SCOTUS balance

[Brad Austin]

OUBubba you are truly misinformed on the mindset and commitment shared by the vast majority of DT voters and their firm support of the MAGA platform.

Most Reps get annoyed by the tweets but overwhelmingly approve of his official actions. I don't like the tweeting, but understand why he does it.

No president in history has been attacked so relentlessly with false lies and allegations. So he feels he needs to go directly to the public to state his side and counter the constant allegations. So be it.

Newsflash, the general public isn't very bright. Just like in the campaign, when you want to connect with the masses, it's better to speak in basic terms as common people do who flood twitter.

Most of us here are all well educated, stay informed on current events, and know the details. The tweets are not meant for us, they're meant for the common person not dialed in to the background of events, but still being bombarded with MSM trash.

I could give a damn less what he boasts and complains about on tweets as long as the policies that actually have any impact on life are improving the country.

Sure there are some Reps that voted DT to avoid HRC. Just as there are plenty of Dems that voted HRC to avoid DT.

Because you know a few DT voters and that group happened to tell you their viewpoint is far from having a real pulse on the right's mindset in general.

Just as I don't claim to know who the lefties are rallying around these days as I stay far away from those cult gatherings.

It's not your fault, I wouldn't expect you to have a pulse on DT support. I'm sure you don't frequent the prominent (non-Fox) conservative websites to see for yourself.

I will tell you since you clearly aren't aware, there are more MAGA supporters than party loyalists in the new Rep party.

 

[OUBubba]

OUBubba you are truly clueless on the mindset and commitment shared by the vast majority of DT voters and their firm support of the MAGA platform.

Most Reps get annoyed by the tweets but overwhelmingly approve of his official actions. I don't like the tweeting, but understand why he does.

No president in history has been attacked so relentlessly with false lies and allegations in history. So he thinks he needs to go directly to the public to state his side and counter the constant allegations. So be it.

Newsflash, the general public isn't very bright. Just like in the campaign, when you want to connect with the masses, speak in basic terms as common people do who flood twitter.

I could give a damn less what he boasts and complains about on tweets as long as the policies that actually have any impact on life are improving the country.

Sure there are some Reps that voted DT to avoid HRC. Just as there are plenty of Dems that voted HRC to avoid DT.

Because you know a few DT voters and that group happened to tell you their viewpoint is far from having a real pulse on the right's mindset in general.

Just as I don't claim to know who the loony left is looking up to these days as I stay far away from those cult gathering places.

It's not your fault, I wouldn't expect you to have a pulse on this as I'm sure you don't frequent the prominent (non-Fox) conservative websites.

I will tell you since you clearly aren't aware, there are more MAGA supporters than party loyalists in the new Rep party.

Ok. That's a sad place to be. He's going to implode.

 

[I35]

Gerald ford did not release his taxes. The only one since it started being expected.

Yes and at this day and time with the MSM being so dishonest I'd advise the GOP to not produce their taxes. No matter what the MSM will present things differently than what it is. Come on dude, you can't deny this.

 

[Brad Austin]

Ok. That's a sad place to be. He's going to implode.

That's what your side believes because you want it so bad it hurts. Not because there is solid, evidence supported reasoning behind his impending removal.

And the irony is that all this witch hunting and crying wolf for two years will cause the Dem party to implode by finishing off their suicide in 2018.

It's not about how Reps or Dems view this hysteria, it's all about the independents.

And all signs are showing they overwhelmingly don't trust the MSM, are tired of this Russia investigation bs, and want to allow DT to focus on policies that help their lives.

People that aren't dialed into politics just want a better life. Constant obstruction from Day One until 2018 elections is going to be viewed as an enemy's tactic to prevent it.

The MSM will never let you know these sentiments, just like they didn't allow you to know DT was neck and neck heading into election night.

Russia, Russia, Russia is the same as racist, racist, racist. Normal people get so bombarded by it from the left and MSM that it eventually is ignored as white noise.

Personally, I would love if Vegas took even bets on DT being convicted of impeachment or not. I'd wager a bundle and laugh all the way to the bank. Not happening.

 

[OUBubba]

That's what your side believes because you want it so bad it hurts. Not because there is solid, evidence supported reasoning behind his impending removal.

And the irony is that all this witch hunting and crying wolf for two years will cause the Dem party to implode by finishing off their suicide in 2018.

It's not about how Reps or Dems view this hysteria, it's all about the independents.

And all signs are showing they overwhelmingly don't trust the MSM, are tired of this Russia investigation bs, and want to allow DT to focus on policies that help their lives.

People that aren't dialed into politics just want a better life. Constant obstruction from Day One until 2018 elections is going to be viewed as an enemy's tactic to prevent it.

The MSM will never let you know these sentiments, just like they didn't allow you to know DT was neck and neck heading into election night.

Russia, Russia, Russia is the same as racist, racist, racist. Normal people get so bombarded by it from the left and MSM that it eventually is ignored as white noise.

Personally, I would love if Vegas took even bets on DT being convicted of impeachment or not. I'd wager a bundle and laugh all the way to the bank. Not happening.

There may be no evidence of collusion. However, the obstruction and cover up is what will drag him down.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If he didn't criminally collude, how could he obstruct and cover up?

Remember, Nixon had people commit an actual crime (burglary), which he then covered up.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know the politics of Merrick Garland that well, but, from what I have read he is a reasonable pick to at least go through the questioning process. Trump could do a great deal to soothe some of the divisive politics in the US by at least bringing him forward.
I have to look at this as if I were a big time Democrat...I would be terrified of a SCOTUS that was so imbalanced. Even as a non-Democrat, I don't like to see an imbalance.

As a nation, we have to begin to try and heal this huge rift of "us v. them". I would love Trump to put up a nominee that would be an olive branch to Obama folks. Can you imagine the reaction of Democrats? For once, it would be a Trump decision that they couldn't freak out over. I'm no fan of Trump, but, I also am disgusted by the constant deluge of negative press. I can't think of the last time I have read or heard about anything positive he has done. Even simple things such as visiting the police that took out the shooter at the baseball game, or going to the hospital to see Otto's family from N. Korea received scant coverage.
* This post is contingent of Merrick Garland being a fairly conservative centrist.

I'm generally an advocate of compromise and governing in a nonpartisan manner where possible. However, Supreme Court appointments constitute an area in which I advocate digging in and going to war if necessary. They aren't the place where you should seek to heal political divisions. A few things are worth noting.

First, the Supreme Court is the Left's biggest political prize, because it is the mechanism by which virtually every social liberal victory has been achieved. Why? Because it is the branch of government that has the weakest checks on its power and can act without regard to political realities. It makes a ruling, and for the most part, everybody falls in line. Furthermore, because liberal jurists feel little or no duty to follow the written law when making a ruling, when they control the Court, there are no limits on its ability to act as a political weapon. It can shut down the will of any democratic institution in the United States at any time and for any reason and is willing to do so without hesitation. That is not the case with conservative jurists. Accordingly, a Court dominated by Sonia Sotomayors is far more dangerous to the Right than a Court dominated by Neal Gorsuches is to the Left.

Second, when Democrats claim to be appointing a moderate, they aren't talking about the same thing as Republicans are, so if Trump appointed a guy like Garland, Democrats would not reciprocate in kind (if at all). A Democratic compromise pick is going to be more favorable to business interests and less hostile to criminal prosecutors than your stereotypical liberal judge. He's not going to be significantly less liberal on cultural or social issues. When a Republican makes a compromise pick, it's usually someone who is socially moderate (like Kennedy and O'Connor) but generally favorable to business interests and criminal prosecutors. In other words, Democrats compromise on business and criminal issues but not social issues. Republicans do the reverse. That's why there have been tons of socially moderate and even liberal Republican justices and no socially moderate or conservative Democratic justices appointed in the last 50 years.

Accordingly, if Trump appointed Garland to the Court to replace Kennedy, you might have a 5-4 pro-business majority, but the consequences in other areas would be very substantial and would sharply favor the political Left. Every abortion restriction in the United States (parental notification and consent laws, late term abortion limitations, etc.) would get struck down, and it would likely become "unconstitutional" for taxpayers not to fund abortions. "Gender identity" would become a protected class under the 14th Amendment, which means the full transgender agenda would be forced on the country. The Second Amendment would be interpreted to protect militias rather than an individual right to bear arms. It would become virtually impossible to deport people. The death penalty would probably go away.

In short, don't nominate moderates or liberals to the Court just to appease the Left or foster political unity. It's far too dangerous. If the GOP feels the need to do that, settle on smaller tax cuts. Spend a little more money on Democratic priorities. But don't give them a colossal political weapon to kick the hell out of the Right for the next 40 years.

 

[Statalyzer]

I know some on this board believe that the Supreme Court has 4 liberal justices who always vote as a bloc to support the liberal agenda. I would ask those folks to consider the fact that Kagan and Breyer agree with Roberts and Kennedy more often than they agree with Ginsberg or Sotomayor.

Conversely, there are many folks who believe that there is a solid block of at least 3 and maybe 4 conservative Justices, who always vote to support the conservative agenda. I would ask them to consider the fact that Roberts and Kennedy agree with Kagan and Breyer more often than they agree with Alito or Thomas.

But since not every case is a "liberal" or "conservative" case, who agrees with who overall may not mean much. Maybe they mostly agree on the stuff that doesn't fall into either category? I'm not saying this definitely is the case, but for the agreement statistic to disprove the "conservative/liberal bloc" theory, it would need to be shown that this is definitely not the case.

SCOTUS balance

Nearly everyone wants a SCOTUS balance - halfway between what the law actually says and what they wish the law was.

 

[huisache]

minimum contacts are a mirage in the rio grande valley. No contacts will suffice to establish jurisdiction.

 

[Joe Fan]

And a sadness fell across the land ....

 

[Brad Austin]

No way Kennedy or Ginsburg make it to Summer 2020. A matter of when, not if. With a nuked filibuster there's sure to be two more conservative justices added to the bench.

 

[Htown77]

The reign of Ayatollah Kennedy shall continue.

 

[Joe Fan]

No way Kennedy or Ginsburg make it to Summer 2020. A matter of when, not if. With a nuked filibuster there's sure to be two more conservative justices added to the bench.

Word is that Ruth Baby had her resignation prepared which was to be submitted within two weeks of Hillary's inauguration
Then a funny thing happened .....

 

[Joe Fan]

....A Democratic compromise pick .....

 

[HornHuskerDad]

All I can hope is DT shoves another Gorsuch down their throat and says 'elections have consequences' like his predecessor.

 

[Brad Austin]

Now that conservatives are in the driver's seat, nomination rules and term limit reform for SCOTUS is being proposed by so-called 'bipartisan' constitutional scholars.

• POTUS can only nominate in 1st and 3rd year of a term

• Justices serve 18 years before 'senior status' relegates them to lower court cases

• If a vacancy occurs in an off year, the semi-retired justice with the least years of 'senior status' will fill in until a year POTUS is allowed to nominate

Nice try, participation trophy lovers. Ironic how the proposed reforms would directly combat the ramifications of DT's three conservatives nominations in this first term.

Under these rules the replacements for AK and RBG could only be nominated by DT if either leave before Year 4 or he'd have to win re-election to do so in Year 5.

Dems would have RBG walking around without a pulse like Weekend at Ruthie's before they let her exit before 2020.

With term limits, DT's preference for younger justices would be purposely knee-capped.

I'm all for age limits, like 75 or so. But term limits is being used to diffuse the ramifications of DT's victory. A campaign heavily fueled by his SCOTUS preferences.

If HRC won nobody would've wasted their time meeting and proposing SCOTUS reforms.

But now that cons run the show and two non-con justices are on their last leg, it's time to change the rules, huh.

Same bs as the push for the popular vote to decide elections after DT won the electorate only. As always, in the spirit of BO, 'stop whining' elections have consequences.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Now that conservatives are in the driver seat, nomination rules and term limit reform for SCOTUS is being proposed by so-called 'bipartisan' constitutional scholars.

• POTUS can only nominate in 1st and 3rd year of a term

• Justices serve 18 years before 'senior status' relegates them to lower court cases

• If a vacancy occurs in an off year, the semi-retired justice with the least years of 'senior status' will fill in until a year POTUS is allowed to nominate

Nice try, participation trophy lovers. Ironic how the proposed reforms would directly combat the ramifications of DT's three conservatives nominations in this first term.

Under these rules the replacements for AK and RBG could only be nominated by DT if either leave before Year 4 or he'd have to win re-election to do so in Year 5.

Dems would have RBG walking around without a pulse like Weekend at Ruthie's before they let her exit before 2020.

With term limits, DT's list of younger justices who'll serve for decades would be knee-capped.

