Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement

[Totem Polar]

Thread title says it all. Discuss?

[underhook]

This is the real long term benefit of Trump defeating HRC. Now he gets at least 2 SCOTUS picks and let's get this through incase GOP does bad in Nov.

[cheby]

Today is a great day. The whole week is fabulous

[WobblyPossum]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Justice Stephen Bryer is 79. It's possible President Trump may get a third appointment during his tenure as President. I wonder what that could mean for Second Amendment rights.

[Zincwarrior]

I image Ginsberg next. Not certain her health is very good.

[Grey]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Justice Stephen Bryer is 79. It's possible President Trump may get a third appointment during his tenure as President. I wonder what that could mean for Second Amendment rights.

Not holding my breath...

A lot of things they (lawmakers) could do already but they don't.

[RoyGBiv]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Justice Stephen Bryer is 79. It's possible President Trump may get a third appointment during his tenure as President. I wonder what that could mean for Second Amendment rights.

Ginsberg needs to grab her broomstick and fly away. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

[Shotgun]

Thread title says it all. Discuss?

Thread title doesn’t say when. Is the retirement now or some unknown date in the future?

[Coyotesfan97]

He announced it today and it takes effect at the end of July

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/home/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-says-hes-retiring

[ralph]

Ginsberg's one of those old broads who will live to be112..She looks like she could drop over any minute, but, she keeps on going. The only way she's leaving the S.C. is in the back of the coroner's van..

[farscott]

As Justice Kennedy and (especially) Justice Souter showed, one does know how a Justice will "judge" until he or she is confirmed.

I suspect Justice Ginsburg will stay in office until she either cannot or a Democrat is the sitting President.

[BobLoblaw]

Getting Trump into office was 100% about times like these. Remember that when he repeatedly says dumb shit.

[blues]

Getting Trump into office was 100% about times like these. Remember that when he repeatedly says dumb shit.

Agreed...it's one of about three or four primary reasons we did so...though he's often given us pause on many a day since.

[Coyotesfan97]

That’s probably the number one reason for my vote nowadays. What kind of Judges will the potential Governor or President appoint. The supremes usually stay on the bench for 20-30+ years. That’s a lot of rulings.

[TheNewbie]

I was against Trump until he got the nomination. Then it was a no brainer.

He's not been perfect , but he's done a lot of good. This area in particular is where he can really shine for decades to come. To have more members of the court to protect us against leftism is a wonderful thing. If Trump did nothing else but this, his victory would be worth it.

[BCG]

Ginsberg's one of those old broads who will live to be112..She looks like she could drop over any minute, but, she keeps on going. The only way she's leaving the S.C. is in the back of the coroner's van..

Or thrown down the shaft to USSC's main reactor core while shooting lightning out of her fingers.

27532

27533

PS - Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me, which means "any Photoshop skills", is going to have make this:

27534

[Totem Polar]

I'm with many others here on this. I'm certainly no die-hard Trump supporter, but can you imagine what the court would look like in 3 years if it had been HRC?

I'm starting to warm to the Trump presidency more and more as stuff like this happens.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXBqJpMBuYjaSYgNyqY85ZXSbWixzjf S3YBCuDuu2S5vPKEUk9Kg

[LittleLebowski]

#WeSupremeCourtNow (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=WeSupremeCourtNow)

[fixer]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So looking forward to continued low ammo prices and continued 2A protection.

Not to pile on but...if he gets this nomination right, and possibly another one, he will go down as the most 2nd Amendment friendly POTUS in history.

[LittleLebowski]

I image Ginsberg next. Not certain her health is very good.

Gosh, that’s terrible. I’ll have a Coke.

[LittleLebowski]

I'm with many others here on this. I'm certainly no die-hard Trump supporter, but can you imagine what the court would look like in 3 years if it had been HRC?

I'm starting to warm to the Trump presidency more and more as stuff like this happens.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXBqJpMBuYjaSYgNyqY85ZXSbWixzjf S3YBCuDuu2S5vPKEUk9Kg

1 vote for president = 2 Supreme Court Justices. #Winning (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=Winning)

[hank440]

Sotomayor is in bad health, she is hiding it and you will not hear it on the news

[GuanoLoco]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So looking forward to continued low ammo prices and continued 2A protection.

Not to pile on but...if he gets this nomination right, and possibly another one, he will go down as the most 2nd Amendment friendly POTUS in history.

Any conservative president would likely do just as well. #NotHillary isn’t a high bar.

[JAD]

Any conservative president would likely do just as well. #NotHillary isn’t a high bar.

It’s higher than Hillary. No one was higher than Gary, though.

[45dotACP]

I mean...he was not dissenting on either Heller or McDonald. So that sucks.

Granted if Hilary was president we would be so unbelievably fucked...soooo I guess I'll chill with my opinions on the Donald for today.

I suspect RBG will live another twenty years provided they keep her in her casket of soil from Transylvania during daylight hours and bring enough virgins to the sacrifices at night.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[blues]

I suspect RBG will live another twenty years provided they keep her in her casket of soil from Transylvania during daylight hours and bring enough virgins to the sacrifices at night.

As a resident of the only Transylvania County located within the United States, I take umbrage at any possible association with such.

So do our bats...they have high standards.

[underhook]

Sotomayor is in bad health, she is hiding it and you will not hear it on the news

Can you imagine if Trump got 4 SCOTUS picks and they are all in their late 40s/early 50s? Country would be safe for another 30 - 40 years!

[Jeep]

Sotomayor is in bad health, she is hiding it and you will not hear it on the news

Sotomayor has disclosed that she has Type 1 diabetes but there are rumors going around that she is quite sick with something, though I have never heard whether that is related to the diabetes or not. Her dissents seem to be becoming more unhinged, which might be explained either directly by illness or perhaps because she has turned over writing them to her very left-wing clerks.

[Spartan1980]

I mean...he was not dissenting on either Heller or McDonald. So that sucks.

Granted if Hilary was president we would be so unbelievably fucked...soooo I guess I'll chill with my opinions on the Donald for today.

I suspect RBG will live another twenty years provided they keep her in her casket of soil from Transylvania during daylight hours and bring enough virgins to the sacrifices at night.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I damn near spit some free complimentary water all over the floor at the tire shop. LMAO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ssb]

I have a feeling there are certain Democratic Senators who are belatedly realizing that Neil Gorsuch was not the hill to die upon regarding the use of the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees.

[jellydonut]

Any conservative president would likely do just as well. #NotHillary (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=NotHillary) isn’t a high bar.

You can't be sure about this. Kennedy was wishy-washy and Reagan himself nominated him. Bush the Elder managed to put David Souter on the court, mistake of the century.

If he keeps his picks Gorsuch-caliber he will have outdone the previous 3 GOP presidents on that score alone.

[HeavyDuty]

I’m still not convinced that having a course stacked to either side does our country any favors. Swing justices (i.e. centrists) are the safety valve. But, I’ll take originalist justices over progressives any time.

[Greg]

In the primaries I was strongly anti-Trump. The first thing he did that impressed me was producing the list of potential Supreme Court nominees. (Rumored to have been written by the Federalist Society)

As long as he continues to nominate from that list he's got my vote in 2020.

PS - I was worried the left would run out of issues to lose their shit over, but Kennedy's retirement should fuel the continuing bat-shit crazy freakout for another 4-5 months. :cool:

[TheNewbie]

In the primaries I was strongly anti-Trump. The first thing he did that impressed me was producing the list of potential Supreme Court nominees. (Rumored to have been written by the Federalist Society)

As long as he continues to nominate from that list he's got my vote in 2020.

PS - I was worried the left would run out of issues to lose their shit over, but Kennedy's retirement should fuel the continuing bat-shit crazy freakout for another 4-5 months. :cool:

The left running out of hysteria would be like me running out of the desire to eat Mexican food. Not going to happen.

[SeriousStudent]

The left running out of hysteria would be like me running out of the desire to eat Mexican food. Not going to happen.

Constitutionalist judges and Mexican food? We should hang out.

[BCG]

Ginsberg's one of those old broads who will live to be112..She looks like she could drop over any minute, but, she keeps on going. The only way she's leaving the S.C. is in the back of the coroner's van..

Maybe she's already dead, and we've been witnessing a "Weekend At Bernie's" (Weekend at Baders?) scenario for the past 5 - 10 years?

27540

[TheNewbie]

Constitutionalist judges and Mexican food? We should hang out.

Must be a Texas thing!

[olstyn]

I’m still not convinced that having a course stacked to either side does our country any favors. Swing justices (i.e. centrists) are the safety valve. But, I’ll take originalist justices over progressives any time.

Me too. I'm all for protecting our gun rights, but as someone who leans right on some issues and left on others, I think I'd be happiest with a 3-3-3 split of liberals, moderates, and conservatives where the moderates happen to be pro-gun, pro-choice, and anti-Obamacare. Fantasy world, I know...

[TheNewbie]

Me too. I'm all for protecting our gun rights, but as someone who leans right on some issues and left on others, I think I'd be happiest with a 3-3-3 split of liberals, moderates, and conservatives where the moderates happen to be pro-gun, pro-choice, and anti-Obamacare. Fantasy world, I know...

Or just pro constitution.

[WobblyPossum]

I would love to see more Justices who rule strictly on whether or not something is consistent with the US Constitution regardless of their personal politics or beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

I would love to see more Justices who rule strictly on whether or not something is consistent with the US Constitution regardless of their personal politics or beliefs.

Amen.

[Palmetto]

The left running out of hysteria would be like me running out of the desire to eat Mexican food. Not going to happen.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180628/89213f3feee3081ff9fbdb8208e17268.jpg

[Casual Friday]

27546

[Sensei]

Gosh, that’s terrible. I’ll have a Coke.

Nah, give the Coke to Sotomayor. I hear that she has diabetes. Let’s speed up the process...

[Cacafuego]

Ginsburg by all accounts is extremely nice, and I know it makes me a terrible person that I hope she dies soon. But I do.


Sotomayor is in bad health, she is hiding it and you will not hear it on the news

That one is a foul harpy, and there I don't feel bad at all. Hope hope hope.

[Drang]

Kennedy has been a "swing" judge, as opposed to the ideologically driven ones. He has actually been ruling more and more with the conservative justices, as well.

Trump's list of 25 candidates includes Mike Lee of UT, and Don Willett of TX. Either would be outstanding. Willet's Twitter feed is a hoot (and mostly about his family, not judging) although he has been quiet since getting promoted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

[JHC]

I thought Turley's argument to gradually expand the Court to 19 by law, across multiple Presidents' administrations was interesting.

At 19, it would take the existential panic out of each and every nomination.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/court-packing-revisited-7123

[RoyGBiv]

I thought Turley's argument to gradually expand the Court to 19 by law, across multiple Presidents' administrations was interesting.

At 19, it would take the existential panic out of each and every nomination.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/court-packing-revisited-7123

The possibility of having to endure en banc SCOTUS reviews is depressing.
Although the idea is not without merit.

[UNK]

Any conservative president would likely do just as well. #NotHillary isn’t a high bar.

And when is the last time we had one of those?

[GuanoLoco]

And when is the last time we had one of those?

I guess it depends on how you define Conservative.

Is Trump actually a Conservative, or is he just a self-serving creature playing to his chosen base?

[Grey]

I guess it depends on how you define Conservative.

Is Trump actually a Conservative, or is he just a self-serving creature playing to his chosen base?Is that a rhetorical question? /sarcasm

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting that the pundits' debate on the nomination focuses on 'crotch rights' as compared to gun rights. Does the GOP maven class ONLY care about sexuality and women's reproduction? If so, that's rather pathetic.

PS - here's a follow up. What are the BIG issues: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retirement-supreme-court-cases-680104

Death Penalty
Gay Rights
Abortion
Affirmative Action
Voting Rights

- So RKBA, nada, zip. Let's read another NRA editorial how Ollie North has the antigunners running scared. Lions, tigers and bears, OH, MY! What a plan! Might the NRA say that if you don't appoint a proactive progunner - then maybe our money will stay home be used to buy more stuff before the next ban?

[blues]

I guess it depends on how you define Conservative.

Is Trump actually a Conservative, or is he just a self-serving creature playing to his chosen base?

I was just discussing this (for the millionth time) with the missus last night. He's just a salesman. Move him to another dealership and he'll sell that product. He has no personal vested interest outside of personal gain.

