• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rumors of Justice Kennedy's Impending Retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then don't let them regain power. Get rid of the EC or do whatever it takes to make sure they're never in office again.
Oh ok, we are doing immature fantasy then? In that case, I'd like three more Obama terms and emission free solar powered cars please.
 
Then don't let them regain power. Get rid of the EC or do whatever it takes to make sure they're never in office again. The Republicans would have gotten rid of the EC long ago if they knew it'd guarantee power, so instead they gerrymander.

Umm the EC is in the Constitution
 
And when the GOP regains power in 2032 and adds 8 40-something arch conservative justices?

There's no end to this once you begin unless you guarantee one party rule.

Maybe by then they'll actually believe in climate change, it'll be hard not to.
 

jaekeem

Member
also, in all honesty, this is the expected outcome after November

we reaped so many wins in the court from the warren era/brennan/o'connor + kennedy during rehnquist and roberts courts

it was bound to swing back eventually. live by the sword; die by the sword.

Ginsburg/Breyer could die of old age whenever. even if Kennedy doesn't retire, I highly doubt the court swings any direction but more conservative
 
Kennedy (80) retiring or dying wouldn't do much to shift anything in the SCOTUS. He was appointed by Regan. Now Ginsburg (84) or Breyer (78) dying or retiring would be a significant shift as they were appointed by Bill Clinton.
 

MarionCB

Member
All of this adding justices talk is scaring me because if it's so possible there is no reason Trump can't do it right now.

He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Kennedy doesn't retire?
 
As someone who'd like to not lose more of their civil liberties than it's already sliding back towards, I hope that when things get worse for PoC, LGBT, and minority religions, the cowards on this forum who wag their fingers at civil unrest will shut up for once.

I guess the last hope is that the court rules in favor of actual law and not harsh conservatism that ...
lol who am I kidding.
 
Literally the thing everyone with a bit of a brain was afraid of. We can see some justices either retiring or just pass away from old age in the next years. And that will screw up the US for possibly decades more.
 

Cagey

Banned
All of this adding justices talk is scaring me because if it's so possible there is no reason Trump can't do it right now.

He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Roberts doesn't retire?
Precisely.
 
All of this adding justices talk is scaring me because if it's so possible there is no reason Trump can't do it right now.

He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Roberts doesn't retire?
If Roberts doesn't retire??
 

Chumley

Banned
Oh ok, we are doing immature fantasy then? In that case, I'd like three more Obama terms and emission free solar powered cars please.

You do realize that the fantasies of white supremacists everywhere is becoming a reality day by day under Trump, right? Weak willed people who think anything is unrealistic or a fantasy are the ones Trump and the GOP are steamrolling over right now.
 

jaekeem

Member
the swing that trump is going to implement in the lower federal courts with all his appointments is more distressing than SCOTUS imo

it takes forever for cases to get appealed up

in the meanwhile, a flood of heritage foundation/fed soc appointments will dominate the lower courts for the next lifetime
 
If he doesn't play ball they will.

No they won't; that would be political suicide. They would lose the electorate that got them into the White House and be decimated in the midterms. Most of Trump's voters are still supporting him.

Trump is going to have at least one more nomination and then 1-2 more if he wins reelection.
 
All of this adding justices talk is scaring me because if it's so possible there is no reason Trump can't do it right now.

He's already attacked the courts for stopping him "Making America Great Again". That would be the pretext. But it would be extremely personally beneficial to him as it is very likely one of the investigations will need an important decision by the Supreme Court at some point ala Nixon. It's also fundamental Trump behaviour to pack positions with Trump loyalists. Republicans would love it. What's stopping him doing this if Kennedy doesn't retire?

A law passed by Congress governs the number of judges on the bench. Any law changing the number of judges would have to pass both houses of Congress and a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

So no, Trump can't do it.

Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. Trump can't a rabidly conservative pick past a Democratic Senate.
 

