Why are we even talking about this? It's an election year, and Mitch is presumably still committed to his rule that the replacement of justices does not happen in an election year. Full stop. Done.
1
Finally, with a solidly conservative Supreme Court, we will be able to prevent and reverse some of the damage liberalism has done to this country. And guess what???...there's not a single thing progressives can do about it.
The "nuclear option" is oh-so-nuclear. Had Democrats been a little smarter--and not decided to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination, they might have had a little stopping power. But all they can do now, is watch--as McConnell liberal-proofs the court for another 2 generations. And when Ginsberg moves aside--we can watch it all over again.
For all liberals out there--now you know the angst we Conservatives felt--when you shoved ObamaCare up our noses--and all we could do was grit our teeth.
16
How narrow minded we are .. just wait until you need medical coverage and cannot afford it. You might be singing a different tune then. This country taken over by overtly manipulative folks who are billionaires on the backs of others have forgotten the social contract.
10
O Lord Jesse: The ACA. Affordable health care with a minimum standard for quality. No denial for preexisting conditions. The ability to change jobs without losing health care insurance. No catastrophic premium increase for chronic illness. Nationalize the risk pool to keep it affordable. Terrible. Squash it and let the corporations manage health care. Sorry about your nose!
Yeah. Really dumb to try to give more folks healthcare. The nerve!
In the recent Wayfair opinion, Roberts dissented (joining Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, incidentally, opposing a "majority" consisting of Ginsburg, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito and Kennedy) – principally (Roberts said) because he didn't think the case was compelling enough to warrant reversing a long-established precedent (Quill, which had been around since 1992).
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin thinks (and I agree) that the same thinking will technically "preserve" Roe v. Wade (though Roberts presumably will be part of the majority there). Toobin predicts (and I agree) that Roe will be effectively "reversed," but that the reversal will happen gradually, as various new and existing state laws are challenged and found to be "consistent" with Roe. Only after several decades, Toobin predicts (and I agree) will anyone formally acknowledge that "Roe is dead," but that will have happened long before it's formally acknowledged.
"It's time we stop buying any product from Mr. McConnell's home state."
That would be Kentucky -- do they make anything there?
Actually, they do. Kentucky has the largest Toyota plant in the world (at least outside Japan), and is otherwise known for horses and bourbon. If someone doesn't own a Toyota, and doesn't ride horses or drink bourbon, has he done his part?
1
Many states agreed with you:
"It makes no sense whatsoever to have this stupidly malapportioned body [the US Senate] vet federal appointments and treaties. ... It leaves these matters in the hands of the most ignorant voters in the US."
Many states once had voter-tests to weed out "ignorant voters" (or candidates). For example, some states would require a would-be voter-registrant to recite the US Constitution (I once saw this scene in a movie, and so it must be true), and refuse to register the person if he or she could not. The Supreme Court ruled, long ago, that this was unConstitutional, and I seriously doubt that ruling will ever by reversed -- no matter how much this commenter might like to see that happen.
2
My letter to Marco Rubio:
Hon Senator Rubio,
In the last year of Obama's presidency, Justice Scalia passed away creating an open seat which was his option to fill. Mitch McConnell decide to change the rules to declare there will not be any confirmation hearings until after the election.
Now that a republican sits in the White House he declares his prior rule to be null and void, calling into question his integrity and the integrity of the GOP controlled senate.
Is the new "rule" in the Senate now that there are no rules?
Since my letter would not fit the comments you can read and share entire letter on my blog.
http://joethevoter.org/index.php/rubio-honor-the-mcconnell-rule
2
I certainly didn't notice this:
"Why couldn't the Democrats use this ridiculous amount of energy to combat Trump's stupid tax plan? They ... rolled over and caved."
The Democrats did try to stop Trump's tax plan. They tried quite hard, in fact, but obviously didn't succeed. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Both houses passed the tax bill, Trump signed it, and that was that. There wasn't a whole lot the Democrats could have done, but they certainly tried their best.
2
Democrats feebly claimed the tax plan was bad because it "helped the rich". Theirs was an argument for partisans predisposed to oppose anything that helps the rich but weak in the face of obviously lowered tax rates. In the end, a $2K tax credit per child was a gift to middle class parents that couldn't be kept under wraps.
1
Wait until the wailing builds when the people see that cutting taxes on corporations raised them on people, for nothing more than greedy managements to cash in.
2
Trump has been able to change not only the Supreme Court but the must of the lower courts as well.
Trump is the Democrat's creation -- they forgot their role of "Party of the people" and back the working class and instead backed increased immigration plans that would lower label costs -- the very same position as the Koch brothers and big business.
3 years ago, Sanders agreed with Trump that we needed to limit immigration.
In July 2015 in a Vox interview, Candidate Sanders when asked about increasing immigration: 'Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”'
Meanwhile Clinton had received $675,000 for 3 talks from Goldman.
After the interview, Sanders was forced to back down: Democratic interests now aligned with big business including the Koch brothers. The Democrats wanted lower wages. Only Trump was left to protect working class interests.
Sanders interview:
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
It is precisely because the Democrats aligned their interests with the Koch brothers (Sanders words) that they lost to Trump.
I have not seen anything to demonstrate that Democrats learned from the experience and back Sander's July 2015 thoughts.
2
"If your 92 YO grandma wants to go to the store- would you let her drive? Well that's how old Sen. Feinstein will be when she finishes her upcoming term."
Nearly everyone expects (as I do) that Feinstein will win re-election, but many Californians expect that she will step aside early (or die) and let CA's then-governor (almost certainly Gavin Newsom) appoint a replacement, probably Tom Steyer.
If that happens, Tom Steyer (who's eminently qualified) obviously will lose Feinstein's seniority, but he'll get more and more of that each day he's on the job. (Besides, I haven't noticed that Feinstein has made effective use of her seniority – at least not in any way that benefits her constituents here in CA.)
And getting re-elected (or elected, technically, since he will have been appointed) won't be difficult for Tom Steyer. He's got plenty of money to fund his own campaign (as the Democratic Party undoubtedly will ask him to do, thus saving party money for less well-heeled Democratic candidates), and he'll have the advantage of incumbency. And, finally, the odds that he'd be face a serious Republican threat are virtually nil in CA.
I have no idea whether this is actually the DP plan for CA's second Senate seat (Kamala Harris holds the first, and that's not likely to change any time soon). If that is the plan, though, it's not a bad one.
The United States is already dangerously close to a Constitutional Crisis, with a President that has little respect for the Rule of Law, evidenced by his assertions that he can Pardone himself, plus his attacks on the FBI and the DOJ, with the help of his Party. Now with the retirement of Justice Kennedy, a moderate Republican (social liberal, fiscal conservative) we have taken another step closer to that crisis occurring. If a Trump Justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, by the Republican Senate, the Court will become a Rubber Stamp of approval for Reactionary Conservatism. The United States is already more a Plutocracy, (a government where the wealthy class rules), than a Democracy. Many of the SCOTUS decisions against collective bargaining and funding of Election campaigns, which Justice Kennedy voted on insursed it. The Tax Reform Act, made it even more profiable to be a wealthy. Throw in the Electoral College, and you get Minority Rule, for the most powerful office in the land. The only way I can see to change it, is to convene a Constitutional Convention. No easy task and without any predictable outcome. Unfortunately, the Republicans, their wealthy supporters with the assistance of a foriegn power are putting "We the People" in a box we may never be able to escape from in our lifetimes. Illusions of fair play and concern for all, not just wealthy Americans, is fading unless Republicans start putting our Country ahead of Party, in the forefront of their minds.
1
It's time we stop buying any product from Mr. McConnell's home state. We probably should have done so as soon as he refused to act on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination.
This is such a waste of time! Why couldn't the Democrats use this ridiculous amount of energy to combat Trump's stupid tax plan? They had a better chance fighting and winning that - instead they rolled over and caved. Now they are Lord of the Rings style preparing for a major battle they can't possibly win. The party is old and frail and making horrible decisions. If your 92 YO grandma wants to go to the store- would you let her drive? Well that's how old Sen. Feinstein will be when she finishes her upcoming term. We berate old people when they drive- but have no problem handing them the keys to the stewardship of our country. The party is doomed..
I find it incomprehensible that Justice Kennedy might condescend to retiring in order to give Trump further power to destroy our Democracy for generations.
The principle that the SCOTUS should be a balanced, independent branch of Government has long been a stalwart of our Democracy. In this age of narcissistic authoritarianism and pathologic partisan cult following, I would have thought that Kennedy, if indeed he has the option, would have done everything within his power to preserve the balance of the Court, and not to make it yet another arm of Trumpian politics.
I am extremely disappointed in this apparent move on Kennedy's part. It would be of great value both now and in the future to have him state exactly why he is retiring now and what he perceives as the consequence thereof. Should partisan politics or narcissistic Trumpian flattery have played a role, then we will know, without a doubt, that OUR SCOTUS is not and has not been impartial as a defender of the Constitution that would bind this Democracy.
I am concerned that present patterns resemble those of pre-war Germany during Nazi takeover. We know what the outcome was there and this planet cannot be subject to another such holocaust.
1
Based on the puppet-masters guiding Trump to install their vision of America, the country is broken and all that needs to be done to MAGA, is keeping brown people out (what about the wall on Canadian border??), make abortion illegal, stop the mamby pamby tree huggers from throttling the excretion of heat and solvents into the environment, build a gated community around the USA to keep "furners" from selling us the stuff we want, and establish Christianity as the official sponsor of America. Then all will be well. I suppose just as the communists figured out eventually they were wrong, the alpha male right wing holier than thou crowd may take a while to figure out they were wrong as well.
2
The Democrats will do what they do - publically assassinate the character of any nominee that is not a leftie. The lefties seem to want a Supreme Lefty Counsel that will dispose of select Constitutional principals so the lefties don't have to bother with the law making and/or amending process. That's right they want the so-called "oligarchy." Its called projection and its plain to see the lefties "accuse them of that which you are doing" strategy - right out of the socialist radical playbook.
Justice Kennedy purposefully laid down his position to Trump because Trump is about to save the Court and perhaps the country from the socialist radicals - for now. The lefties cannot stop Trump's nomination because when they were in power they disposed of all the minority safeguards in the Senate so Obama could ram through all his leftie judges that are currently trying to subvert the Constitution and stop Trump from securing the border. In addition to no border security (i.e. abolish ICE) they want your money, your stuff, empty jails, protected classes, and to punish America with a crushing end to the merit based reward system. Just my observations. Happy to have any sane or even quasi-patriotic lefties back on team reason. Pardon the troll, but Trump 2020.
2
Whats up with you and the word lefties? Seems like you’re obsessed.
1
Thank God for Donald Trump. Make America Great Again. Now, Please retire Ruth Ginsberg.
3
I would suggest to every woman of child bearing age that the most important thing they should do is go out now and get a supply of the abortion pills, legally or illegally. You really can't rely on anyone but yourselves to protect your rights. Then go out and vote in every election.
2
What an unfortunate series of events. Democrats decided to do battle from day one with Trumpy...just because he won on a republican ticket. He really is the farthest thing from a conservative. If a middle of the road Dem sided up to him early on, this would not be the scary event the NYT is portraying. Too bad. Maybe they will learn for his second term.
1
Second term? Perhaps behind bars.
1
The filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was originally established so senators could not impose the "tyranny of the simple majority" upon out nation when the monumental question of how our Constitution is interpreted and enforced was at stake. The concept is similar to how our Constitution can be amended in that the Congressional role requires a 2/3 majority of BOTH Houses. Decisions that fundamentally alter how we Americans live our lives should never be decided by simple majority, and the Founding Fathers knew this well (which is why even the smallest state has 2 senators, equal to the largest whereas in the House proportional representation holds sway). IN ANY EVENT, the rules were destroyed these past 2 years, first in denying a sitting president the right to nominate and then by allowing a simple majority to confirm. Added to this is a president under criminal investigation and what we have is a disaster for our freedom and liberty. How to stop it under current rules I know not how BUT should the voice of 50%+ of Americans be ignored in this process then I don't think it's an overstatement to conclude that a genuine and profound Constitutional crisis is upon us. NO ONE will ever convince me that Justices chosen under these vile and contemptuous set of DICTATES should be honored by those of us who realize that our freedom and liberty is being hijacked by a set of fascist-minded Republicans who will stop at nothing for the sake of power and money and NOTHING MORE.
1
The only way there was any credibility to Senate apportionment vis a vis federal appointments was to give each senator a veto. That is where the filibuster came from.
Once again: we are witnessing and participating in a coup against our system of democratic government, by a President who was elected by collusion with a foreign power. It doesn't get more serious than this.
All Americans should protest, at the Red Hen, at the voting booth, and in the streets against this take over of our government but grifters, traitors, and racists.
I wish, how I wish, this was an overstatement.
1
53% of white women voted for Trump. Well now, when your daughter, niece etc needs an abortion after sleeping with "the wrong guy"...enjoy the expense of sending her out of the country for an abortion. Hypocrites!
To be fair, most of those women were beyond child-bearing age.
Mitch McConnell stole the SCOTUS seat from Obama; the Democrats should return the favor. McConnell is a thief.
2
The US is rapidly becoming even more of a dystopian hellscape than it already is. The worst country in the Western world is about to get even worse. What is striking about this is that all of the conditions necessary for violent political confrontation and revolution are slowly being put into place. The "new gilded age" that the GOP and its backers (including the Supreme Court) are determined to maintain will lead, over time, to more extreme and, potentially, violent political and social responses from the people left behind. The continuing lie of the "American dream" will cause disillusioned and disenfranchised people to strike back. We have seen some of this in the rise of Trump, illustrating the way that right wing extremism can manifest. But it is likely this will lead to an equal response on the left. This story has played out many times before. It's just a shame that ultra-conservatives and their powerful backers are so foolish as to think they can keep sucking all the wealth and power out of a society without there, eventually, being consequences. In the 20th century, capitalists were smart enough (at least in some tellings) to understand these realities and make compromises (though FDR had to fight for the early form of the US welfare state). Today, they seem to think that the fact they control all the levers of power means they have impunity. I suspect the truth is somewhat messier than that.
1
Dems will cave like they always do. This time it will be tragic.
1
It might be prudent to pull some of Scott Pruitt’s security detail and reassign them to Susan Collins. Team Anti-Abortion has proven time and again they will not stop at bloodshed to shut down legal abortion. Egged on by inflammatory rhetoric, the easy availability of firearms, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the unhinged self-proclaimed saviors of the ‘unborn’ are not about to let Sen. Collins stand in the way of their dream of a knee-deep utopia of squealing, giggling, healthy, happy babies.
I wish the NYT would make it clear (like all caps clear) that the Republicans have the majority and the ‘war’ is within their own party. Liberals can make a lot of noise (I hope they will) and organize a lot of protests (which I’ll be happy to attend); however, the New York Times is AGAIN allowing Republicans/Trump to control the zeitgeist. Republicans have enough players to field a team. If they’re concerned they can’t put up the numbers, they can’t blame the opposing team’s fans in the stands.
Also, memo to Justice Kennedy: if you allowed DJT’s handlers to talk you into this move at this particular moment to preserve your legacy, be advised the first line in your obituary will contain the words Donald Trump. Like so many others he has tainted, he has insinuated himself into the very fabric of anyone within whom he comes in contact. You can’t wash out that spot. And like a blemish on the face of an otherwise beautiful woman, the eye is drawn to the flaw and all else fades.
2
With a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, they could increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 11 or 13, and thus nullifying the GOP majority on the bench. The Constitution does not specify the number of judges that can be appointed to the Supreme Court.
1
Republicans have an immediate opportunity to set up the Supreme Court to make another "Deed-Scot" decision by overturning Roe v. Wade, and it will be entirely on their own heads. The latest Pew Research info places such a decision entirely out of the mainstream of American public opinion in every demographic and religious group except White Evangelical Protestant, America's equivalent to the Taliban. Such a move would be political suicide for generations to come. Let's hope they are that ideologically blind.
Oh goody! The Dems hold yet another press conference to voice their whimpy outrage (as politely as possible, etc). These people are completely useless to the citizens, and will be able to do exactly what they've been doing for the last 20 years; failing to do anything meaningful at all.
2
The sudden burst of urgency from the Democrats reminds me of the futile, but furious garbage time comeback by the Dallas Cowboys after two quick fourth quarter touchdowns by their archrival Pittsburgh Steelers put Super Bowl XIII out of reach. The Democrats are in this position because they lacked the ideological purity, campaign discipline, messaging, focus and dedication of the Republicans in the 2016 elections. Now that the game has been lost, Democrats are ready to fan out across the land as avenging, liberal warriors! They should use the threat posed by President Trump’s impending Supreme Court pick to register as many Democrats as possible for the upcoming midterm elections . However, if they primarily focus on social issues, like I fear they will, the best they can hope for is to rally people already inclined to vote Democrat. As the Ocasio-Cortez primary upset in New York’s 14th U.S. congressional district proved, there are millions of available voters, many of them new, who are suffering despite the fact that they are either able-bodied and unemployed or working hard and not earning enough to live a comfortable life. The path back to majority status for Democrats is through this economic justice issue and these voters, not through the social issues.
1
The dream we're going to survive Trump's first four years in OK shape is dying death by a thousand cuts. It started before his election, with the hijacking of Obama's right to get a hearing on Garland's nomination in yet another proof that the GOP will violate any norm of ethical behavior to maintain its hegemony. Yet even this ignoble performance isn't enough to satisfy a president who's picky about about which rules need be obeyed and by whom. Above all, he feels rules don't apply to him unless he can twist them to win the zero sum game he's playing at the moment. If he can't use the rules to win, he whines the game is rigged against him. The GOP has elected a corrupt, petulant, narcissistic child to lead America and with each outrage they love him more. His latest victory lap, granted him by Mitch McConnell and Justice Kennedy, will start with a loud, doomed bit of political theater in which frustrated but impotent Dems will gnash teeth, sputter outrage and accomplish nothing except to increase muttering among the base (on both sides) about how vital the coming midterms will be. Meanwhile SCOTUS lurches sharply rightward for the next thirty years. I believe Trump aspires to be an American version of the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte with a big helping of Italy's Silvio Berlusconi mixed in. Bob Mueller better work fast and back up his hard drives - while the rest of us need to get out and vote in November. Last chance people - to delay the end of the American Century.
2
The court has become the third and maximum house of the national legislature. It is not a court of law, it is the Supreme Legislative House of the United States.
To imagine there is anything we can do on the liberal/Democratic side of the political dividing line in our new civil war in this nation is to see fairies, believe in pixies, imagine there is nice in politics.
They have the numbers. Even minus John McCain, they have 50 + 1 (the + 1 being Pence). To imagine that Senators Collins and Murkowski will vote against the White House nominee is to believe in fairy dust. Collins is a Jezebel, Murkowski a dealer. The three most vulnerable Democratic senators until now got a pass from me and any sensible Democrat, who understands we can't retake the Senate without them.
So Joe Mancin in particular, as far as I have been concerned to now, gets a pass on anything he has to do to be reelected.
But not on this. If they get their one more seat on the Supreme Legislative Chamber then it really won't matter who controls the U.S. Senate because they will be able to pass laws through the so-called United States Supreme Court and to change and bend any laws to the liking of the extreme right even as the nation moves left in the next 20 years.
No Polly Anna, there is no conceivable way to stop this, the numbers are not there.
"If they can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current president, as well."
It is unlikely Democrats and liberals will be in a position to demand anything without the support of the largest group of voters - independents. But even if they do it is ludicrous to think they will get Trump to moderate his pick. He will dig in and go into even deeper temper tantrums than he does now.
Democrats, get your collective heads out of the sand!
1
Obviously, Mr. Mueller needs to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump before July 31. And we all need to demand an urgent and thorough investigation into Russian election meddling and how to stop it. Who among us thinks the traitors in the White House (and Capitol Hill?) would stand by and allow us to vote them out?
3
"I've always been a Democrat, but this makes me long for a viable third party."
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, a "viable third party" would merely split the vote and often guarantee Republican wins. And, eventually, one of the "split" parties would disappear.
This has happened in other countries. Remember the Liberal Party in Great Britain?
1
Remind me when President Obama at any crucial moment in his two terms was able to summon three willing Republican senators to the White House in order to bend them to his will. And this gang of three dutifully attended the dinner even BEFORE TRUMP HAD NOMINATED ANYONE.
By accepting that invitation, senators Heitkamp, Manchin, and Donnelly have already demonstrated that they are inclined to surrender without a fight to the Republican take-over of the Supreme Court. And that surrender will sink the attempts of their colleagues to delay the confirmation process until after the election when there is at least the possibility that their party will regain the Senate.
Once again the Democratic party demonstrates its self-destructive weakness in the face of a superior Republican will to impose its regressive vision of America on the country.
It only took three days for the white flag to go up!! Shameful that the gang of three had no compunction about accepting Trump's invitation before the ink on Kennedy's retirement papers had even dried.
1
Trump told the American public that the system was rigged. His implication was that it was rigged against him and his supporters. Some would argue that was simply projection, because like many of his accusations, he was telegraphing what he already knew of the Russian active measures campaign. Before Anthony Kennedy's announcement, we discover the Trump's waged their own active measures campaign to get Kennedy to retire by using Trump's golden girl and his smooth son-in-law to convince the judge to make his announcement. Assuring him that this replacement was in excellent hands. But more problematic, the fix was steady in with Kennedy when he first cast the decisive vote in Gore v. Bush, when he cast the decisive vote in Citizen United, when he cast the decisive vote in the Muslim Ban Decision, when he cast the decisive vote in the public sector union case. Did Trump promise him his cherishex decision in the same-sex marriage decision was safe? If he did, Anthony Kennedy, the good Catholic alter boy, is in for a rude shock. Trump will get his appointment. His nominee will be to the right of Roger B. Taney and the Kochs will take us back to the age of Plessy. Doesn't the Federalist Society, a Koch front group, school their judges-in-waiting that Brown is not settled law? People who don't realize the importance of SCOTUS will soon discover its significance when our cherished rights are snatched away by right-wing ideologues in black robes.
2
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about." ---- President Obama to republicans who argued against his stimulus package.
Too bad Harry Reid didn't take his advice.
2
It would be political suicide for any Democratic senator to give in to voting for any of Trumps hard-line "conservative" nominees to the Supreme Court no matter how vulnerable any of the Democratic senator in any of the Red states that strongly voted for Trump may feel. There is a piece of history that gives rise to this assertion. Way back in the 80's, the then popular governor of North Carolina, Harvey Gant, was running a strong campaign against Senator Helms with a good change of actually defeting him. Then the battle for Vema Barfield for to be granted clemency from a death penalty arose. This hope for clemency was very strong among Democrats in the state for clemency and even had the backing of the Pope. Unfortunately, he gave in to the hand line death penalty advocates, and out of despair, a critical number of potential Democratic voters stayed home and Gant lost.
This lesson of history should not be lost on the Vulnerable senators in states up for reelection in states than went for Trump but heeded!
As a precaution, there should be 49 wahmbulances on standby outside the Senate Chamber the day of the confirmation vote.
When will we the people stand up and end this political nightmare of government? The fact is that the Judiciary Branch is supposed to be separate from the Executive Branch, so in order for democracy to truly be a checks and balances system of government the president should not be allowed to appoint any Federal Justices or Supreme Court Justices. Appointment of any judge should be by the vote of the people. And no judge should be allowed to sit on the bench for life. They should be voted out by the people if they are not performing their duties correctly. All judges should have term limits and have to be elected every four years as well. The system of checks and balances prevents one branch from gaining too much power. By allowing the president to appoint justices the entire concept is nullified.
Furthermore, no judge of any court should be allowed to lean in any political direction. A judge should only enforce the laws and the members of SCOTUS should only rule upon the constitutionality of a case or law. Many of the court’s decisions since its formation have been in the interest of political and personal views, not right and wrong or based upon the Constitution of the United States of America.
We need to take back our government and force them to abide by the wishes of the people and not special interests. The people who work for us need to learn they are nothing more than managers hired by us, and the only things they should be doing are what we demand.
2
"would shift the ideological balance of the court"
Seeking judges based on ideological balance is a corruption of the process.
We need to select judges who will follow, as best they can determine the intent those who ratified it into law understood it to have.
Many of the principals of progressivism are arguably not in the Constitution's original intent which focuses on equality of rights and not on equal outcomes. Rights in the Constitution dggf o not take the form of entitlements. Unfortunately judges are arguably often selected based on ideology to get around original intent by wrongly amending it through misinterpretation.
Things like general welfare spending which Madison claimed had to be directed at the list of enumerated powers that immediately followed get intetpreted be much broader.
1
So if the Mueller Investigation finds collusion between Trump, his campaign and Russia to subvert a free and fair election in 2016 along with other crimes, should the 2 justices nominated by trump and (presumably) confirmed by a republican senate be required to recuse themselves should the case go to the supreme court?
1
With all the money, delay tactics and political maneuvering there is one fact that is abundantly clear......the next justice assigned to the Supreme court will be a hard right Trump loyalist. The "game" is over before it begins.
The apocalyptic visions of so many posters herein reek of desperation.
Perhaps if Dems and the Left actually advocated policies that appealed to the nation as a whole instead of to just far-left urban areas you wouldn’t have to be concerned about the perceived ideological makeup of the SCOTUS.
3
Would Garland have been confirmed?
Partisans can debate till the cows come home about whether McConnell was warranted in blocking hearings and a vote on Garland. But suppose McConnell hadn't -- would it have mattered at all?
Of course not. Garland would never have been confirmed.
Remember: The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress when Obama nominated Garland. Garland needed 60 votes in the Senate, or 51 if McConnell had charitably eliminated the filibuster (which McConnell wouldn't have done, of course, but since we're pretending here anyway ...).
Would Garland's nomination have received 60 (or 51) "yes" votes?
Of course not. Holding hearings and a vote would have been an utter waste of time. That was obvious then and it's obvious now. Someone other than McConnell would have been blamed, but the result would have been exactly the same.
1
My hand goes up:
"Who is willing to pretend that the Supreme Court is anything but an extension of the political parties?"
Many key Court rulings indeed have been "political" -- the usual "blocs" being the Democratic President appointees (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) and the Republican President appointees (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch), with Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) being the "swing vote" (but in fact ususlly siding with the conservative bloc).
But judicial cases make strange bedfellows. In last week's Wayfair decision, for example, here was the configuration:
Majority: Ginsburg, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kennedy.
Dissent: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor.
Ginsburg allied with Thomas and Gorsuch, and being the "swing vote?" It happens, apparently.
1
The Declaration of Independence, which we will celebrate in a few days, declares that every citizen shall have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness means economic freedom to be gainfully employed, hopefully in a job that does not prohibit ones ability to make a decent living wage.
The Republicans and their oligarch donors are making every attempt to deny you this right by following a course that puts most of the wealth in the hands of just one percent and greedy corporations.
The ultra conservatives on the Supreme Court have continued to take away your right to pursue happiness by many of its decisions, including the recent Janus case. Previously, they have denied workers rights to sue an unjust employer from firing them without cause.
Recent cases have denied workers' rights to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, by making workers sign agreements to negotiate only through company-provided panels.
The Republican party and its greedy oligarch donors have just one goal in mind: to keep a large percentage of its profits for the corporations and their stockholders, leaving the workers little to show for their labor. Corporations should not have the right to exclude the majority of the workers from their rights.
Corporations Are Not People, and their loathsome oligarch money is certainly not "free speech." Now workers must fight for their inalienable rights as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.
1
"“Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most important confirmation battle .... "
Ms. Nance would be well-advised to spend her time with women concerned for America. I grew up in 50s and 60s, and survived the cultural wars of the 60s and 70s only to live a "conservative" lifestyle. Trust me, Ms. Nance and your followers: you don't want to go back to those days. There is nothing for you to see in that there and then. It is past time to move on.
1
Until the President is officially cleared in the Muller investigation there can be NO vote on his Supreme Court appointments.
The President cannot be permitted to appoint justices who may be asked to decide his case.
It’s a clear conflict of interest.
1
It appears Trump played to Kennedy’s pride in suggesting his “ legacy” would be intact if he was able to appoint a successor. His legacy was contempt by the extreme right wing for his opinions on gay marriage and upholding Roe v Wade. Many of the right wing extremists were prepared to tar and feather him. Most recently, he has been doctrinaire in supporting the reversal of unions being able to collect fees to bargain for wages, benefits and working conditions; and allowing the President to discriminate openly and hostilely against the Muslim faith by banning them from coming here for asylum or to seek a better life.
In the end, Kennedy revealed himself to be a flawed Justice, a man more interested in his legacy as a conservative Republican than in sustaining our democratic norms and institutions. Sadly, Trump seduced Kennedy into resigning with a wee bit of flattery.
1
Until the President is cleared of wrongdoing in the Muller investigation there can be NO vote on Supreme Court appointments.
A President under investigation for stealing an election should not be permitted to nominate a justice who might decide his case.
2
Some tell us that the American government is a "government of laws, not of men"; but now, without any new amendments to the Constitution, they seem to be girding for a fight about who sits on the SCOTUS, exactly as if it were a government of men. Which is it?
3
The Court's decision on the rights of labor unions along with the departure of Justice Kennedy sets the stage for Trump to appoint another corporatist judge to the Court, thus ensuring corporate control of our entire government for well into the future. Ordinary citizens stand no chance of having effective recourse against the corporate bosses that now control our government. There is no finer face for this corporate take-over than Donald Trump.
I hope the new court will overturn Roe so that complacent democrats will finally wake up and smell the coffee. Perhaps women who are too young to have been around when abortion was illegal will then realize what it is like to live without that choice. May be then, the Supreme Court will finally be as important to them as it is to conservatives.
All women of childbearing age should see the movie Love With the Proper Stranger. In it Natalie Wood has an an abortion with the use of a hanger in some unclean facility. It represents a time not that long ago when women did not have the right to choose. Going back to those days should not be an option. It presents the power of certain people over the women’s body.
1
To all those Bernie women who were vocal when Bernie lost the primary and said you will never vote for Hillary well elections have consequences. A lot of the stuff being discussed would affect women. And ironically most women voted for Trump, at least most white women voted for Trump. The only women who don't have to worry about the high court affecting women's reproductive rights are women who live in states like where I am in New York, etc. where we have progressive laws protecting women. But if you live in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. then good luck. I'll probably see you on Fifth Avenue one day when you seek medical services here that no longer exists in your state. And if you're a poor woman who can't afford even the Greyhound bus then I truly feel sorry for you.
Democrats cannot just cross their fingers and hope a couple of sane (female) senators block Trump's anti-abortion rights nominee for a SCOTUS seat stolen by McConnell. The only realistic strategy is to stall the hearings -- which Trump and McConnell want to rush so that conservative voters will be even more supportive in the Nov. elections -- thus keeping SCOTUS deadlocked at a 4-4 tie on key decisions. Meanwhile, Democrats must return the electorate's attention back to life-and-death issues resulting from Trump's bullying, dictatorial power-grabs: his wannabe imitation of tsar Vlad, his neo-fascist pal he's meeting with very soon.
The push for a moderate justice should have begun before Justice Bader-Ginsburg was nominated. The precedent has been established with Pres. Obama's left wing activist choices and there is little reason to believe that Trump will take a different path.
2
Does it matter to anyone that this never happened?
""Remember, McConnell said that if a liberal was elected president he would hold the Supreme Court for 8 years if he had to."
The commenter who wrote this just made it up. McConnell never said it. He said quite the opposite: that whoever won -- Clinton or Trump -- would get to pick Scalia's replacement, just not Obama. If Clinton had won and McConnell hadn't followed through, critics of McConnell would have a valid point. Since Trump won, we'll never know, but I think McConnell would have honored his pledge.
And can we be "real" here for just a moment?
Suppose McConnell HAD held hearings, and a vote, on Garland's nomination. Is there any chance, any chance at all, that Garland's nomination would have been approved by the Republican-controlled Senate? Would Garland's supporters somehow managed to get 60 Senators to vote for Garland? Since we're fantasizing here, let's suppose McConnell had tried to help out the Democrats by changing Senate rules to prohibit a filibuster -- was there any chance that Garland's supporters could have mustered 51 votes in the Republican-controlled Senate?
Had McConnell gone through the motions, as many now say he should have, the result would have been exactly the same. Perhaps someone other than McConnell would be blamed, but the result would have been exactly the same.
3
I believe progressives would still be raging that the GOP thwarted poor Obama if Garland lost the vote. They have great difficulty accepting losses. That's when they start demanding that traditions like the electoral college be abolished, GOP members be "jailed", etc.
2
When Harry Reed and the Democrats proposed to abolish the Senate filibuster, Republicans warned them what would happen. Democrats are reaping what they sowed.
2
I'm NO fan of Trump, but-- there is no legal way for the Democrats to prevent the president from naming a justice to the supreme court, and I wouldn't want to see them do it. The Democrats do not hold the moral high ground on this. They did nothing to force the nomination of Merrick Garland, because they felt that Hillary Clinton would be able to nominate someone more liberal (or in the worst case, let Garland's nomination stand). That's how confident they were of her election. But, further from the high ground was Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the court. If Trump attempted this (he doesn't need to) there would be howls from all quarters. The Democrats DO sound like crybabies on this issue. I've always been a Democrat, but this makes me long for a viable third party.
4
The President is under investigation for stealing an election. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to vote on his appointments until he is completely cleared.
Until then, the president has a conflict of interest in appointing justices who might need to render decisions that impact his future.
Like Diogenes, I am seeking one honest and fair person among Republicans who will speak out against what Mitch McConnell has done, acknowledge the injustice and stand up for what is right. Do not confirm any nomination to replace Kennedy until Dems have a majority in the Senate.
Nomination and confirmation will come swiftly and certainly well before the Midterm Elections.
Protestations from the left will be for naught.
This is intensely a political undertaking in a hyper-partisan environment and it will only further exacerbate the profound divisions that cripple our national governance.
Nothing in the Times piece on who the power is behind whatever choice Trump makes — this needs to be revealed.
This effort by Democratic politicians is a waste of time. They can’t do what McConnell did because they are out of power. The Court is going to swing hard right.
What the Democrats ought to be doing is making a massive push to win back both houses of Congress and every statehouse and governorship, not by focusing on the Court, which few American pay attention to, but by focusing on immediate pocketbook issues, like the gutting of unions, the gutting of health care, the tariffs hurting Trump voters (farmers, manufacturing). If they win, they can enact a liberal legislative agenda that limits the damage a radically right wing Supreme Court can do. If, for example, every state passes a law protecting the right to abortion and gay marriage, we won’t need the Court to say either is a constitutional right that the states can’t infringe.
Further, the Supreme Court’s power is limited. Very few cases come before it. And if, as seems likely, Mueller produces evidence that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with Russia, the stink of illegitimacy will overwhelm his Court appointees. If he is illegitimate, they are illegitimate. A Democratic Congress can and should then impeach them all.
1
What I have gleaned from these comments is that if a liberal SC Justice is not nominated, a president should not be allowed to nominate any other type of justice except during the the two months after an election but never with 6-months of ANY election. Really? This is exactly why the SC should be constructionist jurors instead of activists- we, as a society, can’t continue to pick and choose which laws we like and only follow those.
2
There's a pattern here. Trump wins. Electoral college should be thrown out. It's "illegitimate". Liberals don't have majority on SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS should be abolished. It's "illegitimate". What can be said about a group of Americans who want to throw out any process that doesn't produce the results they want? You are right. We need *stable* constructionists to protect what they seek to destroy when it doesn't go their way.
President Trump has always followed just that model. no wonder he has been involved in over 3500 court cases over his notorious career.
pretty sure he'd like to nominate someone who will be both appealing to his base AND will guarantee in advance that when it hits the fan, the Court will decide Trump is allowed to pardon himself, his crones, and hiscousins by the dozens as well.
my bet of the moment, based on traditional Trump nepotism: his sister.
This fight cannot be won. It is sad and infuriating but the time to go to the mat on this was 2016 and Dems did not get it done.
Even if Collins and Murkowski are lured over, red-state Dems will have to support the pick to get re-elected to the Senate, and that is far more important right now. I fear Dems are going to make Manchin, Heidkamp and Connelly walk the plank in an unwinnable cause, and thus cost us the Senate for another 2 years.
Dems would be wise to talk all they want about this disaster, but the real fight needs to be in November.
1
As a woman from the solidly middle class who's been practicing federal law for the past 30+ years, I've always been aware that SCOTUS has never represented me during my lifetime, so I can only imagine how those even more "other" view it now. It's time to drop the myth of nonpolitical disinterest. While comprised of a majority while males of inherited wealth, its interest and bias has always been maintaining the current heirarchy, whenever it appears threatened. It has always been the most nationally political of government bodies, given it has no local constituency. Advances in civil rights occur only when the people are filled with rebellion, or the threat from the streets is viewed as greater than the threat from a change of law. Do we need to look back to more than the Anita Hill hearings? Everyone should calm down about Justice Kennedy's resignation. It will simply bring on more of the same. Public resistance is the means to advances in rights, not privileged white appointees.
1
Let's please drop the pretense that the Supreme Court is an actual court of law because it's not. It's just another political arm to carry out each party's agenda.
1
I can foresee a book about this period of history. It will be called Profiles in Cowardice, patterned after JFK's Profiles in Courage, and it will tell the stories of all the members of the Republican House and Senate who failed America when it mattered. The new Profile subjects will have similar stories--each one had an opportunity to step up and save our nation from downfall but instead chose party over country.
These are the times that try men's courage.
Comity in the Senate is dead thanks to Mitch McConnell and there is no use in pretending otherwise. So after Trump's new justice is appointed and the A.C.A. is suddenly found to be unconstitutional, the only solution will be the Democrats' eventually taking control of both houses and the White House, exercising the nuclear option and passing a Supreme Court-proof Medicare for all. The days of 60-vote majorities or getting Republican support for Democratic initiatives are over.
We have seen the end of civil politics United States as we have known it. It's now time to use McConnell's play book.
1
We already know that the court will reverse Roe Vs Wade and states will ban abortion, but unless Congress goes to the Democrats in November, I would not be surprised if we end up with a federal law banning abortions. Think of all the unwanted children born as a result of defunding Planned Parenthood. There will be plenty of future inmates to full up the private prisons.
A third of all abortions are of black children, your comment is totally racist and insensitive.
1
Coat hangers - bleach and back rooms will not see a return with the President's selection... as far as concerns on health issues ... Obamacare only survived by defining it as a tax.
Otherwise -- it is totally un-Constitutional .. Abortion is a cultural not a health issue.. Federal grab into the American
healthcare system in collusion with the Insurance industry and the medical profession itself has netted costly and
marginal success .. better is in the works.. The new judge will have matters to consider far beyond the opposition's fight focus.
We got what we deserved and apparently will get more of it.
We let the Electoral College, a vestige of the 18th Century, elect Presidents who lose the popular vote.
We let the Senate with its arcane rules and unrepresentative body obstruct one President and cow tow to another.
We elevated the role of preachers who hold prayer breakfasts in the White House and assist politicians in their efforts to deflect the peoples attention away from real issues of war and peace, economic justice and discrimination with retrograde social issues, like abortion.
We have insulted our allies and embraced our adversaries.
We have a small minded, know nothing President behaving like a petulant loud mouthed teenager, and half the country think its normal. Normal?
We shout We Are Number One? We are lucky if we are among the top 20.
3
Perhaps this idea has been brought up in previous comments: given his track record with his choice of Cabinet members, who's to say 45 won't select a mediocre, bigoted candidate? The Constitution has no specific qualifications for Supreme Court Justice. I doubt he's going to select from the suggested list of top judges. Most of his appointments are from spite to get a rise out of his opponents.
Battle? More like the President puts forth a nomination, the Dems will kick and scream (no matter who is put forth), then the Repubs will call for a vote, the justice will be nominated. Not much of a battle, maybe in the Dems' mind their be battling with themselves for finding themselves in this predicament so soon...again...
2
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” Mr. McConnell said.
To my knowledge, no one from either side had ever suggested before 2016 that the Senate should not process Supreme Court nominations in the president's final year in office. I said that.
I have many fears about who Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court, but I am most concerned about the fact that Trump ( his campaign, campaign operatives, and Trump's personal malfeasance - e.g. money laundering) is under investigation for wrong doing and Trump denies Russian meddling. An oath of loyalty to Trump or a judicial philosophy that places presidential powers on steroids ("I can pardon myself"), would be a horrific blow to the rule of law and to our country. To what end.
What battle? Seems like typical wishful thinking on part of the Times given the GOP has control of the Senate and House.
4
You always fight.
That Justin Kennedy worked in the mortgage backed securities division of Deutsche Bank, during the time period that Deutsche loaned the Trump Organization north of $400 million needs some serious sunlight. Why? Because Justin is the son of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the Citizen's United opinion, which opened the floodgates of corruption of our political system. This is the probable nexus of the Trump election, Deutsche loans to Trump, Deutsche's Russian money laundering, and the sale of the U.S. election of 2016.
2
that all soinds so paranoid...
I bet it's right.
Kennedy voted for destructive GOP policies, then pretended they were based in law.
Whatever "moderate" votes he cast are irrelevant. The new court will reverse anything decent. And we get to pay his pension too.....
What a guy!
1
So Kennedy's retirement was a strategy employed by the White House. SCOTUS now becomes a willing arm of the Trump administration in the take-over of America. Enjoy the rights you have now Americans--especially women--because a year from now you will have significantly fewer and less free space in which to live your life. If you have children and especially grandchildren, you will need to explain to them about the freedoms and choices that you used to have in your life and that they will not have in theirs. I'm not being dramatic. I'm being serious and realistic. We've been taken over and we're about to find out to what extent and by whom. Those who did not take Trump seriously three years ago--well you see how well that judgment has worked out for all of us.
1
As the saying goes - No more Mr. Nice Guy. No Trump Supreme Court Appointees.
1
If the current president had any honor, he would nominate Merrick Garland.
Which is why that will never happen.
The democrats are picking the wrong battle. They have no real argument (no, this isn't a Gorsuch situation). Those claiming it's the same thing are deluding themselves. What seems to be driving them is an angry leftwing that is demanding that they *fight*. This is the same group that is damaging democrats' prospects on a daily basis with its increasingly unstable attacks and behavior. Not an easy situation because democrats need their votes.
3
If the Democrats hold the line, you can forget them taking the Senate. For example, as a Hoosier there is zero chance Donnelly will be returned to Washington if he votes against the nominee. So it seems the Dems need to pick their poison.
The vitriolic comments here illustrate why the voters won't let the Democrats have nice things.
3
“Let?” From a recent editorial: In six of the last seven elections, most Americans have cast presidential votes for a Democrat. The vitriol is perfectly justifiable and long overdue to boil over. Be careful how you tread in these days of power, because the pendulum swings and you will eventually get your political noses rubbed in the mess you have left on the carpet.
1
we enjoyed 8 years of a pretty nice thing that your commrades daily tried to break; we could have had another nice presidency, but your commrades in Moscow wanted a puppet. they got one. enjoy, vlad.
1
This is so fun. Watching these dense democrats running around like children makes me so happy. Pretty much the main reason why I voted for Mr. Trump. More fun to come.
4
Absolutely zero self-awareness as to their complicity in anything.
NO judges or justices should be confirmed until the Mueller probe is complete. We must not allow a president who may be compromised by a hostile foreign power to potentially seed our judiciary with his tainted picks.
'Girds for battle'?
It's over. The Man Above the Law will appoint whomever he fancies.
1
Sen Collins and Sen. Murkowski have a chance to render the country a signal service by refusing to vote for a hard-right nominee. By insisting on a moderate, they will help to reduce the polarization of the country and ensure that this rudderless train composed of Trump and a packed conservative Court will not inflict more wounds to the body politic. They should consider how such a Court would deal with abortion rights, and what the removal of these rights would bring about in social unrest.
They should not listen to blandishments, and Sen. Collins should remember the unkept promises for her votes on the health and tax bills. With this vote, they could help to right the autocratic running of the Senate. They could bring about normal order in the drafting of bills. This is their chance to be a mover of history for which they would be remembered. Nothing that they will ever do will be so consequential.
2
Who is willing to pretend that the Supreme Court is anything but an extension of the political parties? The extremists in Congress want extremists on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, they would appoint Justices who think the Constitution is just a "suggestion" and would interpret it to further liberal and socialist agendas. There would be no foundation for our country and "legislation from the bench" would undue to balance intended by having three co-equal branches of government. If you don't like the constitution as it is written, there is a mechanism to change it, through the amendment process. To circumvent that process by legislating from the bench undermines the three co-equal branches of government, and allows the party currently in charge to run rough-shod over their opponents.
4
I have no doubt the confirmation of the next supreme court justice will be far more swift and speedy than the passing of the tax bill this past December. It seems that every time the GOP makes a decision, especially a major and greatly impacting decision, in record breaking time (not to mention in the dark of night) the results benefits them personally rather than the entire country collectively.
If this entire process was on the up and up, there would be no need for "conservative organizations [to plan] campaigns to support a speedy confirmation." I completely support Senator Tim Kaine's notion that the Senate "should not vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the American people vote in November." This notion should be a no brainer across the board.
7
I meant to add the following to my comment but hit the submit button by accident.
"While the American people are not allowed to vote for next Supreme Court Justice, I would hope at the very least we would be given the proper and due respect of casting our vote in November before this charade commences. Anything less is as insulting, disrespectful and wrong as being seated at a fancy dinner party only to have the waiter take your plate of food away before you were given the chance to eat what was on it.
1
So the new rule is that presidents can only nominate Supreme Court justices during their first and third years? This is what liberals do -- they want ignore the law when they don’t like it, and that is exactly why we need a court that is not activist.
The current climate in both DC and the nation scares the living daylights out of me.
I am reminded of the title of the Robert Redford film of 2013: "All Is Lost".
7
Interesting that Republicans almost always confirm Democrat presidents' supreme court nominations with only a handful of votes against them, yet Democrats almost always try to block any and all Republican supreme court nominees, no matter how well qualified they are. The abortion industry and other liberal special interest groups must have the Democrats on a pretty short leash.
4
Yeah, ask Merrick Garland how that process worked out for him.
Merrick Garland anyone? Facts please! Look them up before you claim something. And no, I won't do it for you, you made the claim...
Anthony Kennedy, you have betrayed your country by paving the way for a minority population of religious extremists to impose their beliefs on those of us who actually believe in the words "liberty and justice for all".
Thirty years down the drain,sir. Enjoy the destruction from wherever you'll be hiding out.
6
President Trump should do the right thing and nominate Garland.
2
If the Dems can't find a voice, literally, the country is in peril. I thought the three branches of government are supposed to be separate but equal.
5
Democrats have a voice. Problem for them is that much of the nation rejects what they’re saying.
With all due respect (emphasis on "due"), this is not the stupidest argument I've ever heard, but I'm having a very hard time remembering when I've heard a stupider one:
"... the best argument is that Trump should not be allowed to nominate a judge that will likely be ruling on the mueller investigation of trump."
I'll acknowledge that the commenter who posted this included a link for those who might want to learn more, but the argument strikes me as so absurd that -- forgive me -- I have no plans to click on that link.
4
Maybe if mueller has a clue to the immense significance the russian collusion has created a noose around the constitution and the rule of law- he will move faster than a sick goose to get info and indictments out that will show the scope of it all. Im sure he does know, but as we ate seeing republican after republican lay down for trump and tax cuts, one has to wonder.
"Conflict of interest" sounds stupid to you?
I would imagine that millions of thoughtful Americans lost sleep last night, not because of the possibility of another "conservative" judge on the Supreme Court, but rather because of a reactionary judge who will be "loyal" to the man occupying the White House, no matter what ... even indictment for crimes against America.
It was revolting to watch a few radical extremist Tea Party members question the integrity of Rod Rosenstein yesterday, insulting him, yelling at him.
It is time to end their odious reign of mean and yes, stupid. They are tearing down the fabric of our democracy.
What we needed yesterday was a Joseph Welch moment on national television. The mild-mannered attorney for an army dentist, literally undid Joe McCarthy's reign of terror.
The Democratic response has been terrifyingly meek. So how about this, just for starters:
"The man in our White House is an admitted sexual predator, and a likely criminal based upon even the most circumstantial evidence to date. So, Not. One. More. Confirmation. Of. Any. Nominee. Our children's lives depend upon standing up. Our democracy will surely die without courageous voices to defend her."
And let's have a press conference with former members of our intelligence community, who will answer real questions with honesty and integrity.
Marylouise Markle
State College, Pa
8
Trump doesn't care about abortion but will use it to slam-dunk another Gorsuch.
So what's Gorsush's position on abortion? Who cares.
So how important was he in the major decisions since he was seated?
That's how important the next justice will be. And the next one.
The Left is totally fixated on Roe v Wade. Fine. Use that fixation to tee up three Gorsuch's in a row. They can't knock them all down. They can't knock any of them down, really. Unless we plant our flag on the abortion hill. Then you lose the two Republican gentlewomen.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Just support a nominee that doesn't believe the taxpayer should pay for them.
If males had to birth children, the right to free abortion at any time, anywhere, would be enshrined in the Constitution...
Tax payers don't pay for abortions. Do some homework.
Well, presidents get to pick their justices and judges, and I think in almost all cases, the senate should confirm without any political bickering. The only requirements should be understanding and respect for the Constitution and the law.
Issues such as gay marriage and abortion should not be of concern, if they find support in the Constitution. But of course, some things are just not clear, and there will be differing opinions. I think in these cases, ideological preferences rooted in reasoning, will cause a justice to take a side. This is neither wrong nor right.
If it is not clear, for example, whether it should be red or blue, I will side with red, because I like red, and you will side with blue because you like blue!
1
Times like these when the country, the world, the universe seem about to enter a severe chaos, what to do? Recently I rediscovered an instrument that gave me pleasure, hope, and was free. It is an old Chinese "back scratcher" that I am using more often as we careen through the Trump regime. The scratcher if properly used up and down the shoulder area and through the abdomen will give you tingles, deep breath taking and a momentary loss of all the care of our insane world. Give it a try.
We're toying with fascism, Philippine-style, Hungarian or Turkish, you name it. They're stacking up. SCOTUS has already okayed the Muslim ban, gerrymandering and presumably state-by-state limits on voting. Will they greenlight stealing kids from their parents at the border? I’m waiting for suspending elections and extra-judicial murder (Gorsuch's plaster smirk says "try me"). Trump’s itching for it. He praises dictators because he wants to be one.
Is that hysterical? No. EVERYTHING he’s ever done says he’ll do whatever he can get away with, the more outrageous the better. He’s having a ball.
There's an internet tendency to sloppy hyperbole, I don't think this is: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism...
9
Trump really is winning at every corner lately and screams and tears from the democrats are like sweet music.
4
Make no mistake about it. They despise him because he's succeeding. They'll never acknowledge an inch of success, but the increasingly shrill level of outrage speaks volumes.
RIP to the U.S. Constitution.
Trump's first choice - Neil Gorsuch - was so unqualified that the GOP congress had to 1) use the Nuclear option to obliterate constitutional safeguards, and 2) lower the confirmation bar to the ground - setting the qualification standard to zero. Then, and only then, was Neil Gorsuch able to shamble over the decimated threshold for confirmation.
Having broken through the bottom of the bucket to appoint Semi-Justice Gorsuch, Trump plans to dredge even lower into the cesspool of his judicial cronies to appoint an even less qualified sycophantic bobble-head.
America ... say hello to 1933 Germany all over again. What's next .. book burning?
8
Battle? This will be as tough as the 100 hour war where the US crushed Iraq in 1991. Bring on the nominee. Game over. Drop the mike.
5
And we will be paying for it for generations.
Republicans declared war under Obama, and Democrats, like cowards, accepted the loss, "turned the page" and agreed to deal with the same people who stole Obama's pick.
NOW, if Democrats don't pay that back, liberals and progressives will never trust them again, which should have been the outcome when they agreed to "deal" with Republicans after they shamed and stole a Supreme Court pic from the first black American president. And if you think that discourtesy had nothing to do with the color of his skin, you haven't been paying attention to the Trump presidency. Period.
6
We need action on the streets - massive marches. What’s the point of celebrating the 4th of July when, as a woman, your freedom is selectively being taken away by these antideluvian thugs? I think a boycott of Thanksgiving would be great, but probably too late.
8
Really? Name ONE right you have lost as a women since 2017.
I am pretty well fed up with people blaming Bernie supporters. From the beginning polls said head to head Bernie beats Trump, that wasn't the case for Hillary. Her campaign did not even step foot in Wisconsin. I swallowed hard and voted for her because I knew what Trump would do, even though she was a bought and paid for corporate politician. Alas let's put the blame directly where it belongs 1. the press (FOX) and NYT's and all others, for continual coverage of Trump as he looked for any attention he could get repeating a racist lie about Obama not being from the USA and 2. Trump voters who support a lying, cheating, con man, and a bigot.
3
Blame Harry Reid. Interesting how those screaming the loudest fail to hold the person who got them into this mess responsible.
I haven't yet seen or heard anyone calling out Kennedy for the political hack that he is. To give license to a a man, many would say illegitimate, to appoint someone that would protect his own self in the coming days, makes me almost sick to be an American today. The locked up kids and babies, the rampant racism starting with Sessions and the rest of the money grabbing grifters, the collusion and continuing denial of ties with russia, the coddling up of enemies and the denigrating of allies, the daily lies and spin. The emperor has no clothes and everyone is afraid to tell him. What is wrong with everyone?
11
If there was ever a better time to shove Mitch McConnell's foot so far in his mouth that he could taste his stomach acids, I'd like to know when it was. This is the most benign way I could word this sentiment.
2
A court that is for slavery should not be allowed which they practically did with this ruling.
1
Anyone who thinks that Alito et al won’t turn back the clock to the 1920’s isn’t paying attention. They find conservative...no too kind a word...cruelty in every federal law. They see hurting the powerless at the center of conservative thought. They see giving more power to the already rich and powerful as good and right. They look back at the 1920’s-50’s as the golden age of right thinking and action. When black people were invisible and gay people didn’t exist. When women knew their place. When white men ruled.
Have we forgotten the phrase “tyranny of the majority”? GLBTQ folk will be hounded by the court. Minorities will be harmed. Women will lose power over their bodies. Workers will lose power over the safety of their workplaces and their ability to get raises.
But! The good news is that the 5 throwbacks will hasten a political awakening for many Americans. Overturn Roe v Wade. Take back the rights of gay people to marry. Give a bigoted ignorant President free will to hurt minorities. Take away workers rights. Old white people watching FoxNews will cheer. The rest of the country? Not so much (I also think it’s fair to say that Democrats aren’t just against Trump’s immigration policies. They are enraged by them).
So maybe this is what’s necessary to force people to open their eyes and see the real harm conservatives inflict on people. It’s the only good thing we can hope will result from the coming storm of meanness and stupidity.
Yes, we are returning to the 1920s Lochner era of government, no more worrisome regulation of business, wages, worker health and safety. No more labor unions to disrupt corporate plans and profits. Banks deregulated. Property rights are now the only important rights to be protected. Civil rights not so much. FDRs Social Security, and the Great Society's Medicare privatized. The Koch's get their unfettered capitalism and the Devos and Mercers get their longed for theocracy.
Trump’s pick now will judge cases reaching the Court about him such as a self-pardon for crimes that Mueller might find especially about Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. *Just let that sink in.* Several Red state Democrats running for re-election will likely cave, just like they did for Gorsuch, so once the nomination hits the Senate, the person will be confirmed. *The only way to stop this train wreck* is for 2 GOP Senators to go “Independent caucusing with the Democrats” to flip control of the Senate to buy time to at least January. Schumer as Majority Leader would be 100% empowered to do what McConnell did in 2016. We need McCain, Flake, Corker, Collins, Murkowski to put country and democracy before party to save our nation from fascism.
There would be other immediate benefits to Democratic control of the Senate:
1. Tariff scrutiny that Flake wants by stopping judicial appointments as he has recommended. Stop the tariff war, return to free trade, a hallmark GOP issue.
2. Drive a wedge between Trump and the traditional GOP—give them the cover to join the Democrats.
3. Ramp up investigatory hearings.
4. Attempt to pass legislation to shore up election systems and dare GOP House and Trump to stop it.
5. Energize the country against Trump via vigorous actions.
6
If they all went independent now, force new majority leader- could the country be safe? No im mot smoking crack, but that might work. Long shot but if those 5 senators love their country....
Donald Trump's title is President of the United States. However, considering this ogre's new low -- this ogre's encouragement of Justice Kennedy to retire now (a "well-timed" retirement) -- Trump has relinquished his right to be called president. Trump is nothing more than a Pestilence.
3
If the weak ,mealy mouthed,cowardly Corporate Democrats had opened their mouths when Mitch McConnell was pulling off a judicial coup we had a chance.
The Democrats have been out played and outsmarted at every turn by Obstruction and maneuvers by The Republicans. When will we finally realize the Democratic Leadership is the problem.
6
The Democratic voters were and are the problem. They saddled Obama with Republican majorities when they stayed home in the mid terms. Voters cannot tie the hands of their leadership and then demand action.
Surely when a legal precedent has been applied and past judgements by the Supreme Court are factored in, then no court could just remove rights and rule differently to how the same court did decades ago?