In a similar manner, I have no vested in interest in him (or his extended family) except insofar as what he does to further our interests. (Constitution, Supreme Court, 2A, and keeping the barbarians from the gate...the last somewhat ironic considering.)

[Wondering Beard]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvR2HDU8AA7X3w?format=jpg&name=small

[UNM1136]

Mark Levin and the late night Red Eye Radio guys have made this point several times, and it bears repeating (where is Tom's GIF right now???) That I don't want a liberal or conservitive judge on SCOTUS.... I want a constructionalist, who despite their personal political leanings will look at a case and determine where it falls on the the "constitutionality scale (for lack of a better term)" and make their stand there. Overly conservative justices can be just as bad as the overly liberal, when the real test, and the Constitutionality of a given executive or congressional decision is what the Supreme Court's actual Constitutional mandate is.

That being said, Constructionalism is by the very definition, conservative.

pat

[RoyGBiv]

Mark Levin and the late night Red Eye Radio guys have made this point several times, and it bears repeating (where is Tom's GIF right now???) That I don't want a liberal or conservitive judge on SCOTUS.... I want a constructionalist, who despite their personal political leanings will look at a case and determine where it falls on the the "constitutionality scale (for lack of a better term)" and make their stand there. Overly conservative justices can be just as bad as the overly liberal, when the real test, and the Constitutionality of a given executive or congressional decision is what the Supreme Court's actual Constitutional mandate is.

That being said, Constructionalism is by the very definition, conservative.

pat

Agreed...

If you consider, for example, Amy Barrett vs Ted Cruz for SCOTUS, I'm inclined to view (probably out of ignorance) Barrett as more of a "Constitutionalist" and Cruz as more of a "Religious Right, Politician". I voted for Cruz and plan to do so again, but would not put him on SCOTUS if I had the opportunity to make the choice.

Here's Amy Barrett's comments on that issue... Skip to 31:05
I expect Cruz would give a similar answer, but, he's more Politician these days than Jurist.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?433501-1/amy-coney-barrett-testifies-seventh-circuit-confirmation-hearing

I can't help wondering what the relationship might be like between Barrett and Ginsburg, should Barrett be selected.

[blues]

^^^^After Ted Cruz' wishy washy, pusillanimous response to Trump's insults and allegations regarding himself, his wife and parent, I'd hardly trust him to make critically important decisions which will impact the governance of our country for many years hence.

No thanks.

[GuanoLoco]

Mark Levin and the late night Red Eye Radio guys have made this point several times, and it bears repeating (where is Tom's GIF right now???) That I don't want a liberal or conservitive judge on SCOTUS.... I want a constructionalist, who despite their personal political leanings will look at a case and determine where it falls on the the "constitutionality scale (for lack of a better term)" and make their stand there. Overly conservative justices can be just as bad as the overly liberal, when the real test, and the Constitutionality of a given executive or congressional decision is what the Supreme Court's actual Constitutional mandate is.

That being said, Constructionalism is by the very definition, conservative.

pat

Bingo.


Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.


Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, ...

Sadly, Liberalism and Conservatism are both poorly undestood and oft misrepresented (e.g. Libtard). I have little issue with either but can more readily identify with Liberalism as similar to what I would call Civil Libertarianism. The Republicans have become the servants of religious extremism and Nationalism (and Trumpism, whatever that craziness is), while the Democrats are infested with Progressives chasing socialist ideals. None of this is attractive to me.

Both Republicans and Democrates have lost thir way, IMHO. Both are proponents of ever-bigger government and have no interest in reducing the size of government or government spending - they just take turns spending on different things and neither cuts anything. Both want to be increasingly intrusive into our lives.

I saw a great quote the other day stating basically that a new SCOTUS Justice wouldn’t be such a big deal if Government wasn’t so intrusive to our lives. A centrist **constitutional** conservative (and civil libertarian with an eye towards privacy rights) would be just fine by me.

[Dagga Boy]

This is actually where I think Ted Cruz best fits. Nobody found his past performance in front of the Supreme Court wishy washy. He is young, and dedicated to the original Constitution. He is personally religious, but also a truly devoted to the Constitution. I would hate to lose him as a Senator, but he could do three to four decades of good at SCOTUS.

