Justice Kennedy Announces Plan to Retire from SCOTUS

[idhawkman]

Key swing vote of the Supreme court and major advocate for LGBT issues announces plan to retire from the Supreme Court.

[idhawkman]

This is going to throw the left even further into the deep end. They have come unhinged in the last couple weeks and now it will be even worse.

I expect that anything Mueller has will be brought out to diffuse all the wins Trump is racking up the last couple weeks. Problem is, the left will go even deeper into the socialist direction like that #2 democrat in the House's defeat in the primaries yesterday. I think his name is Connolly and he was expected to be the Heir apparent to Pelosi if they won the house back.

[burrrton]

Crowley, and yeah, the gal that defeated him is an incoherent nut. Her 'platform' is that of a 19yo beauty pageant ditz- "FREE EVERYTHING AND ALSO WORLD PEACE!"

Oh well- you get the government you deserve.

This is going to throw the left even further into the deep end. They have come unhinged in the last couple weeks and now it will be even worse.

I predict this will be the understatement of the millennium.

[idhawkman]

This is going to be a major event in the mid terms. You will probably see just as many voters this midterm as you did in the Presidential election years because of the balance of the senate being up for grabs. This may tilt the courts into a solid conservative bent.

I also imagine one or two more retirements before Trump is done with his next 6 years.

[Aseahawkfan]

If Trump lasts this term and another, he may appoint half or more of the SCOTUS. I wonder when was the last president that appointed so many SCOTUS Justices.

[RiverDog]

SCOTUS is one area where I'm glad that we have a conservative Republican president. Trump made a very good call with his first appointment in the form of Neal Gorsch (sp).

But I think the effect of having a SCOTUS retiring in the mid term elections is overstated. It will have a significant effect in Senate races, but not in the House as it's the Senate's responsibility to confirm appointments. The Dems behaved very badly in the last confirmation hearings, using it as a political bully pulpit rather than evaluating the qualifications of the candidate placed before them. I suspect a number of R's running for Senate will bring up that little tidbit of information during their campaigns.

[idhawkman]

SCOTUS is one area where I'm glad that we have a conservative Republican president. Trump made a very good call with his first appointment in the form of Neal Gorsch (sp).

But I think the effect of having a SCOTUS retiring in the mid term elections is overstated. It will have a significant effect in Senate races, but not in the House as it's the Senate's responsibility to confirm appointments. The Dems behaved very badly in the last confirmation hearings, using it as a political bully pulpit rather than evaluating the qualifications of the candidate placed before them. I suspect a number of R's running for Senate will bring up that little tidbit of information during their campaigns.

I agree with most of what you say in this but I think where it will boost the house races is by bringing out the base of the republican voters in the Senate races who will also vote for the house race on the same ballot. That might sway a few races to stay or even lean toward the republicans. (this is all theory though and not a scientific conclusion).

[RiverDog]

I agree with most of what you say in this but I think where it will boost the house races is by bringing out the base of the republican voters in the Senate races who will also vote for the house race on the same ballot. That might sway a few races to stay or even lean toward the republicans. (this is all theory though and not a scientific conclusion).

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election, which means that many congressional districts won't even have a Senate election. Additionally, in races that are not competitive, it is unlikely that the Senate election will draw in very many voters that would otherwise stay home. Throw into that equation the fact that the Senate only confirms and does not appoint justices, along with the fact that a large number of voters either don't care about SCOTUS or are ignorant of its impact, IMO the news of Justice Kennedy retiring will not provide a big boost to Republican efforts in the mid terms.

IMO people will be much likely to vote for or against a Senate candidate based on their approval/disapproval of Trump than they will be any issue having to do with SCOTUS.

[idhawkman]

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election, which means that many congressional districts won't even have a Senate election. Additionally, in races that are not competitive, it is unlikely that the Senate election will draw in very many voters that would otherwise stay home. Throw into that equation the fact that the Senate only confirms and does not appoint justices, along with the fact that a large number of voters either don't care about SCOTUS or are ignorant of its impact, IMO the news of Justice Kennedy retiring will not provide a big boost to Republican efforts in the mid terms.

IMO people will be much likely to vote for or against a Senate candidate based on their approval/disapproval of Trump than they will be any issue having to do with SCOTUS.

Interesting. Do you think Trump would have been elected if it wasn't for the Scalia position being open? I think that motivated the evangelical vote to turn out in droves for that issue alone which probably tipped the election to Trump. IMO.

[RiverDog]

Interesting. Do you think Trump would have been elected if it wasn't for the Scalia position being open? I think that motivated the evangelical vote to turn out in droves for that issue alone which probably tipped the election to Trump. IMO.

Yes, I do.

Trump was essentially elected via the results in 3 states: PA, MI, and WI, so if you are going to argue what issue won it for him (or lost it for Clinton), you have to look at the major issues in those 3 states, and the evangelical movement isn't that strong in the rust belt. IMO Trump was able to appeal to middle aged white voters in those states with his "America First" message, along with the fact that Clinton couldn't get Obama's voters to turn out for her.

[idhawkman]

Yes, I do.

Trump was essentially elected via the results in 3 states: PA, MI, and WI, so if you are going to argue what issue won it for him (or lost it for Clinton), you have to look at the major issues in those 3 states, and the evangelical movement isn't that strong in the rust belt. IMO Trump was able to appeal to middle aged white voters in those states with his "America First" message, along with the fact that Clinton couldn't get Obama's voters to turn out for her.

I was thinking more about NC, IA and Missouri where the evangelicals turned out huge for him. I know NC was in question and so was IA. Not sure if OH and Florida would quite qualify as being close but I do think there was a huge turnout and I think much of it was on the Supreme Court issue.

I agree that WI, PA and MI was more on blue collar forgotten voters and ignorance of Clinton in those states, but the others I mentioned may have been just as influential.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think jobs and immigration won Trump the election. For all the pandering by the Democrats, they just don't get it on immigration. A majority of Americans want the laws enforced. When the Democrats paint everyone wanting immigration enforced as some kind of intolerant Nazi, they are completely pissing people off and missing the boat. And some of these areas hit by globalization of the labor force and automation are in very bad situations. Americans in general like to work and be productive. Take that away from them with no replacement, they will be unhappy. They don't want the welfare the Democrats want to hand out like candy.

[RiverDog]

I agree that WI, PA and MI was more on blue collar forgotten voters and ignorance of Clinton in those states, but the others I mentioned (NC, IA, and MO) may have been just as influential.

Trump won IA and MO by 9%, which is huge. No way would a SCOTUS appointment make that big of a difference in those two states. NC was closer at 3.7%, but even that kind of margin is unlikely to be influenced by a secondary issue like SCOUTUS. Besides, those 3 states together have just 31 electoral votes. Trump won the electoral college by 71 votes, so even if all 3 of those states went to Clinton, it still wouldn't have been enough to do the trick.

[RiverDog]

I think jobs and immigration won Trump the election. For all the pandering by the Democrats, they just don't get it on immigration. A majority of Americans want the laws enforced. When the Democrats paint everyone wanting immigration enforced as some kind of intolerant Nazi, they are completely pissing people off and missing the boat. And some of these areas hit by globalization of the labor force and automation are in very bad situations. Americans in general like to work and be productive. Take that away from them with no replacement, they will be unhappy. They don't want the welfare the Democrats want to hand out like candy.

Actually terrorism was a bigger issue at the time of the election than was immigration. But I agree with you, the jobs issue, or in other words, Trump's America First theme, is what swayed voters in the key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.

But the real reason, IMO, why Trump won was because he was not Hillary Clinton. Next to Trump himself, she had a higher negative rating than any other POTUS nominee in the past 50 years and she ran just a horrible campaign. So if you like Trump, thank a Democrat.

[Aseahawkfan]

Actually terrorism was a bigger issue at the time of the election than was immigration. But I agree with you, the jobs issue, or in other words, Trump's America First theme, is what swayed voters in the key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.

But the real reason, IMO, why Trump won was because he was not Hillary Clinton. Next to Trump himself, she had a higher negative rating than any other POTUS nominee in the past 50 years and she ran just a horrible campaign. So if you like Trump, thank a Democrat.

I think all the Democratic and Republican candidates were extremely uninspiring last election. It usually seems to follow that any candidate following a president people love to hate is bad for their party. We'll see if the trend continues, but if Trump wins a second term the next Republican candidate will suffer the consequences of the hate he inspires while at the same time not inspiring the loyalty and fervor given to his predecessor. We'll likely end up with a Democrat, possibly a strongly left Democrat.

[idhawkman]

I think all the Democratic and Republican candidates were extremely uninspiring last election. It usually seems to follow that any candidate following a president people love to hate is bad for their party. We'll see if the trend continues, but if Trump wins a second term the next Republican candidate will suffer the consequences of the hate he inspires while at the same time not inspiring the loyalty and fervor given to his predecessor. We'll likely end up with a Democrat, possibly a strongly left Democrat.

You might be right but its too soon to tell. If the left continues to fracture into a liberal and a socialist party you might see republicans for quite some time.

[RiverDog]

You might be right but its too soon to tell. If the left continues to fracture into a liberal and a socialist party you might see republicans for quite some time.

It's not just the left/Dems that are fracturing. The Republicans have their own party unity problems.

If the R's can't hold onto the Senate with the way it's set up for this election, then they're going to be in some serious trouble. With the advantages they have in terms of the number of seats they're defending and Dem's having to defend seats in red states, the R's should be increasing their majority by 4-5 seats. Trump's urging of Kennedy to retire sooner rather than later and Mitch McConnell's pledge to expedite the SCOTUS confirmation is an indication that they're worried that they'll lose control of the Senate.

[idhawkman]

It's not just the left/Dems that are fracturing. The Republicans have their own party unity problems.

If the R's can't hold onto the Senate with the way it's set up for this election, then they're going to be in some serious trouble. With the advantages they have in terms of the number of seats they're defending and Dem's having to defend seats in red states, the R's should be increasing their majority by 4-5 seats. Trump's urging of Kennedy to retire sooner rather than later and Mitch McConnell's pledge to expedite the SCOTUS confirmation is an indication that they're worried that they'll lose control of the Senate.

The latest poll shows that 83% of Republicans support the President's agenda and approve of him now. The Right is not as fractured as you might think.

I see the Senate gaining 3-5 seats so not much different than what you are expecting. I disagree that the confirmation is because they're scared though. I think it is to not motivate the Left's base any more than it is already.

[burrrton]

The Right is not as fractured as you might think.

I think the Dems' problem in this regard is much, much larger, but the Rs have a loud, looney fringe they're dealing with now, too.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think the Right is fractured either. A lot of Republicans I know still like Trump and are quietly supporting him because of fear of attack by some looney leftists that think anyone that supports Trump agrees with all he says and stands for and is racist and evil. The Left is really showing their ass. If nothing else comes out of this, Trump has made the left so incensed they are eating their own. Hilary screwed over Bernie. More left supporters got whacked by the female abuse allegations. Hollywood was completely defanged and made to look ridiculous. Trump is making the left react in such a rude, irrational, and unfocused manner that I wouldn't be surprised if left supporters were as embarrassed with their party as they claim The Right should be. This has been such an illuminating moment in American politics that I can't remember the last time it became so crystal clear how corrupt both parties are. The level of ridiculous stances, political lying, and general mudslinging has reached a level I can't recall in recent memory. Low class politics all the way around and just stupidity on the part of American politicians.

We have an economy seriously recovering and they want to muck it all up with unfocused trade wars and socialist politics that don't belong here. Both sides should be building on this momentum to create good times for all Americans, but their too busy grinding on each other to do what's right for the American people, too busy lying to us.

[idhawkman]

The videos of Dems publicly stating the same immigration points 10 years ago that the Republicans state today shows that the only reason they can't come to an agreement is because they don't want to give any credit to the other side. This is why Trump won in the first place. Its not about representing the "people" anymore in D.C. but who can hurt the other side more.

Personally, with all the judicial nominations that Trump has fulfilled already, I am hopeful to get the bench out of legislating and back to judging merits. E.g. no more interpreting what is meant or not meant. For instance, when the framers wrote the constitution and the first amendment "freedom of speech" I'm sure none of them invisioned burning or stomping on the American Flag. I imagine they would have tried the person doing such things for Sedition at that time.

Here's an honest question, can anyone name a law that has been removed from the law books? I know they add many every year but when do they ever remove some?

[RiverDog]

Here's an honest question, can anyone name a law that has been removed from the law books? I know they add many every year but when do they ever remove some?

The 55 mph speed limit. Also, there was an assault weapons law from the 90's that was allowed to expire. More recently, they've talked about de-criminalizing weed at the federal level, which will happen eventually.

It used to be a law in WA, up until the 60's, that if a woman wanted to move from one table to another in a bar that she had to get the waiter to move her drink for her.

There's all sorts of laws that have been taken off the books. Why do you ask?

[idhawkman]

I ask because the law books get thicker and thicker every year. There's still laws governing how to tie up your horse in some states. I find it impossible to know even a fraction of the laws that are on the books.

same with taxes. Once it is instituted it is nearly impossible to remove it at a later date.

[Aseahawkfan]

I ask because the law books get thicker and thicker every year. There's still laws governing how to tie up your horse in some states. I find it impossible to know even a fraction of the laws that are on the books.

same with taxes. Once it is instituted it is nearly impossible to remove it at a later date.

Law books are nuts federally and locally. They can literally make anyone at any time look like a criminal in this country if the bureaucracy felt like it even if it's something as stupid as building code inspector measuring some part of your house a half inch over code and fining you to fix it. Riverdog says he doesn't do anything wrong as far as the law goes, I'd bet money if he had lawyers crawling up his ass they'd find laws he'd broken he didn't even know about and could turn him into a criminal in fashion so surprising he would learn how bad this bureaucratic BS has become.

[RiverDog]

I agree that there are more laws enacted than there are repealed, but that's not what Idahawkman was suggesting. I've always followed my dad's advice when voting on a new law or petition: My default position is to vote no on everything. The proposed new law needs to be proven to me. It's like assuming that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Pass enough laws and you'll make lawbreakers out of all of us. I have no desire to live in a police state.

And ASF, I have broken my fair share of laws. I just don't get caught, or the cops don't care enough to enforce the laws I do break.

[idhawkman]

I agree that there are more laws enacted than there are repealed, but that's not what Idahawkman was suggesting. I've always followed my dad's advice when voting on a new law or petition: My default position is to vote no on everything. The proposed new law needs to be proven to me. It's like assuming that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Pass enough laws and you'll make lawbreakers out of all of us. I have no desire to live in a police state.

And ASF, I have broken my fair share of laws. I just don't get caught, or the cops don't care enough to enforce the laws I do break.

Exactly my point. We are all law breakers if they turn the focus on you.

[RiverDog]

Exactly my point. We are all law breakers if they turn the focus on you.

So what's your point? Are you thinking of becomming a revolutionary?

[idhawkman]

So what's your point? Are you thinking of becomming a revolutionary?

The revolution of taking America back from the left has already started with Trump. If the Antifa and organized riots continue, it may escalate to a shooting war. I doubt it gets that far though because the ones with guns and bullets is not on the Antifa side.

Regarding my point though, the laws are too bloated just like the government as a whole. Not only do we have to know all the laws but we also have to guess how the activist judges will interpret those laws. No one can be a "law abiding" citizen anymore.