Ogodei

Member
Court-packing is an option of last resort, but a credible threat of it is what allowed Roosevelt to stop the Hughes court from gutting the New Deal. That's the side of the story on Roosevelt's failed court-packing scheme that you don't hear.
 
You do realize that the fantasies of white supremacists everywhere is becoming a reality day by day under Trump, right? Weak willed people who think anything is unrealistic or a fantasy are the ones Trump and the GOP are steamrolling over right now.
That's some great rhetoric that has nothing to do with the point discussed, as I and others have pointed out.
Keep up the Constitution abolishing fantasies.
 
A law passed by Congress governs the number of judges on the bench. Any law changing the number of judges would have to pass both houses of Congress and a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

So no, Trump can't do it.

Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. Trump can't a rabidly conservative pick past a Democratic Senate.

The filibusterer is on borrowed time. It can be done away with at anytime and I have a feeling it'll be coming soon. It was already thrown out by Dems for lower court judges and regular appointments. It was just thrown out by the GOP for SCOTUS justices.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
A law passed by Congress governs the number of judges on the bench. Any law changing the number of judges would have to pass both houses of Congress and a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

So no, Trump can't do it.

Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. Trump can't a rabidly conservative pick past a Democratic Senate.

The Senate can end the filibuster.... See Trump's appointee to the SC
 
Kennedy (80) retiring or dying wouldn't do much to shift anything in the SCOTUS. He was appointed by Regan. Now Ginsburg (84) or Breyer (78) dying or retiring would be a significant shift as they were appointed by Bill Clinton.

Kennedy is an odd ball who tends to swing with the liberals on a bunch of social issues... he saved Roe v Wade back in 1992 in Casey v Planned Parenthood.

Losing him is bad.
 

Branduil

Member
[Millions of people are dying with no healthcare, runaway climate change starts happening, corporations treat people like slaves, Democrats can do nothing since the Supreme Court overturns all their legislation]

"Guys we better not pack the court... it could open Pandora's Box."
 
The Senate can end the filibuster.... See Trump's appointee to the SC

Both parties have expressed reluctance to end the legislative filibuster. Republicans know it can be used against them when (yes, people, WHEN) they lose power.

Again, we have some tentative indications that we'll be safe on this front until after the midterms, so VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Both parties have expressed reluctance to end the legislative filibuster. Republicans know it can be used against them when (yes, people, WHEN) they lose power.

And that stopped them with the SC? They'll do it when it suits them
 

Kusagari

Member
Both parties have expressed reluctance to end the legislative filibuster. Republicans know it can be used against them when (yes, people, WHEN) they lose power.

Going off McConnell's recent actions I legitimately don't think he cares any more. I expect it to go.
 
A law passed by Congress governs the number of judges on the bench. Any law changing the number of judges would have to pass both houses of Congress and a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

So no, Trump can't do it.

Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. Trump can't a rabidly conservative pick past a Democratic Senate.

He can if Kennedy retires and RBG dies before 2018 or the Dems lose the midterms.
 
And that stopped them with the SC? They'll do it when it suits them

Yes they can, so again, to all of those arguing Republicans can and will do it, why haven't they immediately?

Why are they using this stressful reconciliation voodoo to pass their health care bill when they could just nuke the filibuster and put whatever they want in it?

They don't want to kill the legislative filibuster.
 

jaekeem

Member
all this pack the court rhetoric is missing the point, I think

why can't we just focus on winning elections and stop relying on the most anti-democratic institution in the USA to fight our battles for us

we had a whole generation where we barely won out on a lot of issues because republicans mistakenly appointed souter/stevens/o'connor/kennedy

if bonafide conservatives dominate the court, then so be it. the focus should be on congress/executive.

this is one thing I 100% agree with obama on. change should come through votes, not supreme court justices/clerks.
 
all this pack the court rhetoric is missing the point, I think

why can't we just focus on winning elections and stop relying on the most anti-democratic institution in the USA to fight our battles for us

we had a whole generation where we barely won out on a lot of issues because republicans mistakenly appointed souter/stevens/o'connor/kennedy

if bonafide conservatives dominate the court, then so be it. the focus should be on congress/executive.

this is one thing I 100% agree with obama on. change should come through votes, not supreme court justices/clerks.