1
As much as I would like to see a non conservative judge appointed to the court, it's not going to happen and unfortunately there is nothing the Democrats can do about it NOW. This is McConnell's prize and he's not going to give it up. The court will be quite conservative for many, many years. The only way to change this is to vote. Vote out the Republicans. It is the only way.
2
And if the new court disallows voting?
The democrats have got to come to their senses on immigration, and fast. The party used to be strongly opposed to illegal immigration - they even said so in their party manifesto - but in the past few years they've done a complete 180 and have taken on a position that is extremely unpopular with the electorate. There is a minority in the party that is actually for open borders, and they are allowing the republicans to paint the entire party as being in favor of open borders, with disastrous results.
Forget the supreme court, the republicans are nearly on the verge of being able to call another constitutional convention! You think it's bad now? Just wait until we have the likes of Ted Cruz literally writing a new constitution for the land.
Purge the identitarians from the party before they lead to the party's and the country's ruin.
2
While Democrats seem to be focusing on the McConnell rule, they have every reason to demand that Trump not be allowed to chose another Justice given that his very loyalties to the United States are in question. Trump can wrap himself around a flag, but he appears to be working for a despot who wants to see America cleaved by a civil war and bankrupted by walls, parades and weapons races. The entire nation needs to hear what Mueller has to say before even talking about another Justice.
There may yet come a day when the SCOTUS makes a decision and we cheer because our man says - as another tyrrant did - "how many divisions does the SCOTUS have"? Such may be the consequences of the hubris of Mitch Mconnell et al. Extremism of the kind we see from the Republicans leads eventually to a complete breakdown in the law.
Trump will get whoever he wants. He doesn’t give a whit about abortion, per se, but putting in an anti-abortion zealot on the SCOTUS shows his power, so he will do it. If any Republican Senator does not acquiesce to his demands, she will live to regret it everyday of her final term, both in public and in private. You don’t cross The Don and live to tell the tale. Abortion rights are gone except for those who live in blue states, and those in red states who have means. Just like the GOP wants it. If women wanted personal choice, they should have been born wealthy, or married wealth, just like back when America was great.
I found myself getting nauseous reading in the NY Times about the WH campaign to get Justice Kennedy to retire, which also included the information that Justice Kennedy's son, Justin, worked at Deutsche Bank to get Trump real estate loans when he could not get credit from other mainstream banks. Apparently, Trump has been cultivating Justice Kennedy, and vice versa, with flattery and favors, for awhile. I am beyond disgusted.
2
I keep seeing that Trump is "shaping the Court in his image" or some such twaddle. He has no image. He has no idea what a judicial philosophy is. He has no idea who has one. What I don't keep seeing is who is controlling Trump's list of names and telling him who to pick. I'd like detailed coverage of The Federalist Society, for example. I'd also like to know the agreement being struck. The bargain seems plain: Trump, ever the dealer, hands over the future of the judiciary in return for the Right's protection against prosecution for crimes that increasingly seem likely to have happened for years. He gets to betray American gays, women, and minorities in return for branding opportunities and side deals. This all looks quite seamy.
1
Trump should not be able to appoint any person to the SCOTUS until the Mueller investigation is over, and he is cleared of any wrongdoing
2
I am somewhat encouraged by some of the comments suggesting a long term faith in our governmental structures and systems.
But no system can protect us when enough people embrace primitive bigotry - racism, misogeny, xenophobia, isolationism, protectionism and raw, ruthless selfishness.
These are the characteristics that are the DNA of the new Republican Party - "Trumpism". Call it out for what it is: EVIL
Forget the "art of the deal". It is the "art of the sale" that is to be recorded as one of history's greatest scams. The Oligarchs - multi-billionaires! - have convinced the average Joe and Jane to vote for their own subjugation and impoverishment.
If there were ever a time to energize those of us who believe in true equality - of women's rights, universal civil rights, healthcare rights, education rights, the right to pursue happiness with adequate wages - it is now.
Our only power is that of free speech and the voting booth. Whether it is 2018 or 2020, we MUST elect people to the House and Senate that are interested in progress for ALL of us - not just the Oligarchs and their political puppets.
I am sure that by now, you have read that Justice Kennedy's son was involved in loaning Trump a billion dollars.
Vote!
Mitch McConnell lies. His argument two years ago was based on the Senators who would "advise and consent," not the president who chose the nominee. Therefore the situation now is the same as it was two years ago: it's an election year for Senators.
See these links which raise genuine questions regarding McConnell's motives and integrity regarding Russia's massive attack on American democracy.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/mitch-mcconnell-russian-asse...
http://www.bluedotdaily.com/trumpleaks-hundreds-of-docs-found-money-trai...
Is there a deeper plan to subvert all three branches of government? McConnell broke with all previous tradition to not hold a hearing on Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. Some reports now indicate Kennedy was forced out after his computer was hacked. The presidency is occupied by a Russian stooge. Congress, controlled by the GOP, enables corruption and most likely treason, while attacking Mueller's investigation. With the SC firmly on his side, no matter what Mueller proves, surely Trump believes he can pardon himself. And he can agree with Putin on how to rig the mid-term elections, since the government has taken no steps to protect America from renewed Russian interference. Neither the Senate nor the House, with GOP majorities, have taken any interest in the matter.
1
Liberal commenters in this thread see the role of SCOTUS to be like that of a ratchet, changing the country one court decision at a time, moving the country in one direction only, viz.,ever left-ward. Never in a more conservative direction. Their dishonesty and hypocrisy are blatant when they decry the appointment of an originalist SCOTUS justice.
Jasper
5
"... originalist SCOTUS justice." Nonsense dreamed up by conservatives. No such animal exists.
1
Kennedy should stay on the Court as a placeholder simply as a way to atone for his egregious sin of backing the Citizens United decision which handed our electoral process and government over to ultra-right wing corporatists like the Kochs, Mercers, Wynns, Adelsons, etc. These are the people that have financed the right wing coup of 2016. It was the most destructive move the Supreme Court has made in modern history, maybe ever. History indeed will not be kind to those like Kennedy who have aided and abetted the Roberts majority in their unending efforts to undermine our democracy. If American voters do not arise in great numbers to undo the Trumpist/GOP dictatorship we now live under, then say goodbye to democracy forever.
1
Apparently the idea of stare decisis is a suggestion rather than law. Trump will nominate a hardliner to the bench in order to overturn past decisions like Roe, gay marriage etc. It's just a matter of time until the D's are in a position to do the same thing. Normally this isn't done but normalcy is long gone under Trump and the R's.
The sooner they get to their goals, the sooner we get to live Mad Max, who doesn't want that ?
1
The last paragraph shows how ludicrous he GOP is. trump has shown time after time that he unable to pick the “best of the best” for almost every appointee or nomination. Considering rumudgeon McConnell set a precedent by blocking a vote on a SCOTUS nominee, leaving the post vacant for OVER one year, in addition to a POTUS and many around him are under criminal investigation, the US people do need to speak first.
It's actual laughable to see the Democrats work themselves into a lather about this. They made their bed. Harry Reid changed the rules to allow Obama to stack the federal courts with liberal activist judges. Obama appointed 329 federal judges during his 2 terms, most with a simple majority since Reid eradicated the filibuster. We've seen the results with a slew of far left decisions coming from the circuit and appeals courts in the last few years. Quote from Harry Reid in 2013...From a simpler time 5 years ago...
"Aren't you worried Republicans will get rid of the filibuster on the Supreme Court?" - Reporter
"Let them do it! Why in the world would we care?!? If they want simple majority, fine!" - Harry Reid. The filibuster rule applied to appointment of judges for 200 years. Democrats are the ones that changed it. Now they have to live with that. Did they really think the Senate would never have a Republican majority? Maybe they did in 2013.
There is no battle to be had here, despite the claims of this article. Trump's nominee will be confirmed, and the Supreme court will now be a counter to the decisions coming up from the very liberal federal appeals courts. It's also laughable to suggest the Democrats would put a moderate in if they were in power. They wouldn't. Elections have consequences.
6
Battle you say, which "battle" exactly do you speak of?
One side has guns and the other slingshots.
This was decided upon the very moment Kennedy stepped down. The liberals are finished, there is no battle, just a matter of who will inflict more pain to the democratic establishment.
4
Where were all these warriors when Harry Reid changed the procedures? McConnell predicted this would come back to bite them. They did it anyway. Now they're blaming an 81-year-old Justice for their own party's colossal mistake.
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,” Henry David Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience, “the true place for a just man is also a prison."
Not since the 1960s, when I risked jail for requesting service in a bus restaurant in Georgia in the company on two African-American Protestant ministers and when I did go to jail for opposition to the Vietnam War, has the moral choice beeen presented this clearly.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., under whose non-violent banner I marched, succeeded in his contribution to civil rights through planning which in retrospect he took on the air of a general. Now, as your headline makes clear, this non-violent battle will be joined if President Trump, who lost the popular vote, is able to appoint a confirmed Justice to the Supreme Court before the critical November elections.
Will we have a court that supports the President’s attack on the rule of law, who separates mothers from their children, who attacks a woman’s right to choose, who weakens the power of labor unions?
The choice was set out by Plato when he wrote the Apology. Socrates was able to speak his mind because he was willing to face the consequences. What kind of grandfather would I be if I were not willing to go to jail to oppose a government that abuses the children of refugees?
http://www.joelsolkoff.com/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-critici...
Do not believe for one moment, that Trump intends to stop with just replacing Kennedy.
Justice Ginsberg is mentally young, but physically old.
What would Trump and his cronies stoop to, to help Justice Ginsberg leave the Supreme Court?
1
American Democracy is a cruel joke. On the one hand there is the ideal of poor people yearning to be free and on the other hand is rich land owners who wish to indenture everyone. In my view America is not even close to a Democratic ideal. Instead it is tumbling down toward every other fake democracy there ever was.
1
This is a boxing match in which one side is not invited into the ring. Democrats are completely shut out of power and have no say whatsoever. What are you going to do, Democrats, complain and whine really hard? The other side does not care what you think.
Personally I think it's horrifying. Personally I think the Democratic leadership should all resign because they have delivered us the biggest failure in generations. We need new, bold, young(er) leadership to counteract this threat, not just a bunch of failed septuagenarians.
3
This headline is downright silly:
"Political War Over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court Is Underway"
A "war?" Please. As another commenter points out, this is a done deal. One hopes Trump will moderate his passion a bit, especially since he'll need every vote he can get. Naming a woman might get Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski on his side, even though he's certain to name someone (whether male or female) who's anti-abortion.
2
Justice Kennedy resigns after the Fed fined Deutche Bank which will reveal his son's ties to Trump's Russian money laundering for bogus real estate deals scam, as well as to Kushner's real estate deals (#666), and Kennedy's other son's ties to Bannon, Mercer & Cambridge Analytics etc etc. Now, they want to replace SCOTUS to rule that double jeopardy applies to being indicted under both Fed and State level...constitutional crisis, here we come....
1
Trump's choice for Supreme Court justice will be trumped by the Democrats.
1
Gee. Mitch, don't you think the American people should have their say before you consider a SCOTUS nominee? I heard that was a good idea somewhere...
Political war? Please. The Republicans will put who they please on the Supreme Court. It is difficult to finally concede but the truth of the matter is that the Democratic party is completely inept politically anymore. They have done nothing of note in recent memory.
6
Justice kennedy in 2020 : "I was naive to believe assurances from the administration that my legacy would be protected and preserved"......
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” according to Mitch McConnell.
And until 2016 no one ever suggested that a sitting President was ineligible to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, but that didn’t stop Mr. McConnell from blocking Merrick Garland.
The rank hypocrisy is disgusting.
There will be a conservative judge appointed shortly because there is nothing Democrats can do to stop it. This is the best news for America that I can think of now and will slow the race to Socialism and destruction of the country by the leftists.
3
Given the ideological influence on the decisions of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, we'll need some clear-headed Justices. They seem to think the SCOTUS is some kind of social justice organization and they its crusaders.
Before the new Supreme Court codifies child labor, back alley abortions , and segregation based on presidential whim---- and before you are totally mystified how a nation can be brought so low, read "The March of Folly."
Read it before the book is legally banned too.
The time Kennedy selected to retire is no fluke it was chorograped to influnce the November Election.So the crying, moaning and hand wringing about his departure is missplaced. Kennedy was no Lone Ranger for the left and to paint him as non partisan is totally out of pocket. Kennedy and his cohorts gave us Bush in Gore v Bush. Meaning he helped us get intothe longest war in American History.Sure on few social issues he was the swing vote as has Cheif Justice Roberts. But in totallity I believe he has done more harm than Good. Kennedy's retire may be a blessing in disguise for the Left. It is a moment where the Left will have to Put Up of Shut Up.The Left is going to have to learn how to fiht like the Right if they want to beat the Right. Always trying to stay above the fray in the Hardball Political Arena of Politics has gotten us to this edge of the Cliff.
1
I don't remember this at all:
"Remember, McConnell said that if a liberal was elected president he would hold the Supreme Court for 8 years if he had to."
I recall McConnell saying just the opposite: that whoever won – Clinton or Trump – could name Scalia's replacement, but Obama could not.
One can debate whether McConnell was justified, but let's not misstate what he said. If Clinton had won (as we all expected) and McConnell had reneged on his promise, I and very many other Americans would have been quite upset and would have protested very loudly.
Since Trump won, of course, we'll never know whether McConnell would have honored his promise if Clinton had won. But he certainly never said what you're claiming he said -- quite the opposite, in fact.
1
Correct:
"There is no real political war. The GOP will get this court nomination seated one way or another."
Trump probably will have to pick someone more moderate than he'd like, since his majority in the Senate is slight at best, and several Republican Senators are not sure bets (Flake, Corker, McCain, Collins, Murkowski, maybe 1 or 2 others). But he's got plenty of time if the first pick gets rejected (which probably won't happen).
1
Gorsuch wasn't exactly a rabid conservative. He had bipartisan support and was highly regarded before his appointment to the SCOTUS.
Many commenters seem to forget what this commenter points out:
"Let's face it, the Dems could not appoint the judge in 2016, because they were not in control of the Senate."
If McConnell HAD held hearings on Garland's nomination and called for a vote, Garland would have been rejected, for precisely the reason this commenter mentions. The Senate was Republican-controlled in 2016, and there was zero chance that the Senate would have approved Garland to replace the deceased Scalia. That seemed obvious to me then. McConnell may have been heavy-handed, as many have insisted he was, but his actions didn't affect the result.
As there wasn't a hearing or a vote your comment is hypothetical. There was no vote so you can't second guess the result.
This is not the real battle. This battle is already lost (or won depending on what side your on).
The real battle comes if/when Trump gets to replace a liberal justice requiring approval from a majority Democrat Senate.
If that happens, we can have an open seat for years.
1
To those Bernie supporters who elevated pragmatism over purity and voted for HRC, thank you for doing the right thing. To those Bernie supporters who sat out the election or did whatever else but cast their vote for HRC, turns out that elections do indeed have consequences, no?
I really don't understand why McConnell isn't in jail, since he violated the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--in one of the most damaging ways one could imagine: by stealing a Supreme Court seat from Obama's constitutional right to appoint one. The damage he has done to the U.S. and thereby the world is certainly far greater than most people currently in our prisons.
America; we have a profound Constitutional crisis beyond who might be the nominee.
We are faced with an impending outcome to the Mueller investigation that has the potential to scare the public and result in an impeachment with an appeal by Trump to the future Supreme Court. This is bigger than abortion or gay rights. This is about the very foundation of who is leading this Republic which no longer possesses the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.
America is now ruled by a Republican Monopoly government controlling all branches of our government that now threatens, yes threatens, to ram through a nomination that will make that Monopoly government, a Super-Monopoly government backed by the American military, long an institution of Republican control, and American gun owners pumped up by the right leaning media showcasing the raving President Trump.
Yes, we have a big Constitutional Crisis and a weak Democrat party pitted against a Republican party that is playing war games to win in politics as the Democrat leadership acquiesces under the extreme fighting of Republican leaders in the Congress and the White House.
This is a crisis the Democrats fail to recognize. To preserve the Democracy and equal representation of all Americans, the Democrats must mount the soup box and yell about this crisis, not surrender to overpowering Republicans.
Save the Democracy we once were and are not now. I am not represented in Congress by this impending Super-Monopoly Government
Understand the frustration felt by many, primarily women who viewed Kennedy as a firewall against chipping away or overturning Roe. Tactics suggest put markers down during the confirmation hearings, but save the vitriol. Don't get mad get even.
This struggle now shifts to the midterm elections made more significant by the Kennedy retirement. Spend the effort and money to flip the House but also sharply focus on any route to do the same in Senate. Victories on either or both preparation for 2020.
Republicans cannot run on their accomplishments so issues like health care, consumer protection, climate, women's rights, help for unions and teachers have broad appeal. Time to go work not wring hands.
Sorry to have to say it, but there is no fight the liberals (or really anyone but ultra-conservatives) can win here.
The "fight" was in 2016, and we LOST. In fact, the whole country lost really, when it comes to the Supreme Court.
The disastrous consequences of that election are only just beginning to be felt.
People were absolutely right to see 2016 as a complete disaster, but its really a long, slow series of progressively worsening disasters, with life-time rule of the Supreme Court by ultra-conservatives (at least my lifetime) paving the way for all the others.
No, it wasn't the immediate apocalypse that some might have imagined, but an on-going descent into chaos, inequality, and a fundamental transformation of our institutions. Who knows what the ultimate outcome will be, but its hard to be optimistic.
3
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that “We must keep organizing, mobilizing and holding lawmakers to account every single day — and then we need turn out like never before this November," Lovely and necessary words.Values.Norms. Which are transmuted, daily, into mantras in a culture in which personal unaccountability is enabled- bordering on being traditionalized in politics- for harming words and deeds.Their implications and outcomes. Both known ones, based on past evidence, as well as on reality's unpredictable unexpecteds. Those who will question candidates for the Supreme Court about their views about the specific of rights to abortion, to one's own body, to vote for the body-politic, to unionize, to gender identity, being and feeling safe in mind, body and soul, etc., need also to clarify this person's ideas, views and commitment to equitable well being.To equitable sharing of available and accessible human and non-human resources which are critical for individual as well as social-systemic sustainable development. As well as to determine this candidate's beliefs, and lifetime history regarding personal accountability.For words and deeds! His and those of others. Perhaps, if one of the questioners is courageous enough,to ask the candidate, prepared as s/he is for this "judicial production," of whatever length, drama, and supportive actors,what s/he believe about changing the lifetime role for a Justice;retiring at a given age.
As another writer expressed: Why couldnt Kennedy wait until November 9th or end of Nov. to announce his retirement? It's less than five months. I havent heard that he is so ill that he must go in July. Why now? He has to be aware of the contentious political climate in the US. Surely he's heard about the noise coming from the Dem side and the enthusiasm of Dem voters. He surely knows about that 'blue wave' and the real possibility of the Senate and House turning blue in Nov.
Any coincidence? In politics, I dont believe there's any such thing as coincidence.
Justice Kennedy is being revered, and rightly so, for his record of votes that do not fall exclusively within a single conservative or liberal ideology but let’s not forget that he was a conservative appointment by a conservative President. How many liberal members of the current Court, appointed by liberal Presidents, have shown the same flexibility? I, for one, remain open minded about the prospect of a conservative appointee....
1
My understanding is that if Row is overturned that does not make abortion illegal but takes away constitutional protection. Same for gay rights.so what happens is each state then need to pass laws protection those rights.
You can't stop Republicans. But you can target republicans up for election for example, that there election prospects are reduced if they vote for a candidate that is extreme. And protests can occur that make it clear that there will be extreme consequences if an extreme candidate is elected. The goal needs to be that trump needs to nominate someone acceptable. Yes it's unlikely but not sure what else can be done.
It seems to be tit for tat at the Supreme Court and why not? From my generally moderate perspective I have seen some excellent Republican choices for justices, notably Kennedy, Souter and even Roberts. Let’s remember that Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act; Kennedy saved gay rights and Souter stood up for Roe vs. Wade. There may be no cases with more impact in recent times. On the other hand compare these justices with Justice Ginsberg whose confirmation in the sente was 96-3. Let’s face it Ginsberg has been compared to an avenging angel doing battle with two middle fingers in the air. Republicans on the whole have been far less rabid in their votes than democrats so why are democrats now surprised that Republicans are trying to save the country from ultra liberalism?
2
Only liberals are at war. The rest of us are confident Trump will pick another highly regarded and qualified candidate.
1
Most of our leading business men, our leading artists, and our leading scientists and engineers are immigrants or the children of immigrants
If President Trump successfully appoints a trumpist justice, preserving our freedom and immigration, will no longer be the issues of the day.
The raging issues will be hiding from the autocrats and emigration.
1
Appointment of the Supreme Court justices may end up being more consequential than the presidency itself.
1
Democrats can fight and scream all they want this is Trump's pick to make and the republicans have the votes. There is still plenty of time left in Trump's first term to appoint a SCOTUS.
1
An inherently politicized Supreme Court, and this one is, will add to the disintegration of our Constitution. Donald Trump threatened to call out the fairness of our votes if he was not elected, and people feared his loss would lead to a Constitutional crises. I believe he did not want to win, but did want a Constitutional crises. Since he was elected, Trump has done everything in his power to bring on a crises, threatening NKorea, turning our allies against us, continually siding with Putin and refusing to strengthen voting rights in the face of Russian interference into our elections. If he can successfully seat a Supreme Court Judge before the Mueller investigation is completed and either scuttle it so findings are not made public or use SCOTUS to invalidate or nullify them, there will be a crises. The great tragedy is that we have elected a President who is manufacturing crises, will use human beings as pawns to help him create chaos, and does not care if our Constitution and Democratic norms are left in shreds. Also, the very wealthy gained tax breaks that could bankrupt the country and leave most retirees, the poor and disabled with much less than they have now and no healthcare. The only way out is to start impeachment proceedings quickly, not wait for Mueller to finish. In an odd way I think the GOP, in their attacks on Wray and Rosenstein today, were begging the FBI to quickly find something on Trump since they seem powerless to prevent any damage.
May retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy live long enough to see what his resignation from SCOTUS this week will mean to America's judicial future under President Trump. May he live long enough to regret the soul-searing injustice done to Merrick Garland -- President Obama's nominee for Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court bench. Judge Garland waited for a year to be confirmed -- an unconscionable delay -- to replace Scalia till Trump's election, after which Judge Gorsuch was quickly confirmed for the seat. May Justice Kennedy rue the catastrophic obstruction of the Republican Majority leader, Mitch McConnell and the G.O.P. as we all do today.
All those screaming about what a "moderate" Kennedy is simply needs to look at his decisions in the past week. I'd also like to see the media focus a bit more on his son's relationship with Deutsch Bank and the trump family. Anyone else probably would have waited until after the mid-terms. Why is Kennedy deciding to leave in a month?
It seems many have forgotten that the much heralded Kennedy was the engineer behind the SCOTUS vote giving us Bush2 and the phony Iraq war and other disasters.
They have also seem to have forgotten he was the swing vote giving us Citizens United -- and how we have suffered under both those votes' effects.
Now, he outrageously decided to retire in July, knowing what mass suffering he would wrought...He could not bear to wait until September to resign.
In the Battle of Gettysburg the battle and possibly the Union was saved by a bayonet charge of the 20th Maine. As our country is again being and attacked by a criminal and corrupt administration in an association with a hostile foreign power, it is time for Mainers to save us again and convince their Senator Susan Collins not to vote for the likely ultra right wing ideologue that Trump will nominate. More than any other time in our history - as Maine goes so goes the nation.
1
This impending nominee confirmation extends far beyond partisan politics into the realm of Constitutional Crisis. We have a monopoly Republican Government soon to be a super-monopoly Republican military backed government with the absolute Conservative Republican control of the Supreme Court who may potentially decide the outcome of the Mueller investigation, rendering us no longer a Democracy and under the Russian sphere of influence. Efforts at peace between Russia and America have gone too far. We have surrendered our nation to become a satellite led by a Russian sympathizing President who ignores the prior manipulation of our politics by Russia. I am partisan, leaning towards Democrats because they always care about, everyone, but I look beyond my own bias to see that this Republic is in grave danger of becoming a fascist empire with one party control backed by the military and gun owners. The very nature of our Democracy is barely clinging to life under weak leadership and it is incumbent upon Democrats to install strong tough leadership to fight this Constitutional Crisis. Senate Minority leader Schumer is tainted by a desire to get along with President Trump and Minority House leader Pelosi, whom I admire deeply, has lost her stature in the house and both leaders must give way to strong virile fighters the likes of Ted Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. This is a crisis that must be addressed forcefully in Congress. New strong untainted by Trump donations leaders must rise.
The essence of the GOP is that if they do it, it either didn't happen or it is quite all right to do. That is how Mitch McConnell can make such a jaw dropping statement as he has here. "To my Knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd, numbered years". Really? Maybe if someone else said this it would not be so incredibly insulting. But it is coming from the person that actually did say it and actually did it, enforced it, used a Senate majority to play dirty politics. And, let us never forget that this was completely consistent with his earlier vow to shut down Obama at all costs. Now its time to pay one of those costs and he doesn't want to. This is why Mitch McConnell is about the sleaziest politician America has ever seen with the possible exception of Trump. And they will still convince countless Americans that they are the real patriots. The whole penumbra of political discourse may well have become a shot Civil War. If that is so, let us fight back with weapons of the same caliber. No confirmation until after midterm elections - period, no further discussion.
POTUS45 has no business appointing any Supreme Court justice while he is under federal investigation.
Remember the Nixon tapes?
Justice Kennedy has just ensured that his legacy, Roe vs Wade, gay rights, etc. will be overturned when Trump nominates a far right jurist. Why in the world would he do that instead of waiting for a Democratic Senate which would vote in a middle of the road jurist?
Whew. I am simply worn out. I am worn out from the never ending, utterly jarring, daily/weekly sick carnival ride that is the trump White House. Now trump has made it into the SCOTUS. Of course SCOTUS is not perfect;but now I'm bracing for a genuine tragedy in our democratic structure.
With the Senate and House lining up to back trump in all things in order to be reelected, etc. I hope I can muster the strength to deal with this via protests, letter writing, et cetera. But honestly, I'm running out of juice. Hopefully I can keep the faith....
1
It’s the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that you should be worried about. Everything else hinges on those. Abortion and healthcare are obvious.
Remember they’ve been pining to destroy everything about the New Deal era, when FDR stacked the court similarly.
If this doesn’t get Democratic voters out in November, nothing will.
There is no battle. The country has been taken over by a 25% minority comprising the John Birch Society, the Koch Bros., Fox, the Tea Party; collectively, the evangelicals. They have banned books. They have burned music including Beatles and before that Elvis. Apart from recognizing the flag, they have no values consistent with Christianity or America or the founding fathers of either. And its not just five judges; its all the governing bodies, State and Federal. 40% of Millennials don’t believe democracy or civil rights are important. The experiment may be over.
1
We are deeply disturbed by reports about Justice Kennedy's son being Trump's banker at Deutsche Banke (when no other bank would deal with Trump) and Justin Kennedy's ongoing ties to the Trump Family and children. I think this casts the SCOTUS in a corrupt light. Shocking. I do not think Justice Kennedy's resignation is neutral and seems to out right disregard the fair judicial goals set up by our Constitution, the SCOTUS and all the judiciary.What's to be done?
Trump (and his family) knew beforehand of Kennedy's intention this month to announce his retirement, and probably encouraged the old man's timing with a Lie: assuring him that, no matter when he left, all would be well with democracy.
Kennedy surely was fed this lie. Otherwise, why would he retire NOW, well before the midterm elections, thereby giving Trump carte blanche to further strengthen his oligarchy?
To daily witness the injury Trump is doing to America is no longer a surprise. To witness a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court exacerbate that injury is harrowing.
1
As a gay minority, if I hear one more time that Justice Kennedy was a hero for gay rights (specially from the voice of Michael Bárbaro in The Daily), I will probably just consume information from The Intercept instead. It is beyond me how liberals can be so gullible and primal on their reactions and political motivations. Sure, we would probably have had any sense of hope decimated had the public not reacted as forcefully and summoned the political pressure that they did against the travel ban and border policies. However, the fact that the 1.5 trillion tax bill had not a remotely comparable backlash from the democrats is beyond frustrating. Am I alone in thinking that the conservatives will drum up support for their unpopular, underlying oligarchic policies from their base with divisive cultural issue as bait? Isn’t it evident that they sacrifice political capital in these recurrent culture wars until they ultimately backpedal from the political pressure (which now even includes corporate backlash against, say, hysterical bathroom bills)? So it seems that they only ultimately succeed in their true purpose: the economic and fiscal agenda of their donors. So punditry passing off as journalism about the Kennedy replacement is utterly frustrating—revert gay and abortion rights, the ensuing political pressure would drive legislative changes. I’d rather have a 5th Justice vote against Citizens Utd, BushVGore, decimation of unions, and gerrymandering.
President Trump is going to win this one.No Southern Senator will oppose his Nomination.The liberals should try to gain Senate Majority in 2018 to limit the future damage to their agenda .
1
Trump is exposing himself to the glare of publicity if he
nominates any one for the Supreme Court, as questions will be asked in the media and Congress about his suitability
to do so - as he is under serious criminal investigation,
and must excuse himself from the process until the investigation follows its course, and prosecutions made.
If a mob boss choose a judge to sit and hear his trial,
the nation would scream that it is illegal and cannot happen.
Why can't the ACLU take this to court and get an injunction
to stop Trump from being involved with the process until
the investigations have finished, and prosecutions have happened?
1
If the politicians and citizens who are carastrophizing SCOTUS nominations did their civic duty and amended the constitution by proper procedure instead of depending on court declarations with little or no grounding in the text, there would be no problem.
You think this is bad? Just imagine if either RBG or Breyer (or both!) dies at some point between now and the end of Trump's term in office (hopefully 2021), keeping in mind that the Dems will probably not win the Senate this year given the unfavorable map.
Then, Roberts doesn't just become the only possible swing vote, he actually becomes more liberal than the median justice. All decisions will go right-wing for a very long time, and much of what any Democratic government attempted to do would be blocked.
The worst-case scenario is that we might end up in an outright constitutional crisis. If the Court nullifies enough legislation to make the country ungovernable even by centrists, while strengthening mega-corporations to the point where they undermine the economy itself, and eviscerating civil liberties protections, then there is only one real option. It will be time for court-packing.
(Republicans could do that too, of course, or both sides could even do it against each other until there are, say, 57 justices at once)
Once the norms and guardrails of democracy have been removed, and politics becomes cutthroat and winner-take-all, a self-reinforcing spiral destroys everything we once cherished about our democracy. And if one side cripples the other enough, you get an electoral dictatorship like Turkey where there are no civil liberties except the right to vote, and only then because the opposition is too weak to win power from the dominant party.
1
When President Trump announces that he is seeking someone who can fill the seat for 40 or 45 years, his comments speak to age discrimination.
The United States cannot, in good conscience, be called a democracy. For it to be a democracy some things have to go, including life-time appointments to the Supreme Court, the electoral college, gerrymandering, and the failure of much of the press to fulfill their public interest obligations.
14
Battle? Battle implies that each side has a chance to win. McConnell holds all the cards. He will ram through another Gorsuch-like jurist before the mid-term elections and before Mueller's report on Trump. Senate Democrats may try to appeal to GOP moderates such as Collins and Murkowski but that won't be enough to stop packing the court with reactionaries.
8
'One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.'
Well. Good luck with that. Of course, some Americans would have supported whoever Obama supported without question. I suspect that there are some hard core Trump supporters who do not have much in terms of 'discernment'. And whose ...'musings on legal matters' would be 'temporary' at best. BUT. The same can be said of some of Obama's adoring supporters during his presidential term.
US democracy is going through hard times at the moment. But it has stood up to harder tests in the past. (Nixon, Clinton, .....). A rough patch. But. It will survive.
3
Since vital issues of marriage, reproductive rights, labour unions, immigration, and environment with long-term consequences for the American society and polity are involved and to be judicially decided, the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy can't be solely left to the conservative whims of President Trump. The Senate Republicans and the Democrats have to act a little more responsibly while approving the Trump nominee for the Supreme Court justice.
10
If the elected organs of government acted responsibly in their own duties towards the care and maintenance of the constitution and defense of our rights, none of those matters would be at stake.
1
How can there be a successful "political war" about this appointment? The Republicans control the Senate, and unless they are completely inept and dysfunctional, will confirm Trump's nominee prior the midterm election. No competent rational politician of any party would, or should, allow the appointment to be delayed until after an election that could result in their party losing control of the Senate, ending their ability to confirm an appointment satisfactory to their party. During the presidential campaign Trump specifically identified twenty plus names on a Conservative foundation wish list of possible Supreme Court candidates that he could appoint if elected, and his voters are entitled to have him follow through on his promise to appoint one of these candidates. Elected Republican Senators also have an obligation to their voters to complete the appointment while they still have the majority to do so. Finally, although the Times and other news organizations characterize Justice Kennedy as a moderate, supporting some liberal principles and precedents against conservative attack, on the whole his record is very conservative; and the timing of his retirement at age 81 may well have been based in part on his own concern that the Republicans might lose control of the Senate, preventing his replacement by a conservative judge, and essentially obligating him to remain indefinitely on the Court.
11
It makes no sense whatsoever to have this stupidly malapportioned body vet federal appointments and treaties. It is every bit as awful as the Rotten Boroughs of England, representing districts the ocean had washed away in Parliament. It leaves these matters in the hands of the most ignorant voters in the US.
9
So sorry that the writer is deeply offended by the core constitutional principle basic to our federalism that each state, regardless of population and size, has two senators. As a consequence of such a system, apportionment analysis, is not correctly applied to Senate elections, which are statewide. If "ignorant" is conservative, not all small state voters are ignorant. Vermont voters routinely elect Bernie Sanders. As a practical matter, controversial treaties are not treated as such and submitted for Senate approval. Presidents just commit the country to the agreements regardless of this requirement. Finally, notwithstanding global warming, no US state is yet underwater.
The Supreme Court has assumed too much power. This fight is the evidence of that. In the interest of moderation, we should change the terms of appointment.
A two-thirds vote should be required, so that the candidate must have consensus. The term should be ten years, so no nominee will rule decades after the consensus that made the appointment.
Similar conditions are found in constitutional courts elsewhere in the world, that otherwise were inspired by the US Supreme Court.
14
Ten year terms would have each eight year president with his own personally controlled court by the end. It would disrupt the balance. A requirement for a 2/3 vote would leave us with unfilled seats and a rump court of 2 or 3 mealy mouth cowards who never took a stand on anything.
Sigh...
This "battle" is already over.
So is the battle that really matters. The election of dt proves it.
As a nation, we have fallen below the minimum level of intelligence needed to maintain our democracy.
We. Are. Done.
33
We are only done when we stop fighting.
Don’t. Give. Up.
@EK:
Tragically, you're absolutely correct.
The worst part is that we've done it to ourselves.
Sad. Bigly sad.
If the American government is not a criminal enterprise, the Supreme Court vacancy will not be filled until after the November mid-terms.
14
A proposal:
No SCOTUS nomination until the Mueller investigation has concluded and made a public report available.
21
The conservative christians are using the abortion issue as an excuse to violate all other moral considerations. Trump and Gorsuch are the result. We will live with this for a long time.
23
I can’t imagine any self respecting Attorney wanting to be known as a Trump nominee . Given the Gorsuch decisions this session it’s obvious he signed the pledge. Why would you consider an appointment by a President who openly and with full impunity, flaunts the law and threatens judges all over the country?
10
You think republicans are self respecting??????
It’s ironic that the steady progress the US has made over the decades and centuries is going to be undone, not by an ideological right wing conservative, but by an amoral, unprincipled dolt with no philisophy beyond the gratification of his own ego.
28
@Douglas Owenthal:
Indeed.
I've never felt so sickened by politics, nor even remotely so discouraged regarding the future of our country.
This development will spell the end of our republic, and the democracy which long ago made America so revered by the rest of the world. It's tragic . . . and we've nobody to blame except ourselves.
Within the next twenty years, if not sooner, the United States still be unrecognizable with respect to it's long held, noble values. The inmates have taken over the asylum, and there's no rescue in sight.
Alas, like Rome, we shall collapse from within, and join the dustbin of history . . .
Sad. Bigly Sad.
Maintaining Kennedy’s Judicial legacy:
Like Clarence Thomas maintaining Thurgood Marshall’s?
Welcome to political will triumphing once again over popular will. Private property and money over human rights and humanity.
14
That's not what the Court ruled:
"What the Supreme Court ruled was that an individual has a right NOT to join a union."
The commenter is referring to the Janus case, decided this week. The Court ruled that non-members of public-employee unions can't be required to pay fees to the union -- either for political activities (already in effect) or non-political activities (for example, bargaining with employers), even though the non-member may benefit from those non-political activities (higher wages, for example).
The basic arguments were:
1. Defendant (union):
"We're performing services that benefit nonunion employees too, and they should pay their fair share. No free ride."
2. Plaintiff (non-union worker):
"There's no difference between "political" activities and "non-political" activities of a union that matters to someone who opposes unions, period. It's not fair to make me finance an organization whose very existence I oppose."
The Court sided with the worker.
I don't know how much the worker's "fair share" payment was, but this sounds similar to what we lawyers have in CA. Lawyers pay high annual dues to the CA State Bar, but they may subtract the portion that the State Bar spends on "political" activities. Several years ago, I asked a State Bar official how much a lawyer would save if he subtracted the "political" portion of his dues. Answer? $1.
As you probably can guess, the CA State Bar spends far more than $1 a year per lawyer on "political" activities.
9
Hey Democrats, park your differences and put every roadblock up against the process to elect a new Justice. Eight is enough.
13
It's ridiculous to think the GOP won't change the rules again. Fair isn't their game - it's power.
You know, if you really want a clean sweep at the midterms, what's needed is to take a age from the opposition's playbook - and infiltrate. Take over the Republican Party too. Seriously.
11
Speaking of changing the rules, did you forget Harry Reid's use of the "nuclear option"?
Remember, McConnell said that if a liberal was elected president he would hold the Supreme Court for 8 years if he had to.
Benedict McConnell should not determine the future of our country for generation's! Fight with your teeth bared, my democratic representatives, and we will do the same in the streets!
United we stand.....how precious is that?
13
It is silly to cry about the judge nomination. The Republican will be stupid if they pass on such opportunity. With all this democratic outrage, the truth to be told is they (democrats) wouldn't (I hope) pass such opportunity, why do they expect Reps to do so? Let's face it, the Dems could not appoint the judge in 2016, because they were not in control of the Senate. If they were, they would. Yes, it is an unfortunate turn of events, and we are stuck with the conservative court that will not only support the conservative laws, but also the laws that keep Reps in power (gerrymandering, suppressing voters and etc), but nothing could be done unless there is a change in power structure.
8
The great, grand dream that was America, a democracy forged in battle, blood and sacrafice, united by singular purpose to create of a nation of the people, for the people had died - RIP
19
You forgot to mention built by the sweat of Human Bondage! We were never as great as we want to believe. So yes today we are broken but if we stop voting our tribilism we can be fixed.
@Col. J. D. Ripper:
Tragically, you're absolutely right.
Ironically our ersatz, inane excuse of a President is doing an excellent job of emulating the behavior of your screen name..
Accept the loss and let's move forward the best we can with feckless Democrats pretending to resist. We knew they were useless when Bush robbed Gore of the election with help from the SCOTUS--when the Dems rolled over like scared pups, when the Reps denied Obama's choice, Garland, and the Dems only whimpered. Maybe a new generation of opposition can save US from the robber barons some day.
15
This I gotta see. Roe vs Wade overturned.
Abortion illegal in NYC ?
American women will not tolerate that.
American men won’t tolerate that either.
Supreme Court or no Supreme Court, it ain’t gonna stand.
That may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
My pitchfork is sharp and ready to go.
16
I was amazed to see the outcry about the immigrant "kids" being separated from their parents ( under Obama 15,000 were separated without a whimper from anybody) and yet killing children should be a right.
Maybe there was no outcry because it didn't happen. Fox News would have certainly let the whole world know had Obama had done anything as abominable as Trump has done.
It's long past time to do away with the gerontocracy (government by the elderly). Let's start by mimicking Canada, where justices of the Supreme Court must retire from the bench once they reach 75 years of age.
11
Several commenters have said the Republicans plan to "pack the Court" -- i.e. expand the number of Justices.
I've never heard this. FDR wanted to do this in the late Thirties (15 Justices) but his own party opposed him and he dropped the idea. True, the Constitution doesn't specify the number of Justices, but the number has always been 9 (with some short-term vacancies). Court-packing plans are always shot down, and I hadn't heard Trump planned to do that. Is the rumor true, or is he just planning to name a replacement for Kennedy?
2
The only voices I have heard for packing the court come from democrats and leftists who think they should do it if the Dems take the senate in November.
heresay.
Doris2001 makes a good point:
"Look no further than the one term president, George H.W. Bush who put Clarence Thomas on the Court in 1991. We only had to live with Bush senior for four years; we have had to endure Thomas's far right decisions for almost thirty years."
Whether or not you like Clarence Thomas, the point remains: Somebody who's President for a very short time may get to pick a Justice who will be around for decades.
Judges need independence, and lifetime appointments ensure that. But that practice does allow someone to hang around for far too long. Term limits would be in order -- very long terms, with hefty pensions but with no "re-up" possibility (since that might give a Justice an incentive to cozy up to a President who might reappoint him or her). Thomas opponents shouldn't be saddled with Thomas for 30 years just because Bush the Elder saw fit to appoint him in 1991, just as Breyer opponents shouldn't be saddled with him for 30 years just because Bill Clinton saw fit to appoint him in 1994.
I'd make the terms very long, but we need some end date on them.
10
No complaints about the length of service of RBG? She was appointed 2 years after Thomas, before Breyer. It's OK to be saddled with her?
Seems rather obvious that these powerful supreme court judges, whether liberal or conservative, need term limits and/or age requirements. How old is Mr. Gorsuch? 50 years? He should be in the workforce, not behind a bench deciding constitutional legal claims. Older people with lots of experience, as in wisdom, should be making these decisions, and that would also be a natural term limit.
4
The fever that is breaking out over choosing the new justice is indicative of the long-standing problem in our government: the incentive to pack the court when the party in power gets the chance. This plagues both parties; FDR even tried to expand the court to seat more friendly justices.
Legal scholars have long thought that it is time to switch to rotating 18-year terms, with one term expiring every 2 years. Vacancies are filled only through the end of a term. A justice may be serve multiple terms but must be renominated and reconfirmed. This has the advantage that justices may be questioned on the record about their record, instead of the evasive, hypothetical hearings we have now.
This reduces the incentive to pack the court, aka the McConnell gambit, or to filibuster to the death. And it reduces the fear that the court will be "lost" to the other side for a generation. In su, the court becomes more accountable to the citizens, which puts the power where it belongs.
26
I'd be fine with 18 year terms. It would take a constitutional amendment though and we haven't, with the exception of the 27th (proposed in 1789) passed one in almost a half century.
The Democratic leadership (whatever there is of it) better not lose this fight with Putin's puppet and his terrorist enablers in Congress. If they do, they'll be looking for new jobs in a corn field someplace and many Democrats like me will abandon this hopelessly impotent party that no longer deserves our support. Listen carefully Chuck and Nancy. Democrats are looking at you and will judge you mercilessly.
14
The Democrats can kick and scream all they want. They have no way of stopping Trump's pick. Many thanks to Harry Reed for his nuclear gift.
7
Well there Mark with all your threats to the Democratic Party, as you know it’s pretty much impossible for them to stop this appointment because so many Democrats did not turn out to vote in the last election, and a well known fact is that the Russians interfered with the election or don’t you believe that. More importantly, this Republican Congress makes its own rules and excludes Democrats from important meetings and decisions. Mark, do you plan on helping to get out the vote for your party in 2018? “ Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!” President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, January 1961
And this battle is EXACTLY how trump gets his base riled up & out to vote in the mid terms. Despite every single way he has actually harmed them, the timing of this & making the list of nominees public is how he will attempt to prevent democrats taking over.
3
"Secure the blessings of liberty for us and our prosperity". My tuckus.
Obama was wronged by Mcconnell, a sort of taking of a right and dereliction of duty that has been never addressed. Does he have a case to be made whole?
8
I've heard that Kennedy was planning to stay three more years. But the Sarah Sanders incident so ticked him off he decided to have Trump choose his replacement.
4
The constitution does not set the number of justices. It is the congress that establishes that. Democrats need to take over the house, senate and White House in order to change the number (president doesn’t get to say yes or no, but would appoint).
Some say this could lead to a protracted war between parties to constantly try to increase the number of justices but on the other hand, after what McConnell pulled, it would be fitting in order the right the wrong. This CAN be fixed if we, as a nation, want to.
6
If we don’t, will you be satisfied?
Anthony Kennedy is a "liberal?" Hooda thunk it, eh? His replacement will be even more "reliably" conservative (I doubt Trump will repeat Eisenhower's Earl Warren "mistake"), but that's not likely to matter much. Kennedy usually voted with the conservatives.
When Ginsburg or Breyer steps down, or dies, that will make a BIG difference. But Kennedy? Not so much.
4
Why now, why could't he have waited until after the midterm elections? It opens up the playing field for a new conservative justice to be elected by Trump. and then all bets are off. The worst case would be a 6 to 3 constellation. . . . I don't know why . . . Its kind of like in the movie "Fargo", the last words being - I just don't know.
8
Well, I hope you all didn't like the right to choose, or to join a union,...or to vote.
13
You will always have the right to join a union. What the Supreme Court ruled was that an individual has a right NOT to join a union.
As to the other two things, they are just scare tactics used to rile up the base. The same things were said when Sandra Day O'Conner was nominated.
7
Does the person who chooses to work in a union shop, and yet refuses to join the union,the union that negotiates compensation and benefits, still receive the benefits of the union, such as dental, vision, educational and legal benefits? I ask because the non-union staff employed at the organization where I work do benefit from the union
3
No Ian: What the court ruled was that you may refuse to reimburse the union for work performed in your behalf.
4
Call me naive, but I thought any hint of political bias in a candidate for the Supreme Court was a reason for exclusion, not a prerequisite for qualification.
Like NFL referees, they're there to ensure that the game is being played by the rules, not to help one team win.
10
Well, the Financial Times has revealed that Justice Kennedy's son worked for Deutche Bank and was an "associate" of trump's. Associate = Private Banker. Interesting, no?
21
By resigning 4 months before the mid term elections, it is obvious Kennedy wants Trump to appoint another conservative Justice and tipping the balance on the Supreme Court. In doing so Kennedy hasboiled all his legacy on the Bench to this: a partisan Justice who puts conservativism above the law.
27
Trump is under a serious criminal investigation and he should not have any say about who will be a Supreme Court Judge,
as the courts should go through the process of prosecuting and jailing these criminals.
It's like a mob boss choosing a judge to judge over
his criminal acts.
33
Such a fight would have to ultimately take place in the Senate. It is questionable that Senator Charles Schumer is up to the task. His future and ours depend upon his willingness to fight this important battle.
3
Exactly what can Chuck Schumer do? He doesn't have the votes to do anything.
4
What is the selling point of being a Republican?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what they're selling.
Is it just lording power over people? How many people you can bend to your will? Power for powers sake alone?
Sure, money is necessary, but, to me, the endless pursuit of it seems to lead nowhere. To a spiritual vacuum.
Sometimes I wonder if these right-wing billionaires are even happy. A life spent wondering, "What should I buy next?", in some vain attempt to fill a hole.
Friends, family, laughter, good times, crosswords, intellectual curiosity, endless self-evaluation in the pursuit of trying to be a better person, love, helping and caring about other people, good food, health and well being, joy, honesty, etc, etc, etc. - These are the things I value.
At this point in my life, my biggest goal is to try to make sure that people are better off for having known me. That I make a positive difference in the people I encounter, no matter who they are, or where I meet them. Is there any greater reward than making someone laugh?
So, I wonder, are any of these things important to Republicans? If so, then perhaps we're not so different after all.
Are our differences really greater then our similarities?
11
Limited government.
What battle? The Dems roll over like they do every time on every issue. It is what they do.
10
The only “scary” thing about the makeup of the Court has been the openly opinionated, political dissents of the so-called liberal wing. While the majority adheres closely to the law and the Constitution, and explains its decisions in that context, as the job presumably requires, the minority opines in its dissents about whether the impact of the ruling fits their vision of America.
It is the job of our elected representatives to be guided by political concerns and pass (or reject) laws that reflect the will of the people. That’s NOT the role of the judiciary. Even when you think the legislative or executive branches are failing you.
7
The President is the subject of a federal investigation into possible collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice and he has already expressed the belief that he can pardon himself. There's a very real possibility that this may go as far as the Supreme Court. You have to ask, should a President be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who may very well be the deciding vote that allows him to pardon himself?
42
The legacy of this president naming a second justice will erode the importance of the court. When Democrats take Congress at some point between now and when Trump appointees retire, it is my belief that we will see the end of the senate filibuster and the beginning of revolving court packing legislation and the consistent change in the structure of the court. The states provide the best example of that. It’s happened in the past and will happen again.
3
There is no "war" here. This has already been decided. As the saying goes, in a democracy you get the government you deserve (Electoral College notwithstanding).
7
The spineless corporatist Center/Right democrats deserve to lose if they don't force a showdown...better this plays out in congress than the streets! At least they will disagree/fight it out with words instead of lethal weapons.
5
The Supreme Court is merely another partisan institution. Justice is supposed to be blind but the Supreme Court is anything but blind to political influences. Can there be at least one branch of the American government that is beyond the reach of politics and ideology? The Supreme Court is supposed to be that institution but it has miserably failed to live up to its expectations as a non-partisan body.
The problem stems from partisan legal professionals being nominated by a partisan (the president) to be Associate Justices and confirmed or rejected by more partisans (Senators). Such an institution cannot be objective in its rulings. If all three branches of government are influenced by partisanship - a situation that is exacerbated when a single political ideology controls the trio - then checks and balances effectively cease to exist.
5
I'm astounded that decisions of the highest judicial court in the USA can be determined by the political biases of its candidates. In my country, by mutual agreement of the political parties, the judiciary and the community, judges are appointed based on their ability to decide on the law.
It seems to me that the US public service system is infected with this type of serial political interference such as the appointment of a climate denialist as head of the EPA.
16
Your country has $25 minimum wage and full healthcare coverage, too.
4
The problem with the Democrats is that they don't stick together. This is a major problem. The Democrats didn't fight for Garland and stood meekly by while McConnell rode roughshod over Obama's selection. They have three Senator Democrats who will probably vote for Trump's choice to save their seats in red states.
Because the Democratic Party didn't fight there is a good chance that Trump will have another opportunity to nominate another justice. Ginsburg is 85 years old with major health problems. The Republicans need only sit back and wait.
6
Democrats must get serious and play rough and hard like their ruthless oligarchic adversaries. Trump seems willing to let China become the next dominant world power. He's all about the money and he's an authoritarian wanna be.
8
What battle? Given the Senate map, Dems have to get this off the table before the midterms or it's a moot point anyway-- the evangelical vote in the red states will be massive if that's actually on the line, meaning Dems will lose seats they could otherwise win.
It's a bitter pill, but time to swallow it. Been coming due since so many lefties decided voting for Clinton was optional.
The only thing left to be done is win in 2020, because if they don't, it's gonna be a 7-2 conservative court in all likelihood. Win in 2020 and hope Clarence Thomas decides to go fishing.
7
I have read quite a lot of books and articles about the juridical system of the USA and of the doings of of the supreme court. I would say that 'sad' is not enough to describe what I felt when confronted with the wrongs of your judicial system, and the abhorrent decisions that were often made by the supreme court. Anger and feelings like this-cannot-be-true, the stab that I felt when confronted with the cruel things that were done to people, innocent as well as criminal, kept circling around in my head.
You are right, another judge like Gorsuch or even worse, would make your country a barbaric place, to be compared with some countries in the Middle East. In my opinion almost everything is allowed to stop this going to happen. Sit on the streets of Washington till the end, send email messages to the White House so that nothing can be done. Block the internet of that helps. You cannot let this happen. Stand up against the power of money and greed. Against the arrogance of the people that call themselves Christians. Keep your country alive!
7
A president under investigation for election tampering and conspiracy should not appoint a SC Justice until the investigation is COMPLETE. If he is guilty, it would mean the entire democratic system has been contaminated. That is an unreasonable risk to ask Americans to stand for.
26
Most Supreme Court justices become moderate no matter how conservative or liberal they were before. No worries.
5
The was was over when Trump won. Wasn't it Obama who said elections have consequences?
10
This is a silly article. There will be no battle. Trump will appoint someone as reprehensible as Thomas and Gorsuch, liberals/moderates/Democrats will complain loudly but will be powerless to stop it and the extreme right-winger, whoever it is, will be seated on the Supreme Court. And the country will suffer, not from any one decision but by death from a thousand cuts. The environment, abortion rights and all the rest of the things everybody but conservatives care about - all in grave jeopardy.
Elections have consequences. We had our chance to stop this not very difficult to predict disaster in 2016 and we didn't.
47
Judge Thomas Hardiman, on Pres. Trump's short list, along with Sen. Lee, seems to agree with Sen Cruz's interpretation that an Art. II, § I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen isn't a person born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty but can be born with other foreign allegiances. With any one of these two gentlemen sitting on a SCOTUS bench, Sen Cruz will be free to weaken the U.S. Constitution yet again when he runs for president.
1
Republicans have lowered the status of the Supreme Court to that of the Chamber Commerce or Koch Industries, it has devolved into another right-wing hack entity.
8
To my knowledge, Mitch no one has ever stonewalled a nominee to the high court the way you did I'm not even granting Garland a hearing. Now you cling to precedent???
22
Google "Nominations of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry"
1
What “battle” ? The country handed Trump and these vulgar republications “whiskey and the car keys” and like the Bush days the country is being driven straight into the ditch.
I’m 64 years old, a patriot, and believe strongly in what I thought were the core values of our nation.
For the first time in my life thanks to Trump and the current shameless GOP, I’m embarrassed to be an American.
17
"whiskey and the car keys"? talk to ted kennedy about that.
if you are embarrassed to be an American please close the door on your way out.
Why is it automatically assumed the Democrats must fight the chosen nominee? How about we wait to see who gets nominated?
Doesn't anybody up there in Washington DC act in a mature adult-like manner? Or, must politicians, and possibly the citizen's themselves need to be so partisan?
The entire political system is (has been?) turned into a piece of garbage by both sides of the isle. How about we learn to discuss pro's and con's on the differences and then learn to compromise as is necessary in a democracy? We have turned into a bunch of irresponsible children. Does anyone up there in D.C. have a brain that can actually recognize both sides have valid ideas and form an intelligent conversation around differences and learn to compromise as may be required.
I, for one, am fed up with the entire process and that includes Democrats and Republicans who act like children it seems 24 hours a day. Garbage is what they are.
10
"How about we wait and see who gets nominated?"
How about we see if Trump turns presidential after he takes office? How about we see how Trumps grows into the role of the President?
4
And one has to do with the other because??? It appears you may be one of the people I was referring to...
how long will it be before a wall is needed to keep people in?
10
Well, Trump won 30 states, so the only wall to keep people IN will be around states like NJ and CA. Most of these folks are simply fleeing high taxes though...
That is a feature of socialist/communist countries.
"The West Coast, New York, New Jersey and the Northeast will still be free, and state elections in those states will still matter."
As other publications have stressed, many Americans are leaving high-tax states, most of which are "blue." Living expenses in those states are high in general, but the $10,000 cap on SALT deductions in the 2017 tax act is significant, intentionally aimed at blue states or not (though I'm confident it was). While I doubt New York, New Jersey or California will be turning "red" any time soon, the exodus from each state could result in fewer electoral votes for those states, and lower representation in Congress.
9
Wouldn't there be a corresponding upswing in Democratic voters in red states and a shift of electoral votes to those states? For examole, maybe no-income-tax Florida will swing Blue!
3
TJ,
Certainly you're right, at least if the "leavers" are a representative cross-section of the state's residents. From my admittedly small knowledge base, though, they're not. The "leavers" tend to be more "red state" types, and will probably boost the "red" voters in the states they go to.
1
Americans have fought for democracy all over the world. We may be about to learn what it means to fight for democracy in America.
7
It seems that a good place to start would be a constitutional challenge before the supreme court against Mitch McConnell. McConnell has already rejected hundreds of years of tradition by refusing to provide President Obama "advice and consent" as demanded by the Constitution concerning Obama's nominee. He did that with the justification that a year before the election, the voters deserved the right to weight in on the nomination. Now he wishes to change that rule of his own making. This is an arbitrary action both then and now and serves no purpose other that the further the political interests of one group of voters. There is no justification in the US Constitution for such undemocratic behavior. The Supreme Court should adjudicate on this issue.
4
You have no idea what you are talking about. "hundreds of years of tradition"? They never even had hearings on SCOTUS judges until the mid 20th century, and the Constitution does not require any hearing at all. And in case you missed it, "no hearing on Garland" was all the "advise" the Dems we're entities to; what part of that was unclear?
1
The GOP needs to be careful not to overreach. They won't always be in power and actions have consequences. I have no issue with a conservative justice as long as they recognize precedence. Trying to undo womens rights, civil rights, and LGBT rights will not go over well with younger generations who are more open minded then previous generations of conservatives.
6
Let us not despair. I think the center will live on with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch. In one of the accompanying graphs, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch are shown to rule about 40-50% for liberal positions and about the same for conservative positions. Remember, it was Chief Justice Roberts that voted with the liberal wing and saved Obamacare. On Roe V Wade and gay rights, there is no way that the Justices would undo them. These laws have been completely absorbed into our societies. And remember Gorsuch clerked for Justice Kennedy. And who knows, maybe the next Trump appointee may turn out to be like Justice Souter.
5
All of the Democrat’s current woes are because of one issue - immigration.
From the moment Donald Trump descended the escalator, his primary issue was immigration. He looked at the polls, did the math, and recognized a path to electoral victory in swing states. He recognized immigration as the core issue and rode it all the way to the White House.
In contrast, the establishment Republicans and Hillary Clinton continued to sell a vision of amnesty and semi-porous borders.
ACA. Paris Climate Agreement. Iran Nuclear Deal. Tax cuts. Two Supreme Court seats (at least).
Are Democrats happy to have chosen immigration as the hill to die on?
More importantly, are they going to choose the same hill in 2018 and 2020?
7
It seems that a good place to start the challenge would be a challenge before the supreme court against Mitch McConnell before the Supreme Court. He has already rejected hundreds of years of tradition by refusing to provide President Obama "advice and consent" about Obama's nominee. He did that with the justification that a year before the election, the voters deserved the right to weight in on the nomination. Now he wishes to change that rule of his own making. This is an arbitrary action both then and now and serves no purpose other that the further the political interests of one group of voters. There is no justification in the US Constitution for such undemocratic behavior. The Supreme Court should adjudicate on this issue.
5
Democratic Senates in 1852 and 1968 refused to give the president's nominees for the Supreme Court the courtesy of a vote. And in 1968, the president was a Dem.
You started it.
4
New and interesting information to me.
However, it is not a question about who was wrong first but how to make it right. If every decision is made on what is best for one party or the other, things will only get worse. The only standard should be what is best for the American people. No one should be afraid to debate the issue openly and respectfully. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader made a case 2 years ago that Obama's nomination should not be considered but decided by the American People. The circumstances are exactly the same - it is even closer to an election. Now he has reversed himself 180 degrees. Sometime the Democrats will regain power. If his bald faced move survives, you can be sure the Democrats will retaliate. On the other hand, McConnell could be a statesman and stand by his principles which would help put out this fire.
Those who did not vote in 2016 and now are crying over Trump picking another Supreme Court Justice, this is as much on you as it it is on Mitch McConnell. Look no further than the one term president, George H.W. Bush who put Clarence Thomas on the Court in 1991. We only had to live with Bush senior for four years; we have had to endure Thomas's far right decisions for almost thirty years. Trump won't even know his nominee, but the right-wingers who gave him the list will. Because you couldn't be bothered to make a choice, we will once again be stuck with another conservative who will assure us in the hearing that he/she has not formed an opinion on abortion, or gay rights, or immigrants and then deliver exactly the opinions we have gotten from Gorsuch, Trump's first pick.
6
The most important and most legitimate reason to block a nomination came from Corey Booker. Trump and the whole 2016 election is under investigation. Until that is settled, he must not be entitled to an appointment. I would add - he shouldn't get ANY more judicial nominees approved anywhere.
Dems could walk out, not show up, refuse to vote...the people must support them in this.
4
Make no mistake about it, we are in the throes of a cultural civil war. The right may win in the short term but will pay a very dear long term price for the coming generations generally consider what is currently seen as leftist cultural ideas as normal.
3
The Democrats just didn't seem to get it together in the last Presidential election. Trump made it very clear what his intentions would be with regards to the Supreme Court if elected. Clinton looked right past that. Instead it should have been rallying call for the Democrats, but the media had Hillary winning by a landslide so it was carelessly relegated as a nonstarter. Now the President is going to pack the court on them. Face it, the Dems got outplayed by a rookie politician. The best they can hope for at this point is that Ginsberg and Breyer don't breathe their last breath before the 2022 elections. Otherwise they might as well pack up their show and head off to some socialist country.
6
Given that Kennedy was a conservative -- aren't the only precedents at risk - if you accept the premise of Pelosi and others -- those in which Kennedy participated with the more liberal wing? Pelosi and co. are painting this as a much broader swath of decisions.
1
Yes it feels hopeless if you are a far right republican. yes we can blame Mitch, and the Russians, and trump, and angry whites, and Hillary's tweets, and Comey, and Hillary herself, but that's water under the bridge. We made this bed, so now we have to lay in it
Sure Dems can try to slow things down, but the number s are not good. maybe Murkowski and Collins will actually stand by their pro choice beliefs, but I am not holding my breath. Maybe Flake and others who are not up for re election will vote their conscience and consider country over party. Maybe McCain will somehow make it to Washington to turn a thumb down. Not likely.
And maybe all the red state democratic senators and congresfolk will vote their head instead of their party at great personal risk. Not likely if they want to get reelected.
So what are we to do? One of the talking heads last night pointed out that the Court will just say certain activities are not constitutionally protected. That leaves it to the states to enact laws that do protect. That leaves it to Congress to undo the Court's license to the states to create mischief. That's where we come in. We the People need to elect representatives and senators at the state and federal levels to do what the courts won't dictate.
Sure we may be too late to save the Court, but we can still invoke change.
November vote may decide the fate of our union for the next 50 years. It's on us folks, no excuses. vote them out. return to regular order
8
Kennedy, the moderate, has chosen his retirement, it appears, to preserve religious conscience as in the case of the Colorado baker, which freedom of conscience would be soon erased by a liberal majority. He leaves us, then, with a court more in his image than not.
1
It should go without saying that any Supreme Court Justice appointed by Trump will have to be recused or barred from participating in any of the Court's cases involving the President that are occasioned by Mueller's investigations.
4
A Stanton,
That goes without saying? I must say that I don't understand that thinking at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.
5
Well, then let me try again.
The new Justice should not be a participant in any of the cases that may later be brought by Mueller against Trump.
I hope that is somewhat clearer.
1
Defend our liberty and justice for ALL.
We must stop immoral Trump from placing his loyalist in Supreme Court.
Let the midterm votes decide our next justice.
Battle implies both sides of a chance. But one side does not. Done deal would be more accurate.
3
So the real reason this President should not choose a SCOTUS to replace Kennedy is that he under investigation for colluding with the Russians against this country. Why should someone that is under investigation for working with the Russians to undermine our democracy be allowed to install anyone for 30 to 40 years?
3
Oh yes, a real battle for his replacement. House: GOP, Senate:GOP, President: GOP. Needed votes in Congress to pass: majority. Ha. Ha. Huge battle, right? Just can't figure out why Ginsburg doesn't move on in her life. Guess that is the answer: her life is only the SCOTUS.
1
Reversal Civil rights is not even the biggest threat here. This court is going to confirm the rule of corporations and Big Money over the rest of Americans. In effect, it means we will never have a real democracy. Money will Rule. Buying elections will be the law of the land.
It is not too extreme to say we are headed to a neofeudalist form of political economy. IF you are not the .01% financial elite, you are effectively a serf to corporate and Big Money Masters.
4
The "centrist" hero, Anthony Kenned, already did with his opinion in Citizens United.
1
Too funny!
Republicans didn’t like but didn’t act like children when Kagan and sotomayor were appointed.
Democrats know their liberal agenda can’t pass congress so their better bet is lawsuits and liberal justices.
That’s why the Supreme Court is such a big deal to them.
Doesn’t matter thanks to the Biden rule plus Harry Reid’s trailblazing to end the filibuster, trump will get a solid conservative
Get used to it.
6
There was no "Biden" rule. When he was a senator he profered a hypothetical situation, that's all.
Nothing comes close to McConnells' bastardry and his complete disregard for convention by not giving Obama's nomination even a hearing.
He set a big precedent.
One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Like how Trump was going to staff his White House "with the best people?"
2
On the one hand, this is a Republican check mate. Delivery of a right wing promise that has been incubating for years. On the other hand, this might just turn states like Texas 'blue'.
4
I don't have to ponder whether I could remain a Democrat if just 1% of what the GOP is doing or lying about daily. Man, those diehard evangelicals and tea party types live by a set of eithics and morals way, way different than mine. I hope I am still part of the majority in that sense.
2
what was supposed to be a 4 year nightmare is now potentially turned into a 30 year nightmare
5
For half the country, it's a 30 year dream.
1
I've read many purported Democrats that criticise a perceived ineffectiveness of and by the party in recent years.
I think the opposition is behind much of that. Repeat something over and over and then others parrot it. The Democrats have not been playing dirty. The GOP has a mega-wealthy foreign and domestic oligarch control edge. They get off scot-free because they play dirty. They control the conversations.
Democrats were literally outFOXed by a tabloid entertainment network, an inexplicably successful actually fake news outlet.
Stop blaming the Democrats. Or past, now irrelevant, political figures. The dead ones and the live ones.
Offer hope instead. Here and now and the future matter.
The actions of Trump, his associates, and the GOP cabal and donors are theirs. No one else is to blame. They engineered a coup. A sordid contemptible scot-free win.
Most recently they want anyone other to shut up. Good people need to change the conversations. Turn your backs when they lie and cheat. In restaurants, in courts, on TV. Writing a message on your back may be the new tweet.
We have 2 perceived teams. The red team and the blue team. (Green and purple have to fall under the red and blue tents to be relevant). The Rs and the Ds. The liberals and the conservatives. There are only 2 real groups that matter now. The "I don't care" people, and the "I care" people. We have much more than a constitutional crisis now.
2
What women Senators will vote to approve a nominee who will eliminate or reduce a woman's right to choose, and will eliminate or reduce a sick person's access to care?
4
This ultra conservative wave has been long in the making and Democrats have yielded ground again and again. Reagan/Bush years started the process. Clinton triangulated morphed the Democratic Party into Republican lite. Wall Street friendly, and social issues... don't ask don't tell. Wall Street loves it.
Bush II ... well neoconservatives started never ending wars.
People looking for Change... Obama. eight years...No Drama Obama... Yeah well.
No prosecution of Wall Street fraudsters, but bailout the banks, wars continue and broaden.... Repubs obstruction left unsanctioned as if Obama didn't realize power of Presidency... And now Trump. Authoritarian rule comes to America.
Schumer giving away the house over cheeseburgers with Trump and Pelosi... my goodness.. Party and opposition in tatters and rudderless. And here we are left stamping our feet as McConnell vows to move ahead with Supreme Court nominee. Long road back looks pretty challenging.
5
All these cheery "don't worry, be happy" comments are understandable -- people are trying to anesthetize themselves. It's worry fatigue. But if you take off rose-colored glasses, the outlook for America as we know it is not good.
Depending on the outcome of the November elections, we might see Congress pass a nationwide abortion ban in advance of the expected overturn of Roe V. Wade. Then we get to see what's next on the Religious Right's agenda (hint -- it's birth control).
And by next year the Supreme Court will be putting its stamp of approval on Congressional gerrymandering and uncontrolled campaign spending so ruthless that Democrats will never again threaten control of the House. Enjoy your vote in November because it could be your last chance to participate in a reasonably free federal election.
The West Coast, New York, New Jersey and the Northeast will still be free, and state elections in those states will still matter. But I'm afraid this means the rest of the country, about 40 states, appear destined to fall permanently under the sway of this authoritarian right-wing regime.
If Democrats can't win the House this fall, they will never again threaten, they will cease to exist as a national force. The only elections that are going to matter in 40 or 42 states will be Republican primaries. The best chance of saving the United States from descending into all-out fascism may be to join the Republican Party and support responsible GOP leadership.
24
This is going to be a one-sided political war in which President Trump and the Republicans in Congress will win. The Supreme Court will be cemented as a conservative court for, at least, the next 10 to 20 years. The most that the Democrats can hope for is to use the process and the outcome as a means to energize their base and Independents. With the selection of the replacement for Justice Kennedy, all branches of the Federal government, and most state governments will be in Republican hands. It may take a generation for things to change and for progressives to be in a position of power.
15
Doesn't the Senate cloture vote for supreme court justices still require 60 votes? don't think there are nine Democrats that would go along with it.
Your correct and Democrats need to refuse to agree to a judge under any circumstances .
What goes around comes around. The Republicans set the standard, no vote until the next President, and now they can live with it.
1
Not any longer when voting for SC nominees. McConnell used the "nuclear option" and got rid of it to get Gorsuch confirmed.
1
Richard Brill,
"Doesn't the Senate cloture vote for supreme court justices still require 60 votes?"
It still takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, but the Senate decided during the Gorsuch nomination process not to permit filibusters of Supreme Court nominations. Presumably it will do the same thing this time, which will mean a simply majority will suffice.
What is sickening about this process is the notion that a judge would be selected based on their political leanings, thereby directly impacting the law. Why does the process not focus on the most qualified jurists in the country? How could any associate justice of the Supreme Court not conduct their work based on the Constitution, the law, and precedent, fairly, and in the best interests of the People of the United States? How could any justice be so biased that they would make their decisions solely motivated by politics?
17
After enduring some very tense and knock down battles historically in attempts (often without success) in filling Supreme Court vacancies (Robert Bork and Abe Fortas as Chief comes to mind), never was the will of the minority party ever denied and 60 rather than 50 votes were always required to confirm. Now we have endured denying a duly elected President from filling a vacancy during his term (Garland) and a simple majority of 50 (plus the VP) can laud their will over the other 50 with no regard for finding an equilibrium. Should we simply accept this as "normal" or "within the rights of the majority"? In my view, removing the filibuster was the straw that broke the rules to such an extent that it may well be fair to conclude that refusing to respect decisions and laws that seek to deny us our most basic rights as Americans could become our only option. Our government has been infiltrated by fascist elements, the results of which will affect us for years to come if we allow it. When is it right to say "NO, ENOUGH!" and ask our state government to do whatever it can to obstruct implementing and enforcing laws that we deem threats to our very liberty? The situation is becoming so critical that staying calm and acquiescing to "what will be will be" is not an option. Our freedoms are threatened. How should those that love liberty and civil rights react to a government hellbent on diminishing both?
7
You do understand it was Democrats, led by Harry Reid specifically, who overturned the need for a Senate supermajority for federal nominees over the objections of McConnell in 2013?
1
There is one overarching issue and one only. Is the nominee of the view that a sitting president can ignore a lawfully issued subpoena (while preserving the right to object to its scope) and can a president pardon himself/herself?
If a nominee refuses to answer that question, then such nominee should be disqualified.
I am perhaps naïve but I think Dems are tactically wrong not to vote as soon as possible. It is entirely possible the Republicans will pick up 3 to 5 Democratic Senate seats. Those professional election prognosticators all have these races as toss-ups. Now we have Flake, and McCain and Corker and a challenged Heller and pro-choice Murkowski and Collins. A newly triumphant enlarged GOP Senate majority will approve the most radical rightist in the list.
Dems, in thrall of the loudest activist voices, instead of thinking tactically, are about to shoot themselves in the foot.
1
According to the article, Carrie Severino, the conservative advocate, says “These attacks by liberal billionaires and special interest groups are bound to fail because the American people doesn’t want the leftist agenda they are trying to impose.”
If Ms. Severino were really concerned about what the American people wants, she would favor waiting till after the November election for nomination of the Kennedy replacement. We already know that the majority of the American people did not favor Trump since he was elected, through the electoral college, by a minority of voters. The hypocrisy of right wing ideologues is breathtaking.
3
How can Trump impose a “tyranny of the majority” when he lost the popular vote in the last election? And he hasn’t achieved a majority approval rating of national voters ever since?
7
Aside from abortion rights and gay rights, exactly how was Justice Kennedy really any more moderate than Justice Roberts? He hates unions and loves corporations and generally sided with the powerful over the privileged. He had a libertarian streak that will be missed, but the right already won the Supreme Court when McConnell cheated and robbed Obama of a rightful appointment. If Kennedy were a moderate, he'd've waited till next year when the Senate could be in Democratic hands and force Trump to pick a compromise. But he's not a moderate. He's a staunch conservative and wanted a right-wing replacement. We'll just have to hope that Collins and Murkowski and the conservative Dems can wield their power and force Trump's hand to appoint a Garland type or block another Gorsuch.
25
Collins and Murkowski? Dream on.
3
The confirmation process must be delayed until the referendum on the Republican Party and its corrupt President have been completed in November.
This is the same precedent that McConnell established when he refused to consider Judge Garland's nomination.
8
Justice Kennedy was always a voice of reason. He will be replaced by an nominee, ultimately being confirrmend by president Trump, that makes the high court even more lopsided (to the right) as it already is. It is inconceivable!
The Republicans have been throwing Constitutional and democratic norms by the wayside for decades with voter suppression, extreme partisan gerrymandering, fake news channels, greedy billionaire polluters, outright lies and incitements to hatred over the radio. In 2016 they refused even to consider the duly elected president's nomination for the Supreme Court: an utter failure of McConnell and the Senate to uphold their Constitutional duty.
We now have a criminal inquiry ongoing with a ethically and morally compromised POTUS, who represents a minority of American voters, and who is apparently going to get a rubber stamp for a second extreme political pick to the court that is supposed to balance and check both the executive and legislative branches. Enough is enough. Republicans, Trump and McConnell are shredding our democracy and our system of checks and balances. The Democrats need to step up or let some else take their place.
Democrats should use every available legal and rule-based means to shut this down. Deny a quorum, shut the government down, filibuster any and all bills to bring the Senate to a virtual halt, whatever it takes. I’m sorry it has come to this but when your opponent doesn’t abide by common decency and democratic norms, you have to fight back with every available means.
29
Democrats don't have the votes to do any of the things you suggest. Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments.
Justice Kennedy will be remembered for one thing and one thing only; he delivered the Supreme Court to hard-right ideologues for the next thirty-five years.
57
Sorry - Judge Kennedy serviced this country with distinction. He’s old and now unfortunately ill. That’s not his fault.
This lies squarely at the feet of the people who didn’t vote or who voted Trump and the current crop of corrupt and vulgar Republicans into office.
Don’t make the same mistake in November.
I cannot believe that so many comments seem to blame this on others including voters. Voters did their jobs on both sides. The blame belongs on the Democratic party which decided its political creditors were more important than the voters. Shame on the Democratic party.
15
The Democrats are ALWAYS to blame, Mickeyd, but not sure how you figure it this time. Mitch McConnell (of Merrick Garland fame) is not a Democrat, nor is Mitch McConnell (of Anthony Kennedy fame) nor is tRump. In fact, I guarantee you this SCOTUS decision will be made entirely by closeted republicans, in secret, and then you'll assert that the Democrats didn't participate.
1
Shame on the voters who voted for Sanders or Stein. Shame on those that didn’t get off their duffs to vote. Shame on Trump for sowing lies and fear. Shame on the country for abandoning a black man’s legacy. Shame on the courts for pandering for dollars. Shame on the country for devaluing women. Shame on Christians in name only. Shame on the republicans playing hardball and being applauded for it while Democrats must remain civil. Shame, Shame, Shame.
1
Go tell that to the 60% of the voters who didn’t bother to vote.
Blame for this lies squarely at the feet of our lazy, gullible American population. Hope they’re getting what they wanted.
I certainly am not.
