A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

[OKTexas]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

There are 2-3 GOP RINO's we need to worry about, will McCain stab the party in the back again with a thumbs down? Then there's that idiot from Maine.

McCain is moot, he should resign, he's too ill to travel. Murkowski and Collins are wild card, but there are three red state dems that voted to approve Gorsuch and will most likely support anyone on Trumps list. A 50-49 vote is as good as 100-0.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

Fake news alert.

It's an opinion. You guys are only capable of knee jerk reactions, aren't you?

 

[OKTexas]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

There are 2-3 GOP RINO's we need to worry about, will McCain stab the party in the back again with a thumbs down? Then there's that idiot from Maine.

Or that woman from Alaska.

Yeah she's the third.

We only need a tie. Pence puts it over.

There won't be a tie when only 99 are voting.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

 

[OKTexas]

These arguments have nothing to do with any kind of fairness. The Dems are just delaying in the hopes that Meuller gives them something to work with. I would be surprised if the GOP picked up anything less than 5 senate seats. So, the majority is probably going to expand. If Trump doesn't get his first pick on, he will wait until the election is over and place an even more conservative judge on the court.

My prediction, GOP house +3, GOP senate +6 from current numbers.


.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Bane conservative judges that you disagree

Forget it we won and we will select the justice of our choosing. No compromise with Dem's ZERO.

Not my problem. I'm not gay and I don't have a uterus.

Careful what you wish for, though ... I bet liberals once thought they would hold on to power forever too ...

all we need is eight years and a five to four conservative court.

I'm just saying ... you think liberals are nasty now? Imagine how pissed they'll be after you threaten, or slaughter, their sacred cows and they get back into the driver's seat. They'll rip up whatever's left of the constitution to get revenge against you idiots.

I do hope you don't think shredding the Constitution is a wise idea for the sake of "revenge."

I'm not the one who's going to be looking for revenge. If it were me, you could rest easy. The people slowly assuming control of the democratic party are not as calm and level-headed as me.

Not that I am even a democrat (I am an independent), but every action has an equal and opposite reaction ... and it''s not as though supreme court justices can't be impeached. What happens when the ruling party no longer respects the law? The answer; they disregard law and precedent and do whatever they want. If you want a radical left to take control and destroy this country, by all means, keep pushing the far right bullshit. It WILL come back to bite y'all.

I'm an Independent as well. I was curious whether you were on board with an extreme response .

Right now I am just an observer. I have no ability to stop either Party from imploding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases.

LOL!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Keep telling yourself that.

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Bane conservative judges that you disagree

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Forget it we won and we will select the justice of our choosing. No compromise with Dem's ZERO.

Not my problem. I'm not gay and I don't have a uterus.

Careful what you wish for, though ... I bet liberals once thought they would hold on to power forever too ...

all we need is eight years and a five to four conservative court.

I'm just saying ... you think liberals are nasty now? Imagine how pissed they'll be after you threaten, or slaughter, their sacred cows and they get back into the driver's seat. They'll rip up whatever's left of the constitution to get revenge against you idiots.

I do hope you don't think shredding the Constitution is a wise idea for the sake of "revenge."

Hell, they think shredding the Constitution is a wise idea in general, just because it gets in their way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fake news alert.

It's an opinion. You guys are only capable of knee jerk reactions, aren't you?

Pointing out that something is an ignorant opinion is not a knee jerk. It's just an observation.

 

[HappyJoy]

Fake news alert.

It's an opinion. You guys are only capable of knee jerk reactions, aren't you?

Pointing out that something is an ignorant opinion is not a knee jerk. It's just an observation.

No, he called it 'fakenews' it's technically not news at all, it's opinion and well, Snooter didn't have much of a point beyond that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fake news alert.

It's an opinion. You guys are only capable of knee jerk reactions, aren't you?

Pointing out that something is an ignorant opinion is not a knee jerk. It's just an observation.

No, he called it 'fakenews' it's technically not news at all, it's opinion and well, Snooter didn't have much of a point beyond that.

Well, it really isn't news that leftists are squirming around like worms in hot ashes, trying to find some way out of their mess, you're right about that.

 

[OKTexas]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

Keep telling yourself that.

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

A judge that follows the Constitution and doesn't think they have the authority to rewrite legislation, isn't a conservative, they'd just be a good judge. That's all I want.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

Keep telling yourself that.

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

A judge that follows the Constitution and doesn't think they have the authority to rewrite legislation, isn't a conservative, they'd just be a good judge. That's all I want.


.

I am no more interested in having Justices who decide cases based on what their conservative political leanings tell them is "a good thing" than I am in having leftist Justices do it. Apply the law. Let the people and their elected representatives decide what is and isn't "a good thing".

 

[OKTexas]

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Or, a judge like Kennedy that has a freedom-first mind?

Kennedy did what he wanted to do. He thought with an independent mind. That's what I would like from all the judges; the capacity to disregard political rancor and examine the facts.

As much as I think some of his decisions (Citizens United) were damaging .... at least he thought for himself.

If that were the case a 9-0 decision would be the rule instead of the exception.


.

 

[theHawk]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Did the Democrats wait until after the midterms for Kagan’s confirmation vote? Nope, was done in the summer of 2010.

Also, President Trump isn’t under any investigation.

Now shut up and sit down.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

His latter reason is lame. If an elected official looses the powers of his elected position while under investigation it opens a can of worms. An opposition could call for an investigation just to stall an appointment. And why is that the power that is seemingly arbitrarily taken. Why not say no executive orders, or signing of laws? It is purely political. Just like what McConnell did was purely political. And if the Dems can do it now, more power to them, but they are the minority, so good luck.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

Keep telling yourself that.

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Bane conservative judges that you disagree

Keep telling yourself that.

They practically have blasted it all over the news.
All you need to do is read some of Justice Ginsbergs writings and you'll know how she thinks.

Well then, why are y'all so adamant about getting conservative judges? How about a judge like Kennedy, who can go either way?

Forget it we won and we will select the justice of our choosing. No compromise with Dem's ZERO.

Not my problem. I'm not gay and I don't have a uterus.

Careful what you wish for, though ... I bet liberals once thought they would hold on to power forever too ...

all we need is eight years and a five to four conservative court.

Democrats intend to expand the Court by 10 more Justices and pack it with communist judges so that it kills everything but communism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They KNEW it was going to cost them one going in. But 6 MORE years of Trump makes it THREE!
Ginsburg is 85 folks. That Clock IS ticking.

I think Sotomayor might be replaced before RBG.