Because you know hardcore conservative justice can just shut down change... because ultimately they are the most powerful entity in the US.

if bonafide conservatives dominate the court, then so be it. the focus should be on congress/executive.

So be it... sure and when all that change comes from congress/executive you can enjoy watching it being gutted by your "so be it" conservative dominated court.
 
Bc they get to pack the court without it.
That's not what packing the court refers to. The entire thread of conversation you replied to is about FDR style court packing. Adding justices, not replacing. Multiple people said the Republicans will do it. They could do so and can do so, and haven't.
Why are they using this stressful reconciliation voodoo to pass their health care bill when they could just nuke the filibuster and put whatever they want in it?

They don't want to kill the legislative filibuster.
I'm agreeing with you.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Why are they using this stressful reconciliation voodoo to pass their health care bill when they could just nuke the filibuster and put whatever they want in it?

They don't want to kill the legislative filibuster.

Because they aren't going to kill the filibuster for fun. But the moment it's in the way of some pet project they will.
 

Chumley

Banned
McConnell is going to kill the legislative filibuster, Trump is going to fire Rosenstein and maybe two other Deputy AG's to fire Mueller, and the GOP will make an effort to somehow stop the 2018 elections.

Nothing is off the table. Wake up.
 
Again, people, relax just a tad and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS.
This. This this this.

I'm tired of all the complaining by people who choose to not even go out and vote. If you did then good for you (and I mean it), but if you didn't just gtfo there and actually make a difference.
 
That's not what packing the court refers to. The entire thread of conversation you replied to is about FDR style court packing. Adding justices, not replacing. Multiple people said the Republicans will do it. They could do so and can do so, and haven't.

I'm agreeing with you.

Oh, I know. I just used your comment as an initial response to his concern. I should've been clearer.
 

jaekeem

Member
Because you know hardcore conservative justice can just shut down change... because ultimately they are the most powerful entity in the US.

you realize kennedy is only "liberal" on some social issues, right?

did all change, barring those social issues, get shut down by the make-up of the court?

you realize the ACA, the most progressive healthcare legislation in our country's history, passed because of Roberts, right?

this notion that conservative justices are some demonic force that will make all liberal/progressive legislation impossible is just ridiculous

I don't doubt that a conservative majority court will weaken the federal government, but it's not a doomsday scenario, just like it wasn't the death knell for conservative social positions just because kennedy/o'connor were on the court
 
Overturning Roe seems like a sure fire way to incite violence in this country that hasn't been seen in a while.

A) Most people have no idea what Roe v. Wade is.

B) Half the country is anti-abortion anyway.

C) It's largely a women's rights issue, so you can count out a humongous portion of men who will protest issues of economics/race, but see this as "not their problem."
 
A) Most people have no idea what Roe v. Wade is.

B) Half the country is anti-abortion anyway.

C) It's largely a women's rights issue, so you can count out a humongous portion of men who will protest issues of economics/race, but see this as "not their problem."

Hey, Tim Ryan hasn't ousted Nancy Pelosi just yet.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
That's not what packing the court refers to. The entire thread of conversation you replied to is about FDR style court packing. Adding justices, not replacing. Multiple people said the Republicans will do it. They could do so and can do so, and haven't.

I'm agreeing with you.

Because they are going to control the court without doing so.

That does not mean we should assume they won't use legislative manuvering when they need to.

They have shown a preference for ideology over party. They could pack courts during a trump lame duck and rely on Dem handwringing about the good of the country to not retaliate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom