Effective July 31st - Justice Kennedy is retiring. He sent a letter to the President and made the announcement today. Kennedy is sticking with the tradition of stepping down while the President is of the same Party who originally nominated him is in office (and in this case, where the Senate is in Republican hands).
There is little doubt that the President and the GOP Senate will work to confirm a new Justice later this summer. It's obvious that Kennedy wants Trump to name his replacement, and there will be no incentive for the President or the GOP to wait till after the election.
78 comments:
Huffingtonpost issued a "code pink, orange , yellow ,Red, lbctfqrj"
Out of power is when Socialist are at thier funniest
Roger AmickJune 27, 2018 at 1:32 PM
The Federalist Society will probably have a major favor in the selection of the replacement of Justice Kennedy"
A Ted Cruz nomination would send the left completely over the edge.
Wait. I love that Pick.
The Federalist Society is made up of Legal Minds that are Conservatives and Libertarians.
This would have been Lynch's seat if cankles had won
Yep. To be Sure.
This week has been amazing for Trump.
I am not at all Tired of Winning.
Ginsburg is already 85. Dems will prop her up with pillows if they have to to keep her going.
The liberal reaction has been typically schizophrenic. On the one hand they bitterly castigate his legacy and on the other distressed that a more conservative justice will take his place.
And it's all because Trump.
Trump has already stated that the new nominee will come from his list of 25 qualified jurists.
Take a minute and reflect on CS's point....
The USA is clawing back lost freedoms that were taken away. Unlike Roger the pro-dodger, I did not use Rights because none of those have been taken away , not today or during the Lost years.
Ginsburg is already 85. Dems will prop her up with pillows if they have to to keep her going.
Pretty sure Trump will have two or three nominees in the bullpen ready to go. Just in case.
IF you want a big Laugh look up Roger's Facebook. It looks like a 7 year old put it together.
Kput'z shut up.
You never contribute.
My wedding pictures, my family reunion are a mess?
Pro-Dodger.
"Rog, "The middle class was dealt another blow. It will shrink even further downward as percentage of the GDP."
Can you provide a link. I want to read more about this, I have never ever seen that conflating.
That way we can track it to see if your right.
Thank you.
My wedding pictures, my family reunion are a mess?"
A hot mess, looked like the bar scene in Star Wars.
I think it's safe to say Supreme Court justices will be an issue in the upcoming election which is the worst legacy the Warren Court has left to the nation.
It will. So good.
Bluecheck liberals are in full meltdown mode now.
JUNE 27, 2018
FLASHBACK: On Judicial Nominations, GOP Must Punish Democrats for Decades of Unprecedented Escalations.
Guy Benson tweets: “They talk as if Mitch/GOP stonewalling of Garland came out of nowhere. In fact, it was richly-earned vengeance” for decades of unilateral Democratic escalations & power grabs. A brief history.”
And from his 2017 column (linked above):
When Democrats continued their heretofore unforeseen practice of blocking up-or-down votes for majority-backed judicial nominees after the GOP regained the Senate in 2004, Republicans saber-rattled about invoking the so-called “nuclear option.” That fear led a bipartisan group of Senators, seven from each party, to forge the ‘Gang of 14′ compromise. The terms of that agreement survived a number of years until Democrats decided that they could not abide the GOP using the filibuster precedent they’d invented under Bush to thwart a limited number President Obama’s picks. For perspective, in their respective first terms, Obama had more of his circuit court nominees confirmed than Bush did — and enjoyed a better confirmation rate on district court selections than George H.W. Bush. Nevertheless, Democrats decided that the deployment of their own tactics against a Democratic president constituted a fresh justification to abolish the very practice they’d pioneered, detonating the “nuclear” option that many of them had inveighed against when Republicans were merely considering it as a method of overcoming Democrats’ previous unprecedented escalation. Some Reid defenders have argued that the former Democratic leader did everything he could to reason with Republicans to avoid going nuclear very early in Obama’s second term. Not true:
When Reid broke the filibuster [in 2013], he claimed the GOP could have avoided the nuclear option if they’d simply confirmed the seven appointees they’d been blocking. According to Politico, McConnell conceded to those demands to save the filibuster. At the last moment, Reid insisted that Republicans surrender the threat of filibustering any Obama’s appointments in the future.
Democrats single-handedly and unilaterally introduced the concept of judicial filibusters against majority-supported nominees, then proceeded to unilaterally end it, all over the course of about a decade. They started the practice when they were in the minority, then blew it up when they were in the majority.
Well, that’s different because shut up.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/300576/#respond
I have been watching the exploding liberal heads over at huffpo.
Called the Trump Court, America's "Darkest Hour" even Darker then Nov 9th @3 am, 2016 when it was confirmed Trump Won.
We should have shut down the Senate,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Tuesday. “We made a calculation that we were going to win the 2016 [presidential] election and confirm a nominee. And it didn’t work out.”
Every Liberal here thought the same as her.
President Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court List
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/
The wedding was not a mess. It was beautiful. My lovely wife was stunning.
Dems Melt Down Over Kennedy Retirement
The DNC rules committee was on a live call when the news broke that Justice Anthony Kennedy would retire at the end of July.
Man this is good stuff
FOUR Events in the History of Trump in order that rock.
1, Trump Wins
2, Trump Eliminates ObamaCare Mandate
3, Trump Tax Cut
4, Trump Nominates his 2nd USSC Justice
And the Bonus , Hillary still telling US She Won, like Gore Won.
CHT is pro choice. If Trump nominates an anti Roe v Wade nominee will he support the President?
Friday, March 6. 2009
Barack Obama and 'Profit and Earnings Ratios'
The other day, in talking about the declining stock market, President Obama said: (emphasis added)
"... what you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."
The problem with this statement is that, up until now, there has never been anything called a 'profit and earnings ratio.'"
HB.
Pro-Dodger.
"Rog, "The middle class was dealt another blow. It will shrink even further downward as percentage of the GDP."
Can you provide a link. I want to read more about this, I have never ever seen that conflating.
That way we can track it to see if your right.
Thank you.
Friday, March 6. 2009
Barack Obama and 'Profit and Earnings Ratios'
The other day, in talking about the declining stock market, President Obama said: (emphasis added)
"... what you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."
The problem with this statement is that, up until now, there has never been anything called a 'profit and earnings ratio.'"
HB.
Pro-Dodger.
"Rog, "The middle class was dealt another blow. It will shrink even further downward as percentage of the GDP."
Can you provide a link. I want to read more about this, I have never ever seen that conflating.
That way we can track it to see if your right.
Thank you.
Maxine is claiming trump is advocating violence. Talk about projecting your own actions onto others. Typical dem ploy.
CHT is pro choice
As am I Roger. Abortion won’t be made illegal, it MAY a huge may, get tossed back to the states and they will have to actually legislate. 9 people in black robes that are appointed for life and unaccountable to the electorate is no way to run a country.
Win elections and stop counting on the courts to shove your liberal shit down my throat
I am pro choice also.
So that is not going to change. Defunding by Government , you bet.
MyballsJune 27, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Maxine is claiming trump is advocating violence. Talk about projecting your own actions onto others. Typical dem ploy."
You're not wrong.
From Hollywierd. Debbie messing.
"OK guys, the news about the Supreme Court, I was devastated, and now I’m just pissed,” Messing said in a video posted on her Instagram page. “And as you can see my shirt, badass feminists, we are going to fight.”
In her accompanying caption, Messing called on minorities groups to “activate” against Trump’s judicial nomination and expressed fear that a conservative judge would help reverse Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage and abortion.
“GET READY! FIGHT IS ON! Everyone who is not a privileged white man who has been treated like an Other— POC, LGBTQ, Women, the Differently Abled, Muslim, Jew, Poor, etc. NOW we must work together and ACTIVATE,” Messing wrote on Instagram."
So the Left TPM is to moveon from Resist we Much to Transformers "Activate".
Trump supports punishment for women who get an abortion.
It is times like these that We really, really need to thank Harry Ried.
Chris Matthews is more emotional about this nomination than he has been before. If the Democrats don't block this nomination in any way until after the off year election, the Democrats will pay a deep cost. The new generation of Democrats are no going to accept the failure of the leadership. I mentioned something along the same lines as the new base will sit back and let this go forward.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/
Alky forgot his link.
More passionate then his wet panties toss.
"MSNBC host Chris Matthews infamously pronounced that a 2008 speech delivered by Barack Obama gave him a "thrill going up my leg."
You're going to block the Nominee without knowing who it is?
Trump supports punishment for women who get an abortion.
Boooga Booooga Boooga
Let’s see what the soon to be 6-3 SCOTUS says
I told you this was going to happen as you followed Bumble blindly down the rabbit hole
LMAO
How are you going to block it? Reid blew up the nuke option
This is not going to be easy for either party. There are pro choice Republicans in the senate. McConnell has sworn to enforce the anti filibuster rules put in place to prevent the Obama nominee to replace Scalia. But with McCain unable to attend the margin is just one vote.
This is more important than almost anything else because the control of the Supreme Court could be settled for 30 years.
The President and the Republicans are again trying to make the Supreme Court an ideological right wing court. The Constitution doesn't matter to the President or the Republicans.
And with the Vote Before the fall Election forces those Dem Senators in a no win position.
MO Mckaskil is on trouble.
I don't need a link kput'z. Unlike you I have a functional brain. I remembered that comment by Trump. I thought it might get some rational thinking Republicans would not support a candidate who said that.
Yet, you
Get us a link to your economic statement.
Q: Do you support a ban on partial-birth abortion
A: I do "Senator Claire McCaskill
Actually, sound bite CAsissy, you really do need that link.
Curtis Cook, a writer for Comedy Central’s Jim Jefferies Show, said Wednesday that he wishes outgoing Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy had been shot instead of former president John F. Kennedy or Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
“I wish this Kennedy had been shot instead of the other ones,” Cook tweeted in response to Associated Press reporting the announcement.
McConnell has sworn to enforce the anti filibuster rules put in place to prevent the Obama nominee to replace Scalia
Umm, how do you think Gorsuch is on the bench? The nuke option has been done, 30 years of strict not living Constitutionalists. Thank God
We kept our powder dry after your side fucked with Bork
For some Democrats, there is a clear logic to trying to elevate politicians who belong to underrepresented groups, given the threat many feel from the behavior and policies of President Trump, who regularly magnifies racial division and has been caught on tape boasting about the sexual assault of women.
“It’s not accidental that Donald Trump followed the first black president riding a wave of resentment,” said Steve Phillips, founder of Democracy in Color, a group that promotes youth and minority political activism. “And it’s not accidental that the people who are fighting back are the people who are being attacked.”
Ah the race card.
"Democracy in Color"
Soros puppet.
This is not going to be easy for either party.
This is going to be extremely easy for Republicans. If Trump nominates another Justice in the mold of Scalia/Gorsuch, GOP will all vote for that particular nominee.
Your problem Roger is you think like a liberal. Republicans don't think like you. They don't look at particular political issues and demand that Justice would agree with them on political issues.
On the contrary. We want Justices (who like Scalia) will suggest that they are bound by the constitution and the law, and sometimes they will actually make rulings that they "personally" disagree with, wish the law might be different, but realize that the law is the law is the law.
What we don't want are Justices like Sotomayer (who made a fool of herself with her dissent on Trump v Hawaii). Those who make put their politics above the law, make their judicial decisions based on personal politics, and then work backwards to try to make their legal argument accommodate those political positions.
A good Justice will simply decide what the law is.
A bad Justice will take it upon themselves to decide what the law "should be" in their own minds.
If a justice decides the case upon original intent he will decide what the law is upon what he thinks the law should be determined by his own belief of what was "on the mind" of the author of the law.
As usual the mind of the liberal faulty and the conservative has a clarity of thought.
The difficulty is the fact that if McConnell wasn't a Republican hypocrite the confirmation process would not be completed until after the election. If Senator Flake keeps his word when he said that if a vacancy in the Supreme Court would occur before the election he would vote against the approval in the committee until after the election.
It would give the couple Democratic Senators cover in red states. One or two Republicans could also feel safer their home states that may have supported Trump in 2016.
Republicans "don't look at particular political issues and demand that Justice would agree with them on political issues."
No way. Voting against the nominee would put them in moral danger.
As usual the mind of the liberal faulty and the conservative has a clarity of thought.
not exactly. as has been said by many - conservatives 'think' and liberals 'feel.'
as CH said about sotomayor - she made a fool of herself. and it was essentially over her 'feelings' about the case. regardless of what trump might have said during the campaign, he as president per the statute cited can decide who gets in and who doesn't. an ACLU lawyer even told the hawaii judge that if president clinton had written the exact same order listing the exact same countries there would have been no problem with it. none.
bottom line - the constitution, like the truth, doesn't give a shit about your feelings. not even a little bit.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
This is not going to be easy for either party.
easy peasy for our side rog.
there are 10 democrat senators up for re-election in states won BIGLY by trump.
10.
and they all want to keep that cushy gig. you know what that means, dontcha?
yeah, even if mcpappy is meeting his maker and flake wants to be an asshole, one of them plus a pence tie breaker gets it done.
hey, just think of all this winning bigly as payback for 8 long torturous years of getting fucked with on a daily basis by 0linsky. we didn't, riot, 'resist', go after democrats in public places or any of that.
we simply waited.
and if trump gets good advice from his staff, doesn't over-reach and plays his cards right, he could set liberalism back at least 50 years. perhaps more.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Chris Matthews is more emotional about this nomination than he has been before.
yeah, i watched his segment with willie brown's side piece. hilarious. please nominate her as your presidential candidate in 2020. please.
that woman is as dumb as a bag of fucking hammers.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
the law "should be" in their own minds.
