PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on April 11, 2017, 08:59:28 PM
-
Long before Gorsuch took his oath of office Monday, speculation was swirling that Kennedy might retire at the end of the term. President Donald Trump’s aides are preparing for the prospect of a new nomination while liberals brace for what could be a seismic shift on the court.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-11/supreme-court-retirement-talk-focuses-on-pivotal-justice-kennedy
I would expect Justice Ginsburg to hold on for as long as she can while Trump is president. However, if Kennedy retires at the end of this term, it will certainly swing the court more to the right. The Democrats wouldn't have much of a fight to put up over it, either, since they decided to fight Gorsuch instead of avoiding the nuclear option and focusing on the next justice to retire. Maybe they're hoping nobody will retire until either Democrats take the Senate back or if Trump is beat in 2020. Either way, this could get interesting.
-
The far left Sotomayor, and Kagan got confirmed by the Senate, and became justices under Obama. They are definitely in the Ginsberg mold. I don't see what the uproar about Gorsuch was about. Elections have consequences, as Obama so arrogantly reminded us.
-
But...but...but....because...RUSSIA!
-
Are you kidding me? The Dems will scream like stuck pigs if Trump gets to nominate either or both of Kennedy's and Ginsburg's replacements.
I predict that Dems will try to invoke and expand the Biden Rule and say Trump has no right to get a nominee confirmed with "only" three years left in his term.
Get the popcorn out for this one.
-
No group of people have as much latitude to engage in hypocrisy as progressive liberals. There is no far that is too far in engaging in hypocrisy when it comes to liberalism. There is no way something as insignificant as their own words would ever hold a liberal back from going nuclear on any little thing as long as their own opinion is as stake.
-
Are you kidding me? The Dems will scream like stuck pigs if Trump gets to nominate either or both of Kennedy's and Ginsburg's replacements.
I predict that Dems will try to invoke and expand the Biden Rule and say Trump has no right to get a nominee confirmed with "only" three years left in his term.
Get the popcorn out for this one.
Of course they will which is why a lot of people can't figure out why they decided to fight on Gorsuch instead of compromising on Gorsuch and fighting the next one. Right now there hasn't been a shift on the Court since Gorsuch replaced Scalia. The next one is the one that will likely shift the Court.
-
Another article out today discussing the rumor's surrounding Kennedy's retirement. If he does retire, this should be fun watching the left have a melt down when President Trump nominates another Gorsuch.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement-rumors/
-
My fear is when the Democrats take over the Senate after the midterm elections they'll do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama. Deny him his SCOTUS pick. If they're in the majority they can. The SCOTUS will be permanently broken, and will only admit justices when the POTUS and the Senate majority are from the same party.
-
My fear is when the Democrats take over the Senate after the midterm elections they'll do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama. Deny him his SCOTUS pick. If they're in the majority they can. The SCOTUS will be permanently broken, and will only admit justices when the POTUS and the Senate majority are from the same party.
Obama was close to the end of his term. Previously, he got to put two far left radical justices on the court. Sotomayor, and Kagan. Trump is at the beginning of his term, and put a Constitutionalist on the court, and deserves more picks. Elections have consequences as Obama said.
-
My fear is when the Democrats take over the Senate after the midterm elections they'll do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama. Deny him his SCOTUS pick. If they're in the majority they can. The SCOTUS will be permanently broken, and will only admit justices when the POTUS and the Senate majority are from the same party.
Your fear is that republicans will act like democrats and you think that's unfair.
-
Your fear is that republicans will act like democrats and you that MK that's unfair.
I'm sorry, but could you restate that? That looks like I typed it on my Iphone and didn't pay attention to what the spell checker was doing.
-
Obama was close to the end of his term. Previously, he got to put two far left radical justices on the court. Sotomayor, and Kagan. Trump is at the beginning of his term, and put a Constitutionalist on the court, and deserves more picks. Elections have consequences as Obama said.
It doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the POTUS being at the end of his term, or how many justices he can appoint. Obama nominated someone and the GOP shoved it back in his face. The Dems will payback first chance they get, and that will be the new normal. The SCOTUS will be broken forever, and you'll have the GOP to thank. Then again, conservacrats say that the government that governs least governs best. I've hear int said here more than once. They're going to get their wish in spades.
-
It doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the POTUS being at the end of his term, or how many justices he can appoint. Obama nominated someone and the GOP shoved it back in his face. The Dems will payback first chance they get, and that will be the new normal. The SCOTUS will be broken forever, and you'll have the GOP to thank. Then again, conservacrats say that the government that governs least governs best. I've hear int said here more than once. They're going to get their wish in spades.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/16/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-nomination-president-sot-erin.cnn/video/playlists/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
-
It doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the POTUS being at the end of his term, or how many justices he can appoint. Obama nominated someone and the GOP shoved it back in his face. The Dems will payback first chance they get, and that will be the new normal. The SCOTUS will be broken forever, and you'll have the GOP to thank. Then again, conservacrats say that the government that governs least governs best. I've hear int said here more than once. They're going to get their wish in spades.
Justices need to be confirmed by the Senate. The Democrats didn't have control of the Senate so the anti 2A justice (Garland) Obama tried to get confirmed didn't get confirmed. The system worked as designed. Obama did get two radicals appointed to the court. I know there is no limit, but the Senate must confirm, and they didn't confirm his last appointee.
Since the Dems installed the nuclear option, the Republicans will now use it to replace Kennedy with someone that respects the Constitution, and doesn't want to use the courts to legislate.
-
It doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the POTUS being at the end of his term, or how many justices he can appoint. Obama nominated someone and the GOP shoved it back in his face. The Dems will payback first chance they get, and that will be the new normal. The SCOTUS will be broken forever, and you'll have the GOP to thank. Then again, conservacrats say that the government that governs least governs best. I've hear int said here more than once. They're going to get their wish in spades.
The Constitution also doesn't say the Senate is required to confirm any nomination a president chooses. If that were the case, the Democrats blocked Robert Bork.
-
Since the Dems installed the nuclear option, the Republicans will now use it to replace Kennedy with someone that respects the Constitution, and doesn't want to use the courts to legislate.
Like I said before, I can't wait to see the melt down the left has if this happens. They are going to try everything they can to block the nomination to include possibly making deals on other issues (such as the border wall, perhaps) just to try and get someone who's less conservative nominated. We'll see how it plays out but so far Trump has said he's going back to the list that the Heritage Foundation helped put together.
-
Yet another article has come out discussing the possibility of Kennedy's retirement at the end of next week. With any luck, he'll retire and enjoy his retirement and Trump will get to nominate another Gorsuch type to the Court.
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-06-24-US--Supreme%20Court/id-95872f15f4c447a6b0ef40a97014007e
-
It doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the POTUS being at the end of his term, or how many justices he can appoint. Obama nominated someone and the GOP shoved it back in his face. The Dems will payback first chance they get, and that will be the new normal. The SCOTUS will be broken forever, and you'll have the GOP to thank. Then again, conservacrats say that the government that governs least governs best. I've hear int said here more than once. They're going to get their wish in spades.
Actually, I blame fanatic radicalism. I see people on the left being far more guilty of it than people on the right, although the right is catching up quickly.
When you automatically condemn anything the other says, even to the point of hurting yourself, then you are a fanatic.
-
Actually, I blame fanatic radicalism. I see people on the left being far more guilty of it than people on the right, although the right is catching up quickly.
When you automatically condemn anything the other says, even to the point of hurting yourself, then you are a fanatic.
What has anyone on the Left said something recently that makes any sense at all? I honestly can't think of anything.