Anthony Kennedy is retiring

[AUDub 11,137]

Link coming soon. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

Wow!   Kennedy was the swing vote in many court decisions.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Wow!   Kennedy was the swing vote in many court decisions.

Yep and hopefully now we will get one who more consistently votes with the more conservative wing and a majority for the pro life voters.

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yep and hopefully now we will get one who more consistently votes with the more conservative wing and a majority for the pro life voters.

I can't see the court revisiting Roe v. Wade.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, triangletiger said:

I can't see the court revisiting Roe v. Wade.

Me neither but it doesn't hurt in lesser cases which have that as kind of a secondary issue. I can't think of an example but maybe Nola can. I think Kennedy was pretty much pro life.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

41 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Me neither but it doesn't hurt in lesser cases which have that as kind of a secondary issue. I can't think of an example but maybe Nola can. I think Kennedy was pretty much pro life.

He was a mixed bag.  He allowed some restrictions on abortion but regarded Roe as the settled law of the land, not to be overturned.  See Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Here's the thing.  I don't think Trump can get a really conservative placement this time.  He simply won't have the votes in the Senate.  It was an easy argument when replacing Scalia with another conservative.  But this time, no way do Democrats let anything but another Kennedy-esque swing vote judge get through.

[auburn41 492]

33 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's the thing.  I don't think Trump can get a really conservative placement this time.  He simply won't have the votes in the Senate.  It was an easy argument when replacing Scalia with another conservative.  But this time, no way do Democrats let anything but another Kennedy-esque swing vote judge get through.

Well with the so called "Nuclear Option" already invoked and used for Gorsuch, I'm not sure the Dems can do anything about it.  The Republicans only need a simple majority to approve.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Well with the so called "Nuclear Option" already invoked and used for Gorsuch, I'm not sure the Dems can do anything about it.  The Republicans only need a simple majority to approve.

Yep thanks to old Harry Reid for setting that precedent in the last administration.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

15 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Well with the so called "Nuclear Option" already invoked and used for Gorsuch, I'm not sure the Dems can do anything about it.  The Republicans only need a simple majority to approve.

Fair.  Forgot about that.

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yep thanks to old Harry Reid for setting that precedent in the last administration.

Reid made it a point not to touch that option with the Supreme Court.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's the thing.  I don't think Trump can get a really conservative placement this time.  He simply won't have the votes in the Senate.  It was an easy argument when replacing Scalia with another conservative.  But this time, no way do Democrats let anything but another Kennedy-esque swing vote judge get through.

Democrats don’t have the leverage. SCOTUS pick will easily be appointed before primaries. Big blow to democrats.

Keep in mind, all that’s needed is a simple majority.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Me neither but it doesn't hurt in lesser cases which have that as kind of a secondary issue. I can't think of an example but maybe Nola can. I think Kennedy was pretty much pro life.

I don’t see them overturning Roe v Wade. Abortion falls under Substantive Due Process. That said, you’re exactly right in terms of “collateral” IE matters that temper Roe’s broad application.

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's the thing.  I don't think Trump can get a really conservative placement this time.  He simply won't have the votes in the Senate.  It was an easy argument when replacing Scalia with another conservative.  But this time, no way do Democrats let anything but another Kennedy-esque swing vote judge get through.

After the Election, the Republicans could actually lose the HOR, but increase the lead in the Senate. The Democrats are actually defending many seats in the Senate this time around. It is just luck of the numbers.

[auburn41 492]

16 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Fair.  Forgot about that.

Reid made it a point not to touch that option with the Supreme Court.

To be fair, Reid did not have to use that option for Obama's SCOTUS nominees.  Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31 and Kagen was confirmed 63-37.  No way a Republican nominee will ever get over 60 votes in the Senate now or even in the future unless there are more than 60 Republicans in the Senate.  The Dems don't play that way!  The SCOTUS is traditionally how the Dems get their policies enacted.  They will do all they can to keep a firm Constitutionalist off the court.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, auburn41 said:

To be fair, Reid did not have to use that option for Obama's SCOTUS nominees.  Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31 and Kagen was confirmed 63-37.  No way a Republican nominee will ever get over 60 votes in the Senate now or even in the future unless there are more than 60 Republicans in the Senate.  The Dems don't play that way!

Neither do the Rs.  The point of having a 60 vote threshold is to ensure we don't have only hyper-partisan votes on the highest court.  Threshold forces compromise.  Look at Garland for example.  Obama knew he couldn't get a liberal judge, so he chose someone more moderate.  Of course, we'll never know how Rs would have actually voted on that one.

[auburn41 492]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Neither do the Rs.  The point of having a 60 vote threshold is to ensure we don't have only hyper-partisan votes on the highest court.  Threshold forces compromise.  Look at Garland for example.  Obama knew he couldn't get a liberal judge, so he chose someone more moderate.  Of course, we'll never know how Rs would have actually voted on that one.

What about 68-31 and 63-37.  The Rs do play that way as both of those were Obama appointees.  And don't forget that Joe Biden was the first not to want to confirm a SCOTUS nominee during an election year.

[channonc 466]

With McCain gone, the Dems only need one Republican to vote no.

[AU64 10,122]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

After the Election, the Republicans could actually lose the HOR, but increase the lead in the Senate. The Democrats are actually defending many seats in the Senate this time around. It is just luck of the numbers.

Could be but looks like the Dem party is moving in the direction of Bernie.....NY primary was just one local race but amazing that an entrenched Dem like Crowley was upset by an unknown Socialist / Marxist on Tuesday.     Wondering what that race will look like in Nov. 

 

[80Tiger 899]

13 minutes ago, channonc said:

With McCain gone, the Dems only need one Republican to vote no.

Joe Manchain in WV could vote with Repubs along with ND senator Heidi (forgot her last name). Both are in very tight races in Nov. I would also not be surprised to see Joe Manchain change parties if he were to hold his seat.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

30 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

What about 68-31 and 63-37.  The Rs do play that way as both of those were Obama appointees.  And don't forget that Joe Biden was the first not to want to confirm a SCOTUS nominee during an election year.

There's a big difference when a part has the Super-Majority in the Senate of 60 votes, which is a rarity.  As you pointed out, the Dems had those votes in both 2009 and 2010.  At that point, yes, a party can nominate and put in whoever they want.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

19 minutes ago, channonc said:

With McCain gone, the Dems only need one Republican to vote no.

Two.  Tie-break would go to the VP.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

37 minutes ago, channonc said:

With McCain gone, the Dems only need one Republican to vote no.

The Senate confirmed Gorsuch by a vote of 54–45. All the Republicans voted in favor except Isakson from GA who was recovering from surgery, along with Democratic Senators in states that voted heavily for Trump, Manchin (D-WV), Heitkamp (D-ND), and Donnelly (D-IN).  Even if. they GOP lost a vote, they likely won't lose all of those Democrats, especially Manchin.

[channonc 466]

36 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The Senate confirmed Gorsuch by a vote of 54–45. All the Republicans voted in favor except Isakson from GA who was recovering from surgery, along with Democratic Senators in states that voted heavily for Trump, Manchin (D-WV), Heitkamp (D-ND), and Donnelly (D-IN).  Even if. they GOP lost a vote, they likely won't lose all of those Democrats, especially Manchin. 

I'm aware, but I also think it was an easier argument to make replacing a conservative judge with another conservative judge. I think this time, it could be harder for some of those Dems to still vote yes, depending of course, on the nominee.

[homersapien 11,357]

Leader McConnell

 

✔@SenateMajLdr

 

 

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. #Scalia https://www.facebook.com/mitchmcconnell/posts/1021148581257166 …

8:35 PM - Feb 13, 2016

•  
  3,226
•  
  10.2K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

 

Leader McConnell

 

✔@SenateMajLdr

 

 

At the @WhiteHouse today, @ChuckGrassley and I will reiterate that the American people will have a voice in filling the #SCOTUS vacancy.

11:34 AM - Mar 1, 2016

•  
  42
•  
  176 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

 

Leader McConnell

 

✔@SenateMajLdr

 

 

.@VP - "once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nom. must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

4:28 PM - Mar 2, 2016

•  
  73
•  
  215 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

 

Leader McConnell

 

✔@SenateMajLdr

 

 

The next justice could dramatically change the direction of #SCOTUS for decades. The American people deserve a voice in that conversation.

10:04 AM - Mar 15, 2016

•  
  942
•  

[channonc 466]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Two.  Tie-break would go to the VP.

You are right. Can't do math this morning. I stand corrected!