I'm all for age limits, like 75 or so. But term limits is being used to diffuse the implications of DT's victory. A campaign heavily fueled by his SCOTUS preferences.

If HRC won nobody would've wasted their time meeting and proposing SCOTUS reforms.

But now that cons run the show and two non-con justices are on their last leg, it's time to change the rules, huh.

Same bs as the push for the popular vote to decide elections after DT won the electorate only. As always, in the spirit of BO, 'stop whining' elections have consequences.

Given the politicization of Supreme court nominations looking at reform isn't necessarily a bad thing. Whether the Senate can agree or not is another matter. In the current model even judges are outstaying the degradation of their faculties to protect ideology of the court. That can't be a positive thing whether the judge in question is liberal or conservative.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

voted for the most immoral man ever to sit in the Oval Office

I'm late to the party on this one but I just couldn't pass it up when I saw it. Guy with a Barry Switzer picture in his profile and (I'm assuming) someone who supported both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he wants to talk about morality? That's pretty funny stuff. But I guess as long as they're only VERY immoral and not the MOST immoral, then that's OK.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

However, Supreme Court appointments constitute an area in which I advocate digging in and going to war if necessary. They aren't the place where you should seek to heal political divisions.

To borrow a tennis analogy, you have to hold serve in the court nomination process. Because liberals won't hold back. To your point, no one is pressuring the dems to offer up a moderate, and they won't - they'll CALL him a moderate, but that doesn't mean he is one.

I don't know if you'd agree with this or not, but is it fair to say that the question of being a moderate really doesn't make sense on the courts anyway? If you're consistent in your approach, you either believe in interpreting the law as written, or you believe in interpreting it as it should be (in your opinion) written. So it's not - for example - like a justice can be moderate on gay marriage or abortion. The right is either there or it's not.

Accordingly, if Trump appointed Garland to the Court to replace Kennedy, you might have a 5-4 pro-business majority, but the consequences in other areas would be very substantial and would sharply favor the political Left.

Based on the linked article above and Kennedy's past record, would that really be a change? This is the guy that introduced the idea that you can self-identify as whatever you want, however you feel. Truth is relative - once you get to that point, is there any going back? That's a guy that doesn't need to be on the bench.

 

[huisache]

I keep a copy of The Anti-Federalist Papers handy so I can, from time to time, review what Patrick Henry et al were saying in opposition to the document that is now considered holy writ by left and right and which the antis thought was a horrid idea created by men who wanted to create a centralist monster that would grow and grow and which had a provision for a supreme court which would use its minimal but ambiguous powers to create a powerful court to dictate as it pleased.

I highly recommend you all dip into it---I think Signet has a cheap edition you can pick up.
The arguments we have now were anticipated by the guys standing up to Washington, Madison and Hamilton. They drew a map that has been followed by left and right to create the Judicial branch we have now that is both legislature and executor.

Who is on the court determines how the federal government gets bigger, not whether it will.

The country and its government get bigger and bigger but the people subject to its whims have stayed the same size.

 

[OUBubba]

I'm late to the party on this one but I just couldn't pass it up when I saw it. Guy with a Barry Switzer picture in his profile and (I'm assuming) someone who supported both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he wants to talk about morality? That's pretty funny stuff. But I guess as long as they're only VERY immoral and not the MOST immoral, then that's OK.

Barry has some questionable morality issues. No doubt. I have a friend who played with him who dated his daughter who was from a long line of Baptist lineage who thought the world of him. So, he's not all bad.

I never voted for Bill. I think he was a good President but he allowed himself to be a pawn due to his moral shortcomings. Hillary...horrible candidate and that's how we got to where we are now.

The common denominator? They're all from Arkansas...

 

[I35]

...horrible candidate and that's how we got to where we are now.

Which is getting the swamp drained and turning America back around. Policy wise were heading in a great direction. Still got stuff needing done. It's scary to think if Hillary kept going down the same path as our worst President ever in Obama. What a waste of 8 years.

 

[huisache]

worst president? He didn't steal Puerto Rico and the Philipines from Spain, the former being the theft that keeps on stealing) and he didn't push the progressive agenda to the fore like the first Roosevelt and he didn't let us get in the War of 1812 and get humiliated and he didn't blunder into a civil war that got 600,000 plus killed and he didn't take us in to Viet Nam and most recently, he did not take us into the insane and unnecessary war in Iraq, which lifted Iran to its present eminence. I never voted for Barry but he wasn't running a burglary ring out of the basement either.

I like Bone Spurs' general drift on immigration but he is a brain dead celebrity at best and a Mussolini wannabe at worst. Right now, he's a trainwreck waiting to happen. Pull your head out.

 

[Mr. Deez]

To borrow a tennis analogy, you have to hold serve in the court nomination process. Because liberals won't hold back. To your point, no one is pressuring the dems to offer up a moderate, and they won't - they'll CALL him a moderate, but that doesn't mean he is one.

I would agree if we're talking about social moderates. They'll appoint people who are moderate on economic and criminal issues that don't drive the Democratic base as much. On hot button social issues, they're uniformly liberal.

I don't know if you'd agree with this or not, but is it fair to say that the question of being a moderate really doesn't make sense on the courts anyway? If you're consistent in your approach, you either believe in interpreting the law as written, or you believe in interpreting it as it should be (in your opinion) written. So it's not - for example - like a justice can be moderate on gay marriage or abortion. The right is either there or it's not.

Philosophically, you're right, but in practice you're not. There is room for nuance on gay marriage and abortion even in the judicial realm. I don't buy into it, because I reject the premise that we should arbitrarily make up rights that trump the sovereignty of state governments, but the doctrines are in place to allow for it.

Based on the linked article above and Kennedy's past record, would that really be a change? This is the guy that introduced the idea that you can self-identify as whatever you want, however you feel. Truth is relative - once you get to that point, is there any going back? That's a guy that doesn't need to be on the bench.

It makes a difference because there are limits to how far Kennedy is willing to go. Liberal justices pretty much reject all socially conservative positions. Kennedy does not.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The common denominator? They're all from Arkansas...

I have to be careful because my mom's from Arkansas. But... yeah....

 

[Joe Fan]

More rumors today that JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIRING NEXT WEEK


Also from Nina Totenberg (who I once sat next to inside the Court) --

"It is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency. While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement....."

​

If he does (whether now or in October), it could be a nice get-out-the-vote issue for Trump and the Rs in the midterms. Especially if they slow-played the nomination.

 

[Statalyzer]

Which is getting the swamp drained and turning America back around.

Obama: I won't do things the Washington insider way.
Trump: I'm going to drain the swamp.

Same rhetoric, neither of them followed it. You can't drain the swamp with a clan of A-listers and powerbrokers and then claim you're an outsider just because you use meaner words than most to piss off the powerful guys you disagree with.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Obama: I won't do things the Washington insider way.
Trump: I'm going to drain the swamp.

Certainly in my adult life (turned 18 in 1994), I can't think of any president who didn't at least claim that he was going to conduct things differently than how Washington usually operates. I do recall Bush 41 mostly accepting his status as an insider, but certainly the previous two presidents and all subsequent presidents framed themselves as outsiders who were going to change how things would be done.

 

[I35]

Same rhetoric, neither of them followed it. You can't drain the swamp with a clan of A-listers and powerbrokers and then claim you're an outsider just because you use meaner words than most to piss off the powerful guys you disagree with.

I'm not sure who Trump could pick that you'd be satisfied with? The people he picked for the most part aren't a part of either establishment. They're rich. Does that exclude them from being qualified? If anything mostly the people he picked are men and women taking major pay cuts to serve their country. Would you rather he take the ultimate outsiders and pick middle class ordinary people that have zero political experience and no experience of running major or even just big businesses?

Tell me a list of people you have in mind. Better yet, who would you pick that would be clearly better Rex Tillerson?

 

[OUBubba]

I'm not sure who Trump could pick that you'd be satisfied with? The people he picked for the most part aren't a part of either establishment. They're rich. Does that exclude them from being qualified? If anything mostly the people he picked are men and women taking major pay cuts to serve their country. Would you rather he take the ultimate outsiders and pick middle class ordinary people that have zero political experience and no experience of running major or even just big businesses?

Tell me a list of people you have in mind. Better yet, who would you pick that would be clearly better Rex Tillerson?

He actually got the GOP B-team. That's one of the challenges with his administration. They were Houston/USF having to take recruits like Manafort, page, Miller, Flynn, sessions and others who weren't as experienced or carried as much equity as other GOP folks. Some that had experience had baggage (Flynn, manafort, etc.) and some without baggage lacked experience (Miller).