[UNK]

I guess it depends on how you define Conservative.

Is Trump actually a Conservative, or is he just a self-serving creature playing to his chosen base?

You made the statement. I'm just asking for clarification.

[blues]

This is actually where I think Ted Cruz best fits. Nobody found his past performance in front of the Supreme Court wishy washy. He is young, and dedicated to the original Constitution. He is personally religious, but also a truly devoted to the Constitution. I would hate to lose him as a Senator, but he could do three to four decades of good at SCOTUS.

DB, I trust your instincts and radar...but I need more before I could trust him...his reputation before the court notwithstanding.

[GuanoLoco]

You made the statement. I'm just asking for clarification.

From my point of view Trump has demonstrated no evidence of any principle other than self-interest.

I don’t recall any recent presidents that embodied conservatism as defined above (or liberalism, for that matter), but if we had EITHER, I suspect I could live with their recommendation of a new Justice.

[WobblyPossum]

Agreed...

If you consider, for example, Amy Barrett vs Ted Cruz for SCOTUS, I'm inclined to view (probably out of ignorance) Barrett as more of a "Constitutionalist" and Cruz as more of a "Religious Right, Politician". I voted for Cruz and plan to do so again, but would not put him on SCOTUS if I had the opportunity to make the choice.

Here's Amy Barrett's comments on that issue... Skip to 31:05
I expect Cruz would give a similar answer, but, he's more Politician these days than Jurist.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?433501-1/amy-coney-barrett-testifies-seventh-circuit-confirmation-hearing

I can't help wondering what the relationship might be like between Barrett and Ginsburg, should Barrett be selected.

I just watched this. Judge Barrett's answers to the Senator's questions are exactly what I want to hear from a prospective Supreme Court Justice. The law comes first.

[GuanoLoco]

DB, I trust your instincts and radar...but I need more before I could trust him...his reputation before the court notwithstanding.

Living in the South, I have developed a healthy distrust of people (businessmen, politicians, etc.) that wear their religion on their sleeve.

[Dagga Boy]

DB, I trust your instincts and radar...but I need more before I could trust him...his reputation before the court notwithstanding.

It’s like a lot of things with me. Forget talk, let me see your experience. Cruz has basically won the Super Bowl numerous times in the SCOTUS and in behalf of the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I would also prefer a guy who is up front about their religious beliefs than the ones who are inclined to tell folks what they want to hear. Cruz is one of the greatest debaters of our time. A SCOTUS judge is a much better place to put that skill to use than politics.

[blues]

It’s like a lot of things with me. Forget talk, let me see your experience. Cruz has basically won the Super Bowl numerous times in the SCOTUS and in behalf of the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I would also prefer a guy who is up front about their religious beliefs than the ones who are inclined to tell folks what they want to hear. Cruz is one of the greatest debaters of our time. A SCOTUS judge is a much better place to put that skill to use than politics.

I'd like him a lot better had he just decked Trump at the time and been done with it. I'm having a hard time reconciling his spinelessness with his reputation as a lion before the court. I get it...I just have a problem with it. I don't care about his (or anyone else's) religion as long as he doesn't saddle me (or others) with it.

[Kukuforguns]

Everyone on the list is awesome. There is no bad choice on that list if you believe in the Constitution.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Wondering Beard]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgyQ1raWkAIHXL-.jpg

Yes, it's a from a parody account but nowadays, who can tell?

[Grey]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgyQ1raWkAIHXL-.jpg

Yes, it's a from a parody account but nowadays, who can tell?Dont fucking scare me dude...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[fuse]

^^^^After Ted Cruz' wishy washy, pusillanimous response to Trump's insults and allegations regarding himself, his wife and parent, I'd hardly trust him to make critically important decisions which will impact the governance of our country for many years hence.

No thanks.Umm

He condemned those comments, with much vigor and gusto. I believe the phrase pathological liar was used.

And he famously did not endorse Donald Trump at the GOP convention. During his speech, he urged everyone present to simply vote their conscious without mentioning Trump by name, and was booed by all the Trump Humpers in the stadium. Security even felt it necessary to esport his wife out, due to concerns for her safety.

