Justice Kennedy about to retire?

[Double Trouble]

Lots of media reports swirling around the past 24 hours about the possible retirement of Kennedy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/24/politics/anthony-kennedy-retirement-rumors/index.html

Apparently some of his former clerks joined him this weekend and there's speculationit could be the last time they meet with him while he's on the bench.

Kennedy was nominated by Reagan but never turned into the rightie many conservatives were hoping for. Instead, he has become the de facto tie breaker on the court in many cases between the conservative and liberal wings, not always going with the conservatives (gay marriage, obamacare etc). If he goes, Trump would get another nominee, but still not the chance to replace one of the liberal wing and really change the court. Theres the possibility of another one in a year or two with Ginsberg if she retires or kicks the bucket. IMO, she would have retired this year or next if HRC had won the election, but doesn't want to give trump another seat so she'll hang on until the end of his term.

 

[buckshot24]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84 now, only way she goes out under Trump is by dying. Getting a 5th conservative would be huge. But you never know, I can't ever trust they are going to vote the right way after what Roberts did to ACA. It's funny how the democratic justices never turncoat.

 

[senseamp]

What happens if Roe is overturned? Abortion on the ballot in every election in battleground states. Botched back alley abortions back in the news. Culture wars will become a massive political liability for the GOP.

 

[buckshot24]

What happens if Roe is overturned? Abortion on the ballot in every election in battleground states. Botched back alley abortions back in the news. Culture wars will become a massive political liability for the GOP.

GOP can't even repeal Obamacare. I doubt you have much to worry about.

 

[pcgeek11]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84 now, only way she goes out under Trump is by dying. Getting a 5th conservative would be huge. But you never know, I can't ever trust they are going to vote the right way after what Roberts did to ACA. It's funny how the democratic justices never turncoat.

She does appear to be having a rough go of it. Day by day, you never can tell.

I'm not wishing any ill will here, just saying that she should have retired many years ago.

 

[Zorba]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84 now, only way she goes out under Trump is by dying. Getting a 5th conservative would be huge. But you never know, I can't ever trust they are going to vote the right way after what Roberts did to ACA. It's funny how the democratic justices never turncoat.

The constitution is pretty clear that congress is allowed to pass taxes. It doesn't matter if they call it a "fee" or a "tax" it is still their constitutional right. That decision should've been 9-0, four judges allowed politics to decide their decisions instead of the constitution. There are many grey areas before the court, but that case had no grey.

As to the OP: It will be a very sad day for the US if Kennedy retires and is replaced by a Trump pick. Not nearly as sad as if RBG passes and is replaced by a Trump pick.

 

[boomerang]

She does appear to be having a rough go of it.

And she keeps running her mouth expounding in a political manner. We live in an age where supreme court justices have no qualms with announcing to the world that they are politically biased. They don't care but more importantly we accept it. This is not good.

 

[dank69]

And she keeps running her mouth expounding in a political manner. We live in an age where supreme court justices have no qualms with announcing to the world that they are politically biased. They don't care but more importantly we accept it. This is not good.

Are conservatives who denounce Trump "politically biased" or just liberals?

 

[boomerang]

Are conservatives who denounce Trump "politically biased" or just liberals?

Quoted to document your state of madness.

 

[Stokely]

...and this is a big reason why I kept arguing with Bernie supporters that, as much as they might hate Hillary and wanted to protest vote for Johnson or stay home (and many of them ended up doing just that), they could be looking at perhaps decades of right-wing control of the SC.

 

[Balt]

And she keeps running her mouth expounding in a political manner. We live in an age where supreme court justices have no qualms with announcing to the world that they are politically biased. They don't care but more importantly we accept it. This is not good.

I agree it's inappropriate for judges to be openly political. It was also inappropriate when Scalia did it.


Not buying any rumors of retirement (or ousting in the case of WH staff). People push stories hoping to pressure people out too often.

 

[Commodus]

And she keeps running her mouth expounding in a political manner. We live in an age where supreme court justices have no qualms with announcing to the world that they are politically biased. They don't care but more importantly we accept it. This is not good.

You do know that most Supreme Court members wear their political allegiances on their sleeves, right? And that you can have a personal opinion while still remaining reasonably objective when it counts?

 

[senseamp]

Congress may have to add more seats to SCOTUS if they get too political with all the Heritage Foundation picked people they got sitting there.

 

[buckshot24]

Congress may have to add more seats to SCOTUS if they get too political with all the Heritage Foundation picked people they got sitting there.

The liberals aren't political though, right?

 

[buckshot24]

As to the OP: It will be a very sad day for the US if Kennedy retires and is replaced by a Trump pick. Not nearly as sad as if RBG passes and is replaced by a Trump pick.

Here's to hoping that both will be replaced by Trump. Hopefully Ginsburg retires and doesn't pass away though. How is Breyer's health? He's almost 80 now.

 

[jackstar7]

Good litmus test thread/rumor. Really brought out the whackjobs that don't understand the law.

 

[dank69]

Quoted to document your state of madness.

It's far more likely you just don't understand the question.

 

[zinfamous]

And she keeps running her mouth expounding in a political manner. We live in an age where supreme court justices have no qualms with announcing to the world that they are politically biased. They don't care but more importantly we accept it. This is not good.

yet you and buckshit still get angry when "republican" justices become "turncoats" for not toeing the conservative political line when it comes to what is, by design, neutral law.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

I don't understand where the idea that only recently have SC justices expressed their personal political opinions. They have always, and will always, in every ruling state their personal opinion on the matter. Often times their personal opinion is a direct contradiction to their ruling, because they rule based on constitutionality not morality or ethics. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of objectivity, meaning that they can and often do, put aside their own opinions to rule based on the law of the land. Any political comments they make outside of the court is completely moot, its just an opinion, and has no effect on policy at all. It's their constitutional right to express their opinion of the current state of political affairs, and it's your right to ignore their opinion if you see fit or disagree with it.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

I don't understand where the idea that only recently have SC justices expressed their personal political opinions. They have always, and will always, in every ruling state their personal opinion on the matter. Often times their personal opinion is a direct contradiction to their ruling, because they rule based on constitutionality not morality or ethics. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of objectivity, meaning that they can and often do, put aside their own opinions to rule based on the law of the land. Any political comments they make outside of the court is completely moot, its just an opinion, and has no effect on policy at all. It's their constitutional right to express their opinion of the current state of political affairs, and it's your right to ignore their opinion if you see fit or disagree with it.

Expecting a degenerate to know history is like expecting a dog to know astrophysics.

 

[kinev]

The constitution is pretty clear that congress is allowed to pass taxes. It doesn't matter if they call it a "fee" or a "tax" it is still their constitutional right. That decision should've been 9-0, four judges allowed politics to decide their decisions instead of the constitution. There are many grey areas before the court, but that case had no grey.

As to the OP: It will be a very sad day for the US if Kennedy retires and is replaced by a Trump pick. Not nearly as sad as if RBG passes and is replaced by a Trump pick.

Ooops...

I don't understand where the idea that only recently have SC justices expressed their personal political opinions. They have always, and will always, in every ruling state their personal opinion on the matter. Often times their personal opinion is a direct contradiction to their ruling, because they rule based on constitutionality not morality or ethics. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of objectivity, meaning that they can and often do, put aside their own opinions to rule based on the law of the land. Any political comments they make outside of the court is completely moot, its just an opinion, and has no effect on policy at all. It's their constitutional right to express their opinion of the current state of political affairs, and it's your right to ignore their opinion if you see fit or disagree with it.

It's not a new thing, but supposedly, with social media and our 24 hour news coverage, it just gets amplified.

Interesting article on it:
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...t-justices-blur-lines-with-political-speeches

 

[JSt0rm]

lol gop is gonna fuck it all up.

 

[MovingTarget]

If Trump were to get his first legitimate SCOTUS opening, then I truly fear for the future of the court. Please let the rumors be false...

 

[Zorba]

Ooops...

Sorry, it is still a sin tax, which is allowed by the constitution. Doesn't matter what spin Obama put on it.

 

[kinev]

Sorry, it is still a sin tax, which is allowed by the constitution. Doesn't matter what spin Obama put on it.

Sorry, but it's not. The whole concept of "sin taxes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax ) is to increase the price of undesirable behaviors (smoking and alcohol being the most common examples) AND to make money from addictive behaviors. Don't want to pay the mark-up on cigarettes? Don't buy them. It is a tax based on a purchase.

If the individual mandate penalty is a tax, as you propose, then it is levied if you DON'T purchase something. Totally opposite of what a sin tax is and the "broccoli argument" pretty much illustrates how it is an overreach by the government. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument, but if the government can attempt to force us to buy health insurance through taxation for our own good, can they force us to buy a gym membership or get taxed? "Ah....you only checked in to your gym once last week and according to the logs, you only spent 20 minutes on the treadmill instead of the Cardiovascular Health Mandate required 45 minutes. That will be $25. It has automatically been deducted from your account." Where does it stop?

I can appreciate the motivation to try to help the uninsured and to improve the health of the less fortunate; it's a good cause. But, granting the federal government that much power over us isn't the way to do it. We were founded as a country based on freedom and I'm afraid the chipping away of those will lead to serious, serious consequences in the future [/tinfoil hat].