Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Justice Kennedy Announces He's Retiring
#1
Oh Yes!!!  This is great news!  Another seat in the Supreme Court for Pres. Trump to fill with a MAGA judge.  These judges are there for a lifetime, so once they are in the obstruction will stop and people will quickly start to see what President Trump has been trying to do. Eyes will open to the many lies spewed by MSM, and the world will be a much better and safer place for our children and grandchildren to live in.   smallgreenbananadancer

However, the extreme left isn't having such a good day hearing this news. Listen to how they took the news on this recording:
(You have to have a twitter account to hear this.) 
https://twitter.com/WiredSources/status/...2110706688

People can be heard saying "Ohhhhh!",  "Oh my god!", "This is not good news!", "Not that's he's done us any good on these recent decisions, but he's the one that was easily persuadable.

Sorry, Libs. Go find your safe space and wrap up in your blankie. There, there; it'll be alright.   tinylaughing 

[Image: 800.jpeg]

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement Wednesday, giving President Donald Trump a golden chance to cement conservative control of the nation’s highest court.

The 81-year-old Kennedy said in a statement he was stepping down after more than 30 years. A Republican appointee, he has held the key vote on such high-profile issues as abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, guns, campaign finance and voting rights.
Kennedy informed his colleagues of his plans, then went to the White House to meet with Trump, where the president said they talked for half an hour about a potential successor and other topics. The retirement will take effect at the end of July.

Trump praised Kennedy as a man of “tremendous vision” and said his search for a new justice would begin “immediately.”
Without Kennedy, the court will be split between four liberal justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents and four conservatives who were named by Republicans. Trump’s nominee, likely to give the conservatives a solid majority, will face a Senate confirmation process in which Republicans hold the slimmest majority but Democrats can’t prevent a vote.
Read more and watch a video here: Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is next, according to Q.  Probably sometime this year. 
There is a rumor that Trey Gowdy might be taking one of the available seats. Wouldn't that be awesome? 

I'm giddy with excitement right now. Can't wait to get our country back to the one I remember growing up, one I was proud to call my home; it's been several decades coming.




Reply
#2
"...The other two older justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, and Stephen Breyer, 79, are Democratic
appointees who would not appear to be going anywhere during a Trump administration if they can help it..."

Balanced reporting from AP News.
mediumfacepalm
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#3
The Democrats have already come out swinging.  If this is what happened during the Obummer administration, then I guess it's only fair to allow it this time.  See?  I'm fair.   tinybiggrin   We'll have to wait and see how this goes on Capitol Hill.


Quote:For many Democrats, Supreme Court turnabout would be fair play.
Reaction to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s surprise announcement that he will retire from the Supreme Court on July 31 was swift for many Democrats, some of whom said the Senate should follow the standard set by Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and deny a vote to President Trump’s next nominee to the high court.

In 2016, citing the upcoming election, McConnell blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Now, with Trump and his fellow Republicans poised to cement conservative control of the high court, Democrats hope to turn the tables on the GOP.

“Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Senator McConnell would tell anyone who listened that the Senate had the right to advise and consent — and that was every bit as important as the president’s right to nominate.”

Schumer also said the Senate should reject any Supreme Court pick who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion.

[Image: b549c54eb6ad10b2a563200ea3a144dd]
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell meeting with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

“McConnell set the new standard by giving the American people their say in the upcoming election before court vacancies are filled,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters. “We’re four months away from an election where the American people will decide the majority in the United States Senate. Following the tortured logic of Mitch McConnell, let’s let the American people speak.”

“This Supreme Court vacancy puts issues that affect every single American in the balance, from a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions to privacy, equality and civil rights,” Sen. Kamala D. Harris, D-Calif., said in a statement. “Given the stakes of this seat, which will determine the fate of protected constitutional rights, the American people, who are set to vote in less than four months, deserve to have their voice heard. We should not vote on confirmation until they have voted at the ballot box.”

Harris’ counterpart, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., echoed the call.

“[Four] months away from an election, there should be no consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until the American people have a say,” Feinstein tweeted. “Leader McConnell set that standard when he denied Judge Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard now.”

“Under the McConnell Rule, there is no rush to fill this seat,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said. “The American people deserve a chance to have their voices heard.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., used McConnell’s own defense for blocking Garland in her reaction to Kennedy’s retirement.

“Senator McConnell set a precedent when he refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland, and he should stick to the rule he set,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a statement. “Under the McConnell rule, the Senate shouldn’t consider any nominee for the Supreme Court until January, and I expect Republicans in the Senate to honor the rule they all agreed to just two short years ago.”