Cruz did endorse Trump before the election and after some time went by, after Trump released a list of SCOTUS nominees he said he would draw from, which was universally rock solid.

So he put his personal feelings aside for what ultimately would be best for the republic long-term.

So no, I don't concur that his response to Trump was in any way 'wishy washy'.

[blues]

Umm

He condemned those comments, with much vigor and gusto. I believe the phrase pathological liar was used.

And he famously did not endorse Donald Trump at the GOP convention. During his speech, he urged everyone present to simply vote their conscious without mentioning Trump by name, and was booed by all the Trump Humpers in the stadium. Security even felt it necessary to esport his wife out, due to concerns for her safety.

Cruz did endorse Trump before the election and after some time went by, after Trump released a list of SCOTUS nominees he said he would draw from, which was universally rock solid.

So he put his personal feelings aside for what ultimately would be best for the republic long-term.

So no, I don't concur that his response to Trump was in any way 'wishy washy'.

We'll agree to disagree. Any man that would disparage my wife, my father and my own reputation (without basis) would not receive my endorsement. Period.

If you want to believe that Ted Cruz sucked it up and is more a man for his reversal, I'm fine with it. We just don't agree.

His reversal leaves me cold.

Now, did I want HRC in the oval office? No, I did not. But I can assure you that I wouldn't leave my wallet on the table and go to the bathroom if Trump was a guest in my home, which, of course he'll never be. Both by my own choice and the fact that he'd have no reason to come in the first place.

Did Trump ever apologize for his comments?

[GuanoLoco]

Trump never apologizes for anything, it may be his only principle.

[blues]

Trump never apologizes for anything, it may be his only principle.

Well then...I unapologetically say, fuck that.

[fuse]

We'll agree to disagree. Any man that would disparage my wife, my father and my own reputation (without basis) would not receive my endorsement. Period.

If you want to believe that Ted Cruz sucked it up and is more a man for his reversal, I'm fine with it. We just don't agree.

His reversal leaves me cold.

Now, did I want HRC in the oval office? No, I did not. But I can assure you that I wouldn't leave my wallet on the table and go to the bathroom if Trump was a guest in my home, which, of course he'll never be. Both by my own choice and the fact that he'd have no reason to come in the first place.

Did Trump ever apologize for his comments?

Well, you are not a politician. Neither am I. We have the luxury of not having to consider doing such distasteful things.

If Trump apologized for anything, he would cease to be Trump, and his support among his hardcore and previously non-political base would slowly begin to evaporate, and he would become indistinguishable from every other worthless politician who doesn't really represent the people's interests and is just trying to make nice with all the other politicians. Except Trump isn't particularly smart, or even particularly stable. So no, Trump apologizing for something like that would be the begining of his swift end.

Basically we live in the twilight zone



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[SeriousStudent]

.....

I can't help wondering what the relationship might be like between Barrett and Ginsburg, should Barrett be selected.

Hopefully, a brief one.

I cannot wait until Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg is off the bench.

[Drang]

I cannot wait until Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg is off the bench.

Which prompts the question, what is the process for removing a justice from the Court if said justice is, say, a vegetable? Or a drooling imbecile* permanently medically disabled by, say, old age?


*Yes, I'm trying to learn to fit in in polite company. It probably won't work, but maybe next time I tell Management what a bunch of drooling imbeciles they are, I'll do so in a way that they'll listen...

[SeriousStudent]

If they understand, then they are not drooling imbeciles. If they do not understand, then they are drooling imbeciles, and therefore Management.

I hope this was helpful.

[Wondering Beard]

Maybe Trump does more subtle work than people assume? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)

[Drang]

Edit: That's mess. I'll just post the first tweet in his thread, and summarize the development:

1012597002461499402

Basically, the Executive Summary is that "The Resistance" convinced Kennedy that the time to go is now, while a President with a list of 25 Constitutionalist candidates for his slot was still in the Oval Office. Mr Frank (attorney who has argued before the USSC) further suggests that Justice Kennedy started having these thoughts during the campaign, while both Clinton ans Sanders were attacking First Amendment Rights.


Note to self: One tweet per post. Maybe see of a "Thread roll-up" is available, and can be embedded...