is in power in both houses of Congress and the White House.  I get your point, but no, it won't happen.

(06-27-2018, 04:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If they hurry to appoint one it'll be a sign they don't think Trump can win a second term. 

No, because why would they take a chance on something as important as this?  They have the numbers now, they'll have them until well after the November elections.  There's zero reason for them to take it slow, beyond ensuring the 51 votes in the Senate they need.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 07:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: NO filibuster is possible with a SCOTUS nominee.  As long as Trump nominates a judge that can get all 51 GOP votes then that judge is in.  The one positive for the Dems in this regard is McCain.  He may not be up to voting and he will certainly demand a more moderate, though certainly more conservative than the Dems would like, candidate.

Did they blow up the filibuster for Gorsuch? I couldn't remember. I'm okay with a conservative Justice, as Kennedy is a conservative. It should just be more in line with Kennedy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 08:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did they blow up the filibuster for Gorsuch? I couldn't remember. I'm okay with a conservative Justice, as Kennedy is a conservative. It should just be more in line with Kennedy.

Yes, they did.  The Dems only real hope is McCain either being incapacitated or not approving of an overly partisan nominee.  Losing that Alabama seat may have some real consequences as with it they don't need McCain.  Flake is a possible stumbling block as well.  I still think they'll get a nominee to the right of Kennedy.  If the GOP keeps the Senate, and I think it's far more likely they gain seats than lose control, then the Dems had best hope RBG stays healthy or the SCOTUS will lean heavily conservative until Thomas dies or retires.

[Millhouse]

(06-27-2018, 07:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really dislike the calls for Democrats to obstruct until the election based on the precedent set during 2016. I have been thinking, though, that I think it would be prudent to make the argument that any confirmation should wait until the report from Mueller. I don't think anything is going to come from it, but it would be good to wait.

Yet that precedent, which Joe Biden also advocated for on the senate floor in 1992, was about delaying the nomination until after the Presidential election. And in a way I do agree with that to a point. But I dont think a SCROTUS nomination should be delayed for Congressional races though.

Waiting on Mueller might be prudent though, but that word doesnt exist in the WH.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:35 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yet that precedent, which Joe Biden also advocated for on the senate floor in 1992, was about delaying the nomination until after the Presidential election. And in a way I do agree with that to a point. But I dont think a SCROTUS nomination should be delayed for Congressional races though.

Waiting on Mueller might be prudent though, but that word doesnt exist in the WH.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Quote:Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped?



We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.


Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.



There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.86)][/color]

There was no nominee to consider.



The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.



Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.


Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:


"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."


He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.


"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.


"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.



"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."


Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."


Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.


Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.


"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."


In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.


Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2018, 10:35 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yet that precedent, which Joe Biden also advocated for on the senate floor in 1992, was about delaying the nomination until after the Presidential election. And in a way I do agree with that to a point. But I dont think a SCROTUS nomination should be delayed for Congressional races though.

Waiting on Mueller might be prudent though, but that word doesnt exist in the WH.

He said "SCROTUS"! (snort, snort, snort)

[Benton]

I’m all for this. Elect the most conservative guy on the list.

All I’ve heard my entire life (since the 80s) is that America is no longer a Utopia because republicans don’t have a super mega majority like the dems had at one point. According to the theory, all three branches of government have to belong to conservatives and then BAM everything gets solved. People start making a living wage, no more hunger or disease.

So give it to them. I’m skeptical that anything benefiting the bottom 90% of people in this country will get passed, but I’d at least like them to get their shot. Let’s head back to prohibition, fewer civil rights and whatever else is on the agenda. At least it’ll get it over with and maybe we can take 5-10 years to sort it out instead of the “do nothing” quagmire we’re currently in.

[Millhouse]

(06-27-2018, 10:45 PM)GMDino Wrote:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

Video included of Biden saying what he did, courtesy of NY Times.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

Video included of Biden saying what he did, courtesy of NY Times.

Yeah, uh, I posted his exact words in my post. In context too.  Thanks.

[Millhouse]

(06-27-2018, 10:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, uh, I posted his exact words in my post.  Thanks.

No problem, just making sure we are on the same page that Biden said exactly what he said that day, which was to delay the nomination if a seat became vacant.

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 11:02 PM)Millhouse Wrote: No problem, just making sure we are on the same page that Biden said exactly what he said that day, which was to delay the nomination if a seat became vacant.

Of course the GOP wasn't the first to suggest political tactics to serve their interests; even in cases of SCOTUS appointments. WTS, I was 100% against the GOP allowing the Obama nominee to appear before congress. I'm also against the Dems delaying based on their political gain.

There's a lot of talk lately about "we should wait until after Mueller", but that's absurd. What other duties of POTUS should we delay until the investigation finds nothing? Is it just a SCOTUS nominee or are there other functions we should halt? Folks are just coming up with that Red Herring to mask their true intentions.

[Bengalzona]

I wish Justice Kennedy the best. He was a good judge, precisely because he wasn't swayed so much by partisanship. We would do well to have more like him.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 11:02 PM)Millhouse Wrote: No problem, just making sure we are on the same page that Biden said exactly what he said that day, which was to delay the nomination if a seat became vacant.

He discussed that possibility but it was never agreed to or even voted on and never put into effect...until McConnell needed someone else to blame for his partisanship maneuver.

Speaking of which...

(06-27-2018, 11:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the GOP wasn't the first to suggest political tactics to serve their interests; even in cases of SCOTUS appointments. WTS, I was 100% against the GOP allowing the Obama nominee to appear before congress. I'm also against the Dems delaying based on their political gain.

There's a lot of talk lately about "we should wait until after Mueller", but that's absurd. What other duties of POTUS should we delay until the investigation finds nothing? Is it just a SCOTUS nominee or are there other functions we should halt? Folks are just coming up with that Red Herring to mask their true intentions.

Purely political.  

But that what you get with the average Trump supporter (let alone the diehard ones): They are all in and can't see their own hypocrisy.

WTS, I was against the delay under Obama and a delay under Trump.  The system is what it is now.

As to the Mueller investigation the only caveat would be that given the political climate *IF* Trump were found guilty of something or impeached there will be much gnashing of teeth and beating of breast about whether his appointees were legitimate.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 10:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I’m all for this. Elect the most conservative guy on the list.

All I’ve heard my entire life (since the 80s) is that America is no longer a Utopia because republicans don’t have a super mega majority like the dems had at one point. According to the theory, all three branches of government have to belong to conservatives and then BAM everything gets solved. People start making a living wage, no more hunger or disease.

So give it to them. I’m skeptical that anything benefiting the bottom 90% of people in this country will get passed, but I’d at least like them to get their shot. Let’s head back to prohibition, fewer civil rights and whatever else is on the agenda. At least it’ll get it over with and maybe we can take 5-10 years to sort it out instead of the “do nothing” quagmire we’re currently in.

This is easy to say when you are someone that may not be as impacted as some others. With the potential shifts against the rights of women, minorities, and the LGBT community that could come with this, it is a concerning predicament.

(06-27-2018, 11:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a lot of talk lately about "we should wait until after Mueller", but that's absurd. What other duties of POTUS should we delay until the investigation finds nothing? Is it just a SCOTUS nominee or are there other functions we should halt? Folks are just coming up with that Red Herring to mask their true intentions.

There is no executive authority that carries as much weight and lasting impact as a SCOTUS nomination. I think that Trump will still be in office when the dust settles, I don't see us retaking the Senate. I think Trump will still be able to appoint whomever he likes. But I think it would be prudent to at least wait for the report from Mueller.

[hollodero]

(06-28-2018, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: WTS, I was against the delay under Obama and a delay under Trump.  The system is what it is now.

I get that. But it seems odd that one side does this tickery and the other side should not even consider a similar maneuver. Some would call such a restraint losing.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 09:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: I get that. But it seems odd that one side does this tickery and the other side should not even consider a similar maneuver. Some would call such a restraint losing.

They can't consider the maneuver.  They don't have the numbers.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: I get that. But it seems odd that one side does this tickery and the other side should not even consider a similar maneuver. Some would call such a restraint losing.

That's the civility argument at play. When people talk about needing more civility in society, what they are really saying is "don't treat us the same way we have been treating you, that's not fair!"

I have to admit, there is a part of me that wants to see us roll around in the mud. That just causes a further deterioration of democracy, though, and I want us to become more democratic, not less. What we need to be doing is focusing on policies that benefit the people. Ground game, messaging, getting out the vote. Let the pigs play in the mud and try to play out Animal Farm, we should stay on message because we have a message that is better for the people.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They can't consider the maneuver.  They don't have the numbers.  

It was mentioned earlier about McCain possibly voting against a nominee, but because of the focus on abortion rights we may see Collins and/or Murkowski switch sides.