d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires
Prev167891017Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Jun 27 2018 04:12pm
Quote (IceMage @ 27 Jun 2018 18:30)


Just had to swallow a little bit of sick.
Member
Posts: 33,919
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jun 27 2018 04:13pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 27 2018 05:57pm)
Prediction...

Trump wins in 2020

Then...

Time: Early 2023
Trump removes presidential term limits. Half the country sues... SCOTUS upholds Trump's ruling.

All hail Emperor Trump.





/e For everyone who's bookmarking this... I'm just kidding.


You are one of the least self aware people i have ever witnessed
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Jun 27 2018 04:14pm
Quote (Scaly @ Jun 27 2018 05:12pm)
Just had to swallow a little bit of sick.


Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Jun 27 2018 04:15pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 27 2018 05:01pm)


Only retarded people think Mexicans are doing this in the US.
Member
Posts: 105,121
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 27 2018 04:16pm
Quote (IceMage @ Jun 27 2018 06:03pm)
A little too wholesome for 2018 PaRD. We want venom here.

----

One of the possible nominees:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLYO0ZZUMAAjOoq.jpg




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

Quote
On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015.[8] A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[9]

During Barrett's hearing, she was questioned about her Catholic faith by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who herself was raised Catholic but later adopted her husband's Jewish faith. Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by University of Notre Dame president John I. Jenkins and Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber.[10]

In a letter to Feinstein, Jenkins wrote: "It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this [Catholic faith] might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom 'dogma lives loudly'—which is a condition we call faith."[10]

Citing the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution, Eisgruber asked U.S. Senators to "refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views ... ecause religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship".[11] During her hearing, Barrett said: "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[12]

On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line vote of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[13][14] On October 30, 2017 the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[15] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017.[16] She received her commission on November 2, 2017.




/e Btw, that was bolded by Wikipedia, not me.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 27 2018 04:17pm
Member
Posts: 40,247
Joined: Feb 14 2007
Gold: 5,737.99
Jun 27 2018 04:17pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2018 04:18pm)
I was out earlier and only had time to write 'topic'
but I want to bask in the feeling of sweet vindication as I remind y'all what I was harping on about, at great length and many walls of text, a year and a half ago.

When Trump won and nominated Gorsuch, I was shrieking to anyone who would listen that the democrats were experiencing a self-destructive tea-party-esque radicalism that would cost them politically down the line in substantial ways. They insisted on pointlessly filibustering gorsuch to show how much they opposed him and make sure that the #NotMyPresident crowd didn't come for them like it has just done for a certain new york representative yesterday. The democrats were fearful of their radicalized far-left that was so vehemently anti-Trump that they were willing to force a nuclear showdown on the filibuster. They could have simply let it pass and keep the filibuster option intact, but no, they filibustered and McConnell immediately went nuclear and ended SCOTUS filibusters for good.

And as I predicted, the conditions in the senate changed substantially from when Trump took office. At the time the senators rallied around him with a spike in approval ratings and an election mandate. Even McCain who had a fit with the Gang of 14 was willing to go nuclear when it counted. But now the senate has narrowed to 51-49 and McCain is on his deathbed and openly rebuking Trump if not fully defecting to the democrats yet, and Jeff Flake is probably the least loved man in America. Maybe Murkowski got bought off with considerations for her state, but all it would take is two senators who were normally willing to vote for judicial nominees, but not willing to go nuclear for Trump now- but already went nuclear for him a year and a half ago.

The democrats threw away an important political fight. If we had a nuclear showdown today and either McCain croaks or lives long enough to spite Trump and even one defector is opposed to going nuclear, that would have positioned the democrats in a place to bargain. They would have been able to hold up the replacement and only resolve the showdown with at least some form of compromise even if it was mostly one-sided. They could have extracted a more moderate candidate or some other concessions somewhere. No. Instead, they postured with a pointless filibuster that served only to appease their radicals and now even a heavily dysfunctional senate majority led by McConnell is free to nominate count dracula to the supreme court.


Quote (Skinned @ Jun 27 2018 04:59pm)
He was appointed by President Reagan in 1988. That is thirty years on the Supreme Court of the United States. He was a federal judge from 1975 to 1988, nominated by President Ford.

I hope he gets to enjoy many more years of not having to weigh in and be the most pragmatic and non-dogmatic thinker on the bench, which he has been for quite some time now.

The political ramifications are very high of course, but this good man shouldn't have to worry about all that. Thirty years of public service that came after an already successful career.....

...definitely a good example of what an American Citizen can aspire to be.

Hope he gets to spend time doing what he loves and enjoying his family.


Excellent posts, my friends.

Although I thought skinned was coming in for the kill when I saw the length of the posts tbh


Member
Posts: 50,702
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 4,861.00
Jun 27 2018 04:17pm
I wonder how much Trump's pick for SCOTUS will be factoring in midterm politicking. He might get a bump in a state if he picks their homeboy.
It will be a conservative not a moderate, again, no matter what I imagine Trump's personal philosophy to be he's still constrained by appeasing the conservative bloc prior to the midterms. He needs that 'but gorsuch' crowd. If he picked a moderate, he'd risk a midterm blowout.
So it might be interesting in which conservative he picks
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Jun 27 2018 04:21pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2018 05:17pm)
I wonder how much Trump's pick for SCOTUS will be factoring in midterm politicking. He might get a bump in a state if he picks their homeboy.
It will be a conservative not a moderate, again, no matter what I imagine Trump's personal philosophy to be he's still constrained by appeasing the conservative bloc prior to the midterms. He needs that 'but gorsuch' crowd. If he picked a moderate, he'd risk a midterm blowout.
So it might be interesting in which conservative he picks


What's your preference on judicial philosophy of judges?
Member
Posts: 50,702
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 4,861.00
Jun 27 2018 04:24pm
Quote (IceMage @ Jun 27 2018 04:21pm)
What's your preference on judicial philosophy of judges?


consistent.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Jun 27 2018 04:27pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2018 05:24pm)
consistent.


Well, you basically said you're on the far-left politically, so I'm wondering if there's some sort of deep rationale that explains your support of Donald Trump. Like maybe supporting conservative judges.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev167891017Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll