Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced that he would retire

[Xellos-_^]

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.
Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court.

Thank You Bernie and his supporters and Thank You Jill Stein and all voters who voted green in 2016.

[Ayato_kanzaki]

So that's now going to be 3 democrats and 6 republicans on the SC? That's some great future ahead for you guys...

[mangamuscle]

This could be a blessing in disguise. The thing is that the republicans already have a majority, with the caveat that Kennedy sometimes sided with the less conservative judges. With Trump's nomination the supreme court would be clinched for decades to come since the rest of the conservative judges are relatively young.

So where is the silver lining? Trump can no longer "rally the troops" saying he needs to control the senate to nominate a new judge, so many republicans will probably not vote in the November election and if the economy goes south*, some might even vote for the democrats.

*Today the dow jones started with the rally but is now more than a hundred points in negative territory and since trump has been saying the economy behavior is ALL thanks to him, he will be getting blame sooner rather than later as this negative Spiral continues.

[Ithekro]

They'll probably try to delay any new appointments until the new congress comes in in January.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They'll probably try to delay any new appointments until the new congress comes in in January.

not a chance, McConnell isn't stupid. He and Trump will rush this through while they still got the votes in the senate. Only chance the a new senate gets a vote on this if the the republican keep the senate majority after the mid-terms

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They'll probably try to delay any new appointments until the new congress comes in in January.

The démocrates might try to do what the republican did to Obama but they can't do it.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

So where is the silver lining? Trump can no longer "rally the troops" saying he needs to control the senate to nominate a new judge, so many republicans will probably not vote in the November election and if the economy goes south*, some might even vote for the democrats.

BS. If they're troops he can "rally" for a judge, there's absolutely ZERO chance they vote democrat.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They'll probably try to delay any new appointments until the new congress comes in in January.

Yes, the people who stole a prior seat will choose to possibly lose the ability to appoint this seat. That's 100% logical and in-line with their past actions.

Originally Posted by Ayato_kanzaki

So that's now going to be 3 democrats and 6 republicans on the SC? That's some great future ahead for you guys...

He's a conservative purposely retiring before the GOP possibly loses the ability to name his replacement. All that will happen is his seat goes from sometimes moderate to radical right-wing.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GDB

BS. If they're troops he can "rally" for a judge, there's absolutely ZERO chance they vote democrat.

People vote with their wallet, that is why Obama won, because Bush tanked the economy. Also, republicans help a lot if they do not vote, you can't win elections if your "base" stays home and this is the first time in many decades I have heard many long time republicans abandoning the GOP, some of them going as far as saying they will vote democrat.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

People vote with their wallet, that is why Obama won, because Bush tanked the economy. Also, republicans help a lot if they do not vote, you can't win elections if your "base" stays home and this is the first time in many decades I have heard many long time republicans abandoning the GOP, some of them going as far as saying they will vote democrat.

heard the same thing in 2016

believed it when i see it.

Democrat should concentrate on getting the vote out not trying to convert trump voter. Personally i wouldn't even bother mitigating trump's damage to them. They made their choice, let them live with it.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

heard the same thing in 2016

Back in 2016 the usa economy was fine, when I said that "they vote with their wallets" I mean to say that whenever the economy is bad, whoever is in office is held responsible and voted out/against.

Democrat should concentrate on getting the vote out not trying to convert trump voter.

I any election cycle voter conversion is unlikely at best. But there are two types of so called "trump voters":

1) People that have voted republican most of their life (or at least, have never voted democrat).
2) Independents and disenfranchised democrats. People that thought trump was reagan 2.0 (but, no, it was me, Dio ... I mean Nixon 2.0) and decided to take their chances. Many of them no doubt are regretting their decision and at least will not support the party of trump next november. I expect many "surprises" in many places where "trump won by double digits".

[Archon_Wing]

Well, sad to see the GOP's scummy tactics paying off, hopefully it won't be long before they get their comeuppance.

On the other hand it didn't seem like Gorsuch was too bad and was more the less the same as Scalia that he replaced. https://www.businessinsider.de/gorsu...18-4?r=US&IR=T

[mangamuscle]

There is also a small possibility that Trump disregards the list of possible candidates to replace kennedy, emboldened by the victory of the candidates he supported and fearful of the muller investigation and chooses to nominate a cronie of him, someone he knows is loyal to him and/or he has some dirt on said person just in case.

Then some GOP senators would have a reason to vote against the nomination. I know, this is a Batman gambit "Will trump be so boneheaded as to nominate someone lacking the minimum credentials?"

[GDB]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

emboldened by the victory of the candidates he supported

He's supported candidates that won?

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I know, this is a Batman gambit "Will trump be so boneheaded as to nominate someone lacking the minimum credentials?"

He's done it multiple times with his cabinet, but the GOP pushed them through anyway.

[Applehell]

Originally Posted by Ayato_kanzaki

So that's now going to be 3 democrats and 6 republicans on the SC? That's some great future ahead for you guys...

Not quite. It will still be 5-4 since Kennedy was Conservative who occasionally sided with Liberals on major social issues. But now it might be a solid 5-4 depending how Robert feels. Despite his leanings he's always wanted to at least the image of SC being impartial.

I think the ACA (which Roberts saved), gay rights and possible Roe v Wade (with carve outs) might be safe on precedent. The Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action on the other hand...

Frankly the only few things that will delay a SCOTUS pick is Mueller coming out with extremely damaging evidence and conclusions in his report this fall which the GOP can't ignore or something happening to Trump.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss Affirmative Action, though I don't think they'd go that far to disenfranchise people that blatantly. Though taking action against what they're already doing by gerrymandering something seems to have been supported heavily.

I'd settle for a justice that just makes a deadlock. The court's been steadily increasing its powers over the years especially starting with Nixon and it has led the government being able to justify anything over a few things (commerce clause, etc)

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GDB

He's supported candidates that won?

The people he recntly supported won the GOP candidacy, whether those candidates win in the november election is yet to be seen, but it is plain for everyone to see trump gloating atm.

He's done it multiple times with his cabinet, but the GOP pushed them through anyway.

Goursch did have the proper credentials, but back then trump had just been sworn into the white house and he thought he could make comey plead loyalty to him and end the investigation into Russia.

Since then trump has been more eager to flat out ignore suggestions from people who know better, increasingly frustrated over getting no wins to brag about, I am really surprised how little comment his north korea nothing burger (which he sold the public as a win-win situation) has been given:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...how/741015002/

[SeijiSensei]

it's important to remember that the result of Kennedy's departure will be to make John Roberts the "median" or "swing" justice. No matter how right-wing the nominee, Trump can only move the Court as far right as Roberts this time around. I heard Elizabeth Warren say the choice is between Kennedy and the presumably much more conservative future nominee. That makes for good politics, but it's not the right way to think about this choice. The real choice is between a Court with Roberts as the median versus a Court where decisions fall somewhere between the positions of Roberts and the most conservative Democratic-appointee, Stephen Breyer.

Yes, Trump could get another vacancy (RBG being the most likely) and could displace Roberts as the median with someone even more conservative like Gorsuch or Alito.

Roberts has voted more conservatively over time than Kennedy, but Kennedy's votes this year have been pretty similar to Roberts. Here are a couple of good articles on these issues from FiveThirtyEight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...swing-justice/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-scotus-term/

The second article gives the pairwise rates of concurrence among the Justices. Not only do Kennedy and Roberts vote together 91% of the time, they also both voted with the Democratic appointees about 70% of the time. In that sense replacing Kennedy with Roberts might not be as big a deal as it seems. However Roberts did not sign on to Kennedy's gay-marriage decision and wrote the main dissent, agreed to by Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is less supportive of abortion rights as well.

[Toukairin]

I'm surprised that no one pointed it out here, but it looks like Kennedy and Trump go way back.

Inside the White House’s Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening (New York Times)

Dunno about you, but this whole retirement thing really stinks something else IMHO.

[monir]

Hah. Trump delivers another very important promise to those Evangelical voters. Not only the Dems will have any powers to stop the nomination process, few of the Dem senators from those red states will have no other choice but vote with the Repubs to nominate the eventual Trump pick.

[Key Board]

We know realize that someone retiring or dying at a certain moment can completely flip check and balances
and the last 3 SCOTUS, and upcoming 4th are picked by Presidents with contested elections
Totally normal country, right