Murphy added: “If McConnell insists on starting proceedings on a radical Trump nominee, I will do everything in my power to stop him. I did not run for the Senate to grease the skids for radicals on the Supreme Court to decimate the rights of millions of Americans. The existing court’s assault on voting rights, collective bargaining and religious liberty is awful enough — just imagine how bad working people will have it if another right-wing justice joins the court. This is a red alert moment for the American people — we need all hands on deck to stop the court from taking a vicious, anti-worker, anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-civil rights turn.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., took another tack, urging Trump to nominate a like-minded replacement for Kennedy.
“Earth-shaking & gut-wrenching,” Blumenthal tweeted. “Departure of Justice Kennedy means a historic challenge is ahead. The President must appoint an open-minded & fair jurist in Justice Kennedy’s mold.”

Blumenthal later said he agreed with Democrats calling for a delay in the vote.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did, too.

“When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said, ‘The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,’” Sanders said in a statement. “We should listen to what Sen. McConnell said. President Trump should not nominate, and the Senate should not confirm, a Supreme Court justice until the American people have had the opportunity to make their voices heard in November.”

Others argued that Trump shouldn’t get to pick the next Supreme Court nominee because he’s the subject of a federal investigation.

“NO new Supreme Court nominations by Trump to replace Justice Kennedy. NONE,” tweeted Richard W. Painter, former George W. Bush ethics chief turned Democratic Senate candidate. “He is in blatant violation of the Constitution and must be impeached. Senate and House Judiciary Committee hearings are way past due. I have had it with appeasement of aspiring dictators.”

In a letter to Trump, the 81-year-old Kennedy said he was stepping down after more than 30 years as a Supreme Court justice. At the White House, Trump told reporters that a search for Kennedy’s replacement would begin “immediately.”
“He’s a man that I’ve known for a long time and a man that I’ve respected for a long time,” Trump said. “He’s been a great justice.”

Kennedy was seen as a swing vote on the high court, voting to protect abortion, affirmative action and gay rights. And some observers believe losing his moderating voice will have major consequences for years to come.

A senior White House official told CNN that Trump will push for a swift confirmation of Kennedy’s replacement before the midterm elections, and a nomination could come “within weeks.”

On Capitol Hill, McConnell said the Senate “stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy.”

“We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall,” McConnell added.

Trump said he would consult a list of 25 possible candidates he used to make his first Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, who was confirmed in April 2017.

One Twitter user suggested a 26th: Judge Jeanine Shapiro, a Fox News host and longtime Trump ally.

“He is in blatant violation of the Constitution and must be impeached."
I see they are still trying to use the "impeach" tactic.  Idiots!   mediumfacepalm

Mitch McConnell makes me laugh every time I see his picture. They sure put it in a good place in this article, didn't they? tinylaughing

Read the full article here: Source




Reply
#4
Item 0ne: the retiring justice was a Republican nominee. Do you really expect a replacement, if appointed by Republicans, to be all that different? Take a drink and relax. It's not what the Talking Heads would have you believe.

Item Two: Trump is violating the Constitution? Really? Does anyone have any evidence of that, at all? More Talking Head bullshit.

Item Three: no need to get giddy with excitement - life will go on the same as usual. This ain't gonna change a thing, no matter who gets nominated.

Item Four: The abortion debate is not about a "right to life" OR a "woman's right to choose her reproductive health". Reproductive health my ass - it's about convenient birth control for women who have no SELF control. If we are to take the Bible as a guide (and conservatives really love this argument, judging by the trash they've thrown at me over it), then the parents, specifically the father, have the absolute right to choose life or death of children. Come to think of it, liberals don't like that argument much, either, since it doesn't give women the right to kill off a man's offspring unilaterally. My own thinking on the matter is that it ought to be a mutual decision, since there is a life in the balance. If momma wants to kill it off but pa don't, then action in that direction ought to be deemed murder, and prosecuted accordingly. Likewise if pa wants to kill it off but ma don't - if he forces the issue, then it ought to be deemed murder, and prosecuted accordingly. If someone wants that baby, give it to 'em, and in that case disallow child support in either direction. I know EXACTLY how life would go for a woman that decided to kill off MY young-un without my consent, but that is probably a different matter.

Item Five: If Progressive really think they are going to sweep the slate, then let 'em try. There are exactly NO indicators pointing in that direction. I can't for the life of me understand why folks are getting all het up over this. Give 'em their months, then take the vote, and let the weeping and wailing fall where it may. I'm good with that, if they think they really want it.... but they should be careful what they wish for. It would be embarrassing to watch it happen, and Progressives fall flat on their faces. They may want to re-think that, but if not, then damn the torpedos and full steam ahead!

Item Six: "The existing court’s assault on voting rights, collective bargaining and religious liberty is awful enough" - Really? Seriously? Have none of these people been watching the news? The current court has recently affirmed religious liberty AND collective bargaining (specifically the right to opt out of it if one is of that mind set, rather than being forced into a collective he wants no part of) - NO ONE has the right to pick MY pocket to drive THEIR political agenda. What "assault on voting rights" are they referring to? The need to prove one is a citizen before casting a vote in national matters? Why would NON-CITIZENS be allowed to vote? Does that mean that my vote is valid in elections in Abkhazia? Should I be allowed to vote in any election that comes along, whether I have a stake in that country or not?

Seriously - relax. take a drink, feel the sunshine. Nothing is going to change... unless you let the Talking Heads provoke a war. Now, if it comes to that, I'm ready to shoot some motherfuckers, and lots of 'em if they tromp my turf... but I'd really rather not. Everyone go fishing - the world will still be here when you get back, and fishing is a lot healthier than fomenting a war.


.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#5
Everything changes and stays the same.
Reply
#6
@Ninurta said,


Quote:Item 0ne: the retiring justice was a Republican nominee. Do you really expect a replacement, if appointed by Republicans, to be all that different? Take a drink and relax. It's not what the Talking Heads would have you believe.

Yes, I know Kennedy was a Republican, but, as heard on the recording with the Democrats, they said he was very easily swayed to vote with them.  They were very upset that he was resigning.

We need a strong Republican who will back President Trump to fill that seat. He can't get some of his promises done because they keep blocking him.

I've always thought politics was a game; never paid any attention to what went on there, realized it didn't make a difference what I thought or how I voted (rigged voting machines).  But I honestly feel different with Trump. He isn't bowing to the Cabal and the puppet masters, and this is why they are fighting him at every turn, and using their controlled media to make the public hate him.

I'm working hard to wake the public up. I think this is the last chance we have to help bring peace to the world, not just the U.S.
If I appear passionate, that's because I am.




Reply
#7
Okay, ruling is out, and it was by a Democrat.  Don't blame the Republicans that it didn't wait for a vote in November.

Tweet by Wired Sources:

Quote:

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake says he won't block President Trump's Supreme Court nominee from passing Senate, thus destroying Democratic hopes to block Trump from appointing another Supreme Court Justice - The Arizona Republic




Reply
#8
(06-28-2018, 06:21 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:  I think this is the last chance we have to help bring peace to the world, not just the U.S.
If I appear passionate, that's because I am.

Kudos. Grace has said the same thing occasionally, in almost the same words. I admire that, and wish I could feel that optimism myself. After what I've seen in life, all I can say is that tomorrow will be Friday, just like it was this time last week... and last year... and the year before... etc.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#9
(06-28-2018, 08:40 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Okay, ruling is out, and it was by a Democrat.  Don't blame the Republicans that it didn't wait for a vote in November.

Tweet by Wired Sources:

Quote:

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake says he won't block President Trump's Supreme Court nominee from passing Senate, thus destroying Democratic hopes to block Trump from appointing another Supreme Court Justice - The Arizona Republic

Now if we could just get rid of Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg in the next little while and replace them with thinking women, I might be able to feel some optimism that an actual change was heaving onto view...

... but probably not.


.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#10
(06-29-2018, 06:00 AM)Ninurta Wrote:
(06-28-2018, 08:40 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Okay, ruling is out, and it was by a Democrat.  Don't blame the Republicans that it didn't wait for a vote in November.

Tweet by Wired Sources:

Quote:

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake says he won't block President Trump's Supreme Court nominee from passing Senate, thus destroying Democratic hopes to block Trump from appointing another Supreme Court Justice - The Arizona Republic

Now if we could just get rid of Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg in the next little while and replace them with thinking women, I might be able to feel some optimism that an actual change was heaving onto view...

... but probably not.


.

Correction:  Jeff Flake is a Republican.  When it said Anti-Trump, and based on how the article was worded, I thought he was a Democrat.  Well, same thing if he was anti-Trump.




Reply
#11
(06-29-2018, 03:23 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Correction:  Jeff Flake is a Republican.  When it said Anti-Trump, and based on how the article was worded, I thought he was a Democrat.  Well, same thing if he was anti-Trump.

I don't know that I would call Flake a "Republican" just because that's his story and he's stickin' to it. He's what we used to call a RINO, what they now call an "establishment republican" to differentiate them from the Republicans of 20 or 30 years ago. He's no more a Conservative than McCain is. I tend to think of them as being in the Socialist wing of the Republican Party.

In all honesty, the Republican Party has changed and flip-flopped political direction so many times over the years that the label is all but meaningless as an indicator of political orientation.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#12
(06-29-2018, 06:33 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(06-29-2018, 03:23 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Correction:  Jeff Flake is a Republican.  When it said Anti-Trump, and based on how the article was worded, I thought he was a Democrat.  Well, same thing if he was anti-Trump.

I don't know that I would call Flake a "Republican" just because that's his story and he's stickin' to it. He's what we used to call a RINO, what they now call an "establishment republican" to differentiate them from the Republicans of 20 or 30 years ago. He's no more a Conservative than McCain is. I tend to think of them as being in the Socialist wing of the Republican Party.

In all honesty, the Republican Party has changed and flip-flopped political direction so many times over the years that the label is all but meaningless as an indicator of political orientation.

I agree.  I've always called myself an Independent.  I support whatever agrees with the Constitution, and I'm a Patriot.  Whatever that falls under, that's what I am.




Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)