Interracial marriage
Gay marriage
Punishment for women who have an abortion.
President Pocahontas in 2020.
Or Harris of California.
You're as dumb as a 12 pack of beer. PBR
My guess.
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. A former justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Sykes was part of a legal movement that helped set in motion a conservative transformation of the judiciary in her home state.
Sykes was confirmed to the 7th Circuit in 2004 and was reportedly on Bush’s Supreme Court short list if a vacancy emerged in the last couple of years of his second term. On the appeals court, she issued a decision compelling a state-run university to recognize a Christian legal group as an official school organization even though the group banned leaders engaged in homosexuality or "fornication."
Sykes also voted to reinstate Wisconsin’s voter ID law just eight weeks before the 2014 general election. The Supreme Court reversed that decision by a 6-3 vote, but the justices allowed the law to take effect once that election was complete.
fauxcohantas in 2020?
go for it. her fake indian claim will get her laughed out of the race before it begins. and her CFPB? just got ruled UNconstitutional.
yeah, run her rog. puh-leeze run her.
and as far as willie brown's side piece kameltoe harris is concerned, there may be no lesser light in the senate right now than her. what she was saying last night on 'softball' was so imbecilic i don't know how mathews kept a straight face. i really and truly don't.
anyway...
rather than gloat, our side needs to prepare for war. your side has made it all too clear that it's coming and we need to take the threat seriously. steve scalise, et. al. was our wake up call. you fucksticks are going completely off the rails and the media is egging you on.
but just remember, my side is sitting on at least 350M guns and 1 TRILLION rounds of ammo.
The difficulty is the fact that if McConnell wasn't a Republican hypocrite the confirmation process would not be completed until after the election.
Uh no Roger, the Biden rule is only applicable during presidential election years.
You fucks started this shit and we are going to finish it.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
so what you're saying is that you are so triggered you have resorted to citing cases that have absolutely no relevance today.
good for you, alky.
You fucks started this shit and we are going to finish it.
precisely.
as 0linsky's preacher liked to say: america's chickens, are coming home to roost.
paybacks are a bitch, alky. and in the context of the USSC, ted kennedy and what he and the democrats did to robert bork is your original sin. you are going to be made to pay for that one hundredfold. as you should.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My guess.
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
listen up folks - here's roger's prediction.
you know what to do. bet the farm against it.
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/WiredSources/status/1012080160881938432”>Roger, your side was warned</a>
Shit
you were warned
fauxcohantas in 2020?
go for it. her fake indian claim will get her laughed out of the race before it begins. and her CFPB? just got ruled UNconstitutional.
yeah, run her rog. puh-leeze run her.
and as far as willie brown's side piece kameltoe harris is concerned, there may be no lesser light in the senate right now than her. what she was saying last night on 'softball' was so imbecilic i don't know how mathews kept a straight face. i really and truly don't."
I agree, run um , he'll , dream Bigly, run um together as the Total Ticket.
Mitch Mcconnell in 2013 warns Harry Reid against changing filibuster rules: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." Credit Cali for reminding Alky.
Changing the rules of the game was a dumbshit idea.
Changing the rules of the game was a dumbshit idea.
i'm starting to understand the whole liberal academia "intersectionality" thingy.
what harry reid did was the "intersectionality" of stupidity and arrogance.
Exactly.
If a justice decides the case upon original intent he will decide what the law is upon what he thinks the law should be determined by his own belief of what was "on the mind" of the author of the law.
Actually no, Roger. Wrong again. But nice try.
A Justice should look first at the text of the law, determine based on text of the law what the law means.
If the law (for instance) gives the President the authority to ban the entry of any aliens or class of aliens that he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States...
then that is what the law means.
There is nothing in the law that suggests the President has to take into consideration past campaign statements. There is nothing in the law that refers to past behaviors of previous Presidents. There is nothing in the law that requires the President to prove his assertion to anyone else. There is nothing in the law that suggests a Judge or a Court of Justices has veto power over the President.
Any suggestions of any of the above is a Judge basically wanting to use their own personal judgement to amend, change, or otherwise invalidate what the law states.
It's really that simple Roger.
If you don't like the law, then you have your legislation change the law. If the legislation doesn't change the law it's because the American public did not vote for a legislative group what wants the law changed.
What has Liberals going full on Publicly Crazy?
Babies will Live!
Post a Comment