[RiverDog]

The revolution of taking America back from the left has already started with Trump. If the Antifa and organized riots continue, it may escalate to a shooting war. I doubt it gets that far though because the ones with guns and bullets is not on the Antifa side.

Regarding my point though, the laws are too bloated just like the government as a whole. Not only do we have to know all the laws but we also have to guess how the activist judges will interpret those laws. No one can be a "law abiding" citizen anymore.

Disagree with your first paragraph, agree with your 2nd.

[burrrton]

Disagree with your first paragraph

I'm not so sure I do anymore- I don't think Trump is "taking" anything "back", but I'm not so convinced anymore it's not going to come to violence when we have people who've literally lost their minds characterizing virtually everything as "LITERALLY NAZIS" and openly advocating for violent, public confrontations.

Not only does it frighten me for what this might devolve to, but I also lose respect for people who can't hold their water because a guy they didn't vote for won an election.

[RiverDog]

I'm not so sure I do anymore- I don't think Trump is "taking" anything "back", but I'm not so convinced anymore it's not going to come to violence when we have people who've literally lost their minds characterizing virtually everything as "LITERALLY NAZIS" and openly advocating for violent, public confrontations.

Not only does it frighten me for what this might devolve to, but I also lose respect for people who can't hold their water because a guy they didn't vote for won an election.

That was the key phrase that I disagreed with. But I don't disagree with your scenario, although I think it very unlikely.

I also agree with you with the mindset of some, such as SeahawksforEver and Largent80, who have the tendency to characterize anything they disagree with as having something in common with Nazi Germany. Between those characters and the Trump zealots like Idahawkman on the other end of the spectrum that want to "take the country back", we're suffering through one of the most divisive times since the late 60's. I certainly can't remember there being such a wide gap between two competing images of our country save for the race riots and anti war movement during those times.

That's the primary reason why I'm at a point where I'm willing to vote for any Dem in order to facilitate the pulling of Trump's stinger (no jokes please). It's not that I'm against some, or even most, of the things he's trying to achieve. It's the way in which he's doing it.

[idhawkman]

The divisiveness came from Obama. The difference is that the conservatives didn't advocate getting in people's face or forming a mob or inticing violence. That has all come from the left which I guess Riv wants more of or to placate them. I don't bend to coercion in any form. Working for the Intel community taught me that if you bend once to coercion, the people doing it will just keep moving the goal post on you and continue to turn the screws. The conservatives of America in large part has finally said, "enough is enough!"

[burrrton]

That's the primary reason why I'm at a point where I'm willing to vote for any Dem in order to facilitate the pulling of Trump's stinger (no jokes please). It's not that I'm against some, or even most, of the things he's trying to achieve. It's the way in which he's doing it.

You're going to vote for things you disagree with because... you don't like the way in which he's going about enacting things you agree with?

It's not going to make any difference in the midterms so have at it, but I hope you realize how petty and childish that sounds.

[burrrton]

The divisiveness came from Obama.

Obama cared less than zero about quelling it (in fact I think he stoked it to his political advantage), but I think the divisiveness long preceded him.

I think we agree, though, that there is now a lunatic fringe that has turned the bed-wetting up to 11, and don't even care to pretend they want civility.

[idhawkman]

The divisiveness came from Obama.

Obama cared less than zero about quelling it (in fact I think he stoked it to his political advantage), but I think the divisiveness long preceded him.

I think we agree, though, that there is now a lunatic fringe that has turned the bed-wetting up to 11, and don't even care to pretend they want civility.

Agreed. Yes there was division before Obama but when he said, "Elections have consequences" and then passed Obamacare without any Republican support he set the wheels in motion. He fueled it even more when he said he had a phone and a pen. Now they don't like it when Trump does the same thing.

I have often said, "your actions are speaking so loud that I can't hear the words coming out of your mouth." I apply that statement to Trump. Unfortunately, not all do the same. They would rather the actions of the left sowing dissent and doing nothing as far as actions. I'd love to see what they have to offer in an immigration bill, economic bill, regulation bill, trade bill, etc, etc, etc. All we hear from them though is crickets and "resist".

[Aseahawkfan]

I'll wait and see what Trump gets done to see how I feel about voting in the next presidential election. I didn't vote for him or the Dem in the 2016 election. I won't vote for a Dem. Unlike Riverdog, I do not see voting for a group of politicians supporting the ruination of this nation and turning it into a socialist cesspool is a good plan either. Unfortunately, we don't have many Republicans with a good plan. So far Trump seems like the only guy willing to take a stand for American labor and business at the same time. As much as some of these working class liberals scream their hate at Trump, he's the first president in a long time stepping up to fix some of these trade agreements that hurt American labor so badly. He also one of the first to really take it to China and get in their face. I also like the fact he is actually pushing immigration change and enforcement as well as showing how the fringe left doesn't want any immigration enforcement at all and the risks of voting for left lunatics that will treat this country like their personal charitable organization.

I like the fact we have a guy that isn't going to just sit there and take it. Can he get done what he wants to get done under this constant assault from the media and globalists? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe this is clearly showing that we are no longer a nation ruled by our people, but instead a nation ruled by entities outside this nation and the powerful globalists within it. If that is the case, then not much we can do about it unless we're willing to upturn the apple cart to a civil war. I just don't think we live badly enough for that to be an option.

[RiverDog]

You're going to vote for things you disagree with because... you don't like the way in which he's going about enacting things you agree with?

It's not going to make any difference in the midterms so have at it, but I hope you realize how petty and childish that sounds.

It might sound childish to you, but what you think about it is the least of my worries.

I was thinking mainly of zero tolerance when I wrote the remark you quoted. I've stated time and time again that I don't object to Trump's politics as much as I object to the man himself. I do not think he has the temperment to be the POTUS as he's prone to these fits of rage, I don't like the fact that he sticks his thumb in every single pie (like the NFL), and I don't think he's a good role model. I also think he's a racist. Short of voting for Hillary, I will do anything to oppose him.

Once we get Trump out of office, then I'll renew my conservatism and start taking an objective look at other candidates. But first things first.

[Aseahawkfan]

It might sound childish to you, but what you think about it is the least of my worries.

I was thinking mainly of zero tolerance when I wrote the remark you quoted. I've stated time and time again that I don't object to Trump's politics as much as I object to the man himself. I do not think he has the temperment to be the POTUS as he's prone to these fits of rage, I don't like the fact that he sticks his thumb in every single pie (like the NFL), and I don't think he's a good role model. I also think he's a racist. Short of voting for Hillary, I will do anything to oppose him.

Once we get Trump out of office, then I'll renew my conservatism and start taking an objective look at other candidates. But first things first.

Your or my vote don't matter anyway on a national level. This state will vote blue no matter what. And all the electoral votes will go the Dems. Just by living in Washington State we'll never see our vote matter much for president. So it's not like you're risking a lot with your statements.

[RiverDog]

Your or my vote don't matter anyway on a national level. This state will vote blue no matter what. And all the electoral votes will go the Dems. Just by living in Washington State we'll never see our vote matter much for president. So it's not like you're risking a lot with your statements.

No different than any other election I've voted in over the years, including voting for POTUS in 2016 when I cast my vote for Johnson. I've never voted in an election that was decided by one vote....although a classmate of mine made national news by losing an election for sheriff by one vote.

I fully understand that my vote is nothing but a pebble on a beach. But it means something to me.

[Aseahawkfan]

No different than any other election I've voted in over the years, including voting for POTUS in 2016 when I cast my vote for Johnson. I've never voted in an election that was decided by one vote....although a classmate of mine made national news by losing an election for sheriff by one vote.

I fully understand that my vote is nothing but a pebble on a beach. But it means something to me.

It wouldn't be a pebble on the beach if the electoral system were abolished or set up differently by percentage rather than a zero sum game. I'd feel my vote more worthwhile if I even had a chance of sending a few Washington electoral votes to my candidate of choice.