1
As a progressive Democrat, I mourn the sad situation with regard to the Supreme Court. The Democrats are powerless against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's use of the "nuclear option" to put another arch-conservative on the court as he did with Neil Gorsuch. Their only hope, and it's a very slim one, is to peel off two Republican senators who are unwilling to vote for someone who will reverse Roe v. Wade. Sen. Susan Collins is a likely candidate, but after her it becomes more difficult. Perhaps Sens. Lisa Murkowski will stand for women's reproductive rights or even John McCain will once again turn "thumbs down" on the radicalization of the court. All the Democrats can do is plead with them to so against the immense pressure of Donald Trump and the religious right. As it stands, it may be a very short "war" given how quickly the Gorsuch nomination was approved.
4
Conflict is our president’s raison d’etre. The media frenzy does not help and we will be reading Supreme Court vacancy and Trump headlines for the foreseeable future. Hopefully there are enough reasonable and intelligent Republicans left in Congress to support a qualified moderate SC justice. I would like to see Trump’s own courts put an end to tweeting insults and implementing dysfunctional policy.
1
The Republicans have been throwing Constitutional and democratic norms by the wayside for decades with voter suppression, extreme partisan gerrymandering, fake news channels, greedy billionaire polluters, lies and incitements to hatred over the radio. This culminated in 2016 with denying the duly elected president his choice for the Supreme Court: an utter failure of McConnell and the Senate to uphold their Constitutional duty.
We now have a criminal inquiry ongoing with the current POTUS, who represents a minority of American voters, and who is apparently going to get a rubber stamp for a second extreme political pick to the court that is supposed to balance and check both the executive and legislative branches. Enough is enough. Republicans and McConnell are shredding our democracy and the Democrats need to step up or let some else take their place.
Democrats should use every available legal and rule-based means to shut this down. Deny a quorum, shut the government down, filibuster any and all bills to bring the Senate to a virtual halt, whatever it takes.
4
This game is way over. It ended on the last presidential election day and that was the time to fight. But if our representative Democrats want to try to do a McConnell and use really dirty, unfair and counter-democratic tricks to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one then I won't blame them. The problem is that most of us Dems like fairness. It's so against our nature to be so foul. We actually care about democracy and it is hard to stomach the idea of trying something along the lines of what our opponents did to prevent Garland from ascending to his rightful seat. But as I said, the game played fairly ended long ago and now it may well be time to scramble the Monopoly board and make real mess of anything a Republican tries to do.
5
Enough already! Democracy itself is at risk, as SCOTUS abandons the Constitution in favor of legislating from the bench and pretending they are supporting our founders (they're not).
Do you now how much trouble we're in? Hitler's and Stalin's victims could tell you. We used to be a democracy, but cheating, wealth, and power have taken over, as they always do in human history.
The planet itself will take a hand: the truth matters. The earth's apex predator has become too greedy, and even it's more human and humane relatives are going to suffer. Reality is real.
5
If your job involves reading the decisions of the Court (which mine does), you might have something of a different take on the significance of any particular selection to the Court. Generally, the justices hew to roughly common precepts, and usually make pretty sensible decisions in particular cases. Yes, there are some notable exceptions, but I''m talking about the general rule. The supposed politicization of the Court is more of an external political concept than an internal truth of decision-making on the Court. My instinct is that the Court's enlarged relative significance in the constitutional system, which is also true, is more because of an abdication of authority by Congress and an arrogation of authority by the Presidents. Those are long-run trends that are not really dependent on particular presidents or particular congressional majorities. If you as a citizen really care about the health of the constitutional system, you should be focused less on the Court and more on Congress, the President, and the States. All of them have been less consistent and predictable over the decades than the Court, which has been the most consistent constitutional institution of all. Thank you, justices of every imagined type. Our justices are all constitutionalists. I wish I could say the same for the others holding public office under our Constitution.
11
As long as Trump chooses a Gorsuch-clean candidate, the Democrats can do nothing to stop the appointment of a pro-business, social conservative, ensuring a right-wing Court that will empower Trump to violate not only the Constitution but basic human decency. The wave of anguish/anger over Kennedy’s retirement is symptomatic of our powerlessness. How did the Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court become a unified power elite? The Democrats playing politics with the sharp racial and gender divisions in America, and their complicity on the neoliberal economic destruction of the middle class and poor, allowed Trump to play the white, male savior and win the election. Checks and balances and separation of powers have been rendered meaningless by Big Money’s influence over elections, legislation, and both Party leaderships. The only way to defend women’s, workers’, LGBTQ, Muslim, individual, and human rights is to mobilize where we can gain power—the streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces.
9
If Democrats want to participate in the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice they should stack rank the list and pledge enough support to overcome the objections of any faction within the Republican caucus.
2
It is really sad to see a great country convulsing over what doesn't happen in other comparable countries. Judges shouldn't be appointed for nakedly political reasons in the first place. Ever. I suspect most of the public would also prefer their courts to be more about justice than politics. Most comparable countries also see it as desirable for judges to be relatively in tune with the social mores of their times if the public is to retain confidence in the judicial system - which is paid for by taxpayers after all.
The personal political views of all judges are best kept as relatively private matters which don't influence their work. All of them should be potential "swingers" if they are making decisions, as they should be, on the merits of cases before them in a just, fair and equal manner.
The British have a far less contentious system with their independent JAC or Judicial Appointments Commission and identify their desired qualities in a judge :
1. Intellectual capacity 2. Personal qualities, Integrity and independence of mind, Sound judgement, Decisiveness, Objectivity, Ability and willingness to learn and develop professionally 3. An ability to understand and deal fairly
4. Authority and communication skills 5. Efficiency .
The "deal fairly" is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building in Washington as "Equal Justice under Law" and hopefully it won't go AWOL in the present climate.
1
"Judges shouldn't be appointed for nakedly political reasons... " "doesn't happen in other comparable countries."
Thats gotta win the head-in-the-sand award of the day
1
We should not wait for the election before a justice is nominated. That would be repeating a wrong. But there is a far better reason with a more reasoned basis for delaying it. This President is being investigated for criminal activity and possibly impeachable reasons. Until that is settled it would be irrational and overly hasty to act on this. If we waited a year and more under Obama we can wait an equivalent time under this far more suspect Presidency.
3
No, don't fight it! This is a battle that can't be won in the long run. But fighting it will energize the Trumpers for the election. Might be better to take a big loss and wait to strike with real, unrelenting force when the numbers are better.
3
As a Canadian woman who might be described as "elderly", I watched our country and medical system evolve over my life -from being illegal, then limited, and now covered by the Canada Health Act.
I think that the a couple of phrases cover the general opinions of Canadians :
One of Pierre Trudeau's most famous quotations: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." (Father of Justin Trudeau)
Secondly, the statement of my long time doctor: "if you do not believe in abortion, I strongly suggest you do not have one".
The very idea that many of the Christians in the United States are so opposed to abortion, but care little about what happens to those same mothers and children's health and welfare after the child is born - is hypocritical to say the least.
42
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I can answer this commenter's question:
"Why not postpone a hugely consequential vote until we have a president who's not under a counterintelligence investigation?"
Answer: Because that would encourage a President's opponents to launch a "counterintelligence investigation" (whatever that means), whether one was warranted or not.
Keep in mind that our system calls for actual evidence, not just allegations. It's one thing to open an "investigation" -- quite another for the investigators to find actual evidence (of "collusion" here).
Mueller was granted his authority well over a year ago, and reportedly "flipped" many lesser defendants many months ago. But still no evidence of "collusion." Maybe he's got some and just decided not to tell the rest of us about it, but I am starting to wonder.
9
The headline might try to create the appearance of a political war, but there will be none, other than a perceived one. Republicans control the levers and will confirm who they want, when they want. Not much to tell here.
19
The Democrats are in large part responsible for the fix they are in. I believe that Schumer could have made a deal with McConnell in the Gorsuch appointment. McConnell loves the traditions of the Senate which included appointments needing sixty votes. Schumer could have offered McConnell the independence of his party's senators to vote for Gorsuch nomination in exchange for reinstating the sixty vote requirement and returning all appointments to sixty votes. Remember it was Harry Reid who dismantled this tradition to the chagrin and protests of McConnell.
Of course this would mean Democrats working with Republicans which is the completely against what the vociferous wing of the Democratic Party wants.
10
I am 60 and I was only about 15 at the time of Roe v Wade.
Conservatives have had 45 years to overturn Roe via a constitutional amendment which has gone absolutely nowhere. Similarly liberals have had 45 years to lock it in the same way with no action. Both sides fret endlessly about twists and turns in the Supreme Court without any definitive movements or actions via an Amendment. It's like someone constantly complaining about their job and never changing jobs for 45 years.
Republicans stopped the approval of Obama's nominee because they COULD. Democrats CAN'T force the next appointment to stop. It's not the same scenario at all. If Democrats heavily controlled House and Senate in 2018 and Trump had a 90% chance of losing they'd be unlikely to process his far right nominee in the last weeks of his presidency either.
17
Although your article proclaims a political war over the nomination to replace Justice Kennedy is underway, it does not state that the Democrats have any weapons to shoot. They do not control the Senate; the filibuster rule was repealed, ironically after Democrats first abolished the protocol for lower court nominees. What this situation demonstrates is that elections carry consequences and the Democrats failure to control any branch of government,as well as most state governmental bodies, should cause them to reexamine their ideology and leadership. Whatever they are selling, the American people aren't buying.
25
Dems need to give this one up and move on to fighting for issues that will play well for the midterms. If the Dems need someone to blame it should be put on the cocky elitist democratic strategists, the anti Trump media and most importantly Hillary Clinton whose absolute failure to connect with average Americans and over entitled attitude gave us trump to begin with.
We get failure after failure with our current crop of democrat politicians and it's going to take many changes to have a fighting chance this year and in 2020. Pelosi needs to go for one idea. Truly a sad and hopeless time to be on the left and the strategy doesn't seem to change despite losing to Trump at every turn.
17
With the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, we have already seen the end of the Voting Rights Act, erosion of workers' rights, and sharp curtailment of freedom of religion.
The Hobby Lobby case allows corporations to impose their religious belief on employees. The Janus case eviscerates the power of workers to bargain for a fair deal. Citizens United flooded our political system with dark money.
Next up is the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and -- who knows -- the ability of individual states to declare Christianity an official state religion.
6
Law of physics: every action provokes an equally strong reaction. Conservatives by refusing to consider or compromise with or accomodate *any* liberal concerns are only provoking an equally strong reaction, coming your way in November!
3
Well, this is an open question:
"If the Democratic party does not move left economically with the large majority of the American people it is finished."
No question that the Sanders/Warren "left" wing of the Democratic Party is more "pure" than the "centrist" Democrats personified by Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton, and others.
But winning now and then is nice too. The DP centrists suffered doubly from HRC's loss in 2016: the "left" wing could fairly say, and did: "You're not only impure 'Republican lite' Democrats; you can't even win!"
And so far this primary season, the Democrats who've done the best are either the "left" wing types (for example: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) or "Democrats" who openly imitate Republicans (Conor Lamb, for example) because they know voters like this. If, however, many of the "left" wing types lose in November because voters conclude they're TOO left wing (though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez almost certainly will win), the DP "centrists" might start looking a bit better.
When Trump won the presidency he gained the authority to appoint new Supreme Court judges. Many people who voted Trump into office did this solely on this issue alone. As the minority party there is nothing the Democrats can really do to prevent this. Our country will survive.
19
Gained the authority to "appoint" SC justices John? Did you overlook the whole "checks and balances" aspect of the Constitution? The President "nominates" a justice, and the Senate "approves" the nomination. It's for this reason we don't have a Justice Garland on the Court, because McConnell cynically manipulated the process and refused to even consider Obama's nominee.
5
You are right. However, it would have been nice if the republicans had displayed the same respect for the "authority" that President Obama still maintained during the beginning of the fourth year of his term to appoint Judge Garland. The republicans' refusal to do so was disgraceful, to borrow one of Trump's favorite adjectives and unprecedented. Indeed, in 1988, a democratic senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy to the court during the last year of President Reagan's term.
3
Think about what we're saying here. We cannot trust the Judiciary to be impartial. A Donald Trump pick automatically equals a claw back of many of the advances of the 20th century. We are saying that we cannot trust the highest court in the land to uphold the rule of law and respect precedent. We are saying the SCOTUS is nothing more than a mouthpiece and "fives hands with pens" to enact what the most regressive conservatives in our nation want. We are saying they are not independent, but hacks.
It has come to this with the highest court in the land. We are truly lost as a nation.
3
As a progressive Democrat, I'm scared by the thought of the next Justice appointed by Trump to replace Justice Kennedy like so many of my fellow Americans. We need to protest, scream, resist and make our views known to our elected representatives. But we also need to let the confirmation process proceed according to McConnell's schedule and the normal course of Senate business.
The last thing we want is Republican and conservative voters who always come out to vote for justices to turn the potential #bluewave into a no wave, or worse, lose some of our Democratic Senators in red states.
Let's let them get the justice confirmed for the first Monday in October and then get ourselves to the polls on the first Tuesday of November.
5
A lot of energy an hot air will be expended by Democrats and liberals on this fight but there is no chance at all that Republicans will relent. Trump's pick will prevail and he will not be a moderate.
7
Democrats and other independents should have come out to vote. But too many of them think politics is a game so they stayed home and said things like Hilary is just as bad. I would like to think those folks are more introspective right about now but this is America so I doubt it.
7
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Please, please, please stay alive and well and don’t retire anytime in the foreseeable future.
5
It may be time to add two seats or discover that our president is a criminal and void all his signatures
1
"Elections DO have consequences." Hopefully all the Jill Stein voters and other voluntary absentees at the last vote will be the first to feel the brunt of this decision which will be inflicting pain for decades to come. There is only one way to redeem yourselves this fall. It's Now or never.
5
@svenbi, I have known such progressive "voters" my entire life. Most are upper-middle-class, white, well-educated, and financially secure. Despite virtue signaling every chance they get, they are happy to let the GOP run roughshod over poor, working, and/or minority Americans. They have no interest in redeeming themselves this fall as they feel no need to *be* redeemed. Sticking it to centrist Dems is what they care about most.
The Democrats in the Senate have the means to slowdown the Senate keeping the issue of a new justice alive until the mid terms. The question is do they have the will to do it?
I may be wrong and hope that I am but my present impression is one could not find Schumer's spine with an X ray.
And when will Obama jump into the fray to encourage and speek about this? Particularly after McConnell stole his lunch over the Garland appointment? It might be time for him to be a bit more adversarial.
One would hope against hope that Democratic candidates will use the issue of the threat to women's reproductive freedom in every election in every state.
But if the past predicts the future the Democratic leadership will whine and roll over and Obama will remain silent sitting above the fray.
2
"Focus on Corker, Flake, Collins, and Murkowski."
Corker and Flake (and McCain) almost certainly will vote for any Trump nominee, for one or both of two reasons:
1. Though the tradition appears to have ended, largely, Senators have typically deferred to Presidents on this (not always, certainly: there's been an occasional Robert Bork, but usually).
2. They're Republicans.
Obviously one can say the same thing about Collins and Murkowski. But both of them are women who've expressed fairly strong pro-abortion positions in the past. Since Trump almost certainly will nominate someone opposed to abortion, Collins and Murkowski will be between a rock and a hard place. If Trump's nominee is a woman (as I predict), they'll have other pegs on which to hang a "yes" vote; if Trump instead nominates a man (which I doubt), they'll have fewer pegs.
Bottom line: I think Trump will get "yes" votes from all 4 (and McCain).
4
Ever since the non-election of George W, the Supreme Court has been reeking reactionary.
Expect the Court to install DJT as President for Life soon, as its last act before abolishing itself.
3
Well, place me among the ignoramuses:
"If you didn't know HRC was going to lose well before the election ... (I am a Democrat and knew from day 1 she would lose) ... "
Like most Americans, I thought HRC would win. Indeed, I thought that most of the way through Election Day itself.
But she lost. It may be time for Democrats to accept that. Indeed, maybe they should have thought about this BEFORE the election, when they effectively told voters they had no choice but to vote for HRC. Almost anyone could have beat Trump, but the DP insisted on running one of the few people who couldn't.
8
Trump will continue to pack the court with justices who, initially at least, will please his base "base". There is not much Democrats can do to stop him. But if Democrats win back the Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020 laws can be passed that will make the SCOTUS just a judiciary body that only argues narrow legal principles. The power of legislation and policy creation belongs to the other two branches of the Federal Government. Can the Dems really work to bring this about???
They cannot. There are no plans to write a new Constitution.
Trump has every right to select the most conservative, qualified candidate that he can find for the Supreme Court, and have him confirmed this autumn with the Senate Republican majority that he now has. If it were instead a Democratic president the same scenario would apply, so the indignation and hyperventilation from the left is futile, and quite frankly, wearisome.
19
If it were someone other than trump, who aligns himself with authoritarian dictators, enriches himself with ill-gotten gains, and embraces violence, racism and indecency, I'd agree that this is the normal process. But these are not normal times.
1
Trump has NO right. He's a criminal who's quite possibly a traitor, under investigation for same.
More importantly even than that, he represents only a minority of the voters, as do the GOP congressmen and Senators.
Your party is a tyranny of the minority.
We are tired of it.
Folks, it is all pretty obvious: the country is going down the tubes. We are a dying country and being destroyed from within. There is a minor hope if the Dems take both houses - the only hope. Otherwise prepare for the Chinese take over. They are smarter and play the long game.
11
Yes and they are authoritarian, they lie, they cheat and steal. Is it any wonder Trump admires then if we are so sure they will
Win?
1
I highly question Judge Kennedy’s decision. Why did he decide to retire just now? He should have known that this will turn I to a conservative push. Did he get a kickback by some conservative billionaires? Not everyone gets wiser with age...
3
You cannot rule out any conflict of interest with these people who believe they inherently serve God.
4
Of COURSE he knew that resignation now would turn to a "conservative push."! That's the point!
1
It appears that there is nothing stopping the "President-under-investigation" from naming a new ultra-conservative SCOTUS. The Democrats have been continuously out-maneuvered for years. Obama was weak in the Garland issue. But, I predict that John Roberts will not let Roe vs Wade be overturned. His will be the pivotal vote. Unless Ginsberg retires. Then, all is lost. Elections have consequences.
1
Hopefully we will get a strict constitutionalism person. The country needs to enforce our roots without regard to trends and fads.
6
Democrats are right to be concerned but the image being projected is of a party in full meltdown/breakdown mode.
Stop it. Get a grip. Project authority and control. Voters are not going to be attracted to a party of desperation. We are talking about a new Supreme Court justice. It is not the end of Western Civilization.
5
As others have noted, a President under federal criminal investigation for stealing an election should not be able to nominate the person who may decide his fate.
5
The US Constitution was built for the horse and buggy and sailing ship age.
3
Of course. That's why Clinton was not allowed to sign/veto legislation, or executive orders, while Ken Starr's investigation was going on.
we have a white house executive embroiled in likely high crimes; treason, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, coercion and worse. in any other previous administration he would already have been impeached and likely prosecuted and jailed.
we have defiant, immoral and equally obstructive senate & house majority leaders. we have a house intelligence committee, the republican majority of which is equally guilty of treason by condoning and trying to obfuscate the chief executive's treasonous ties to a foreign government. and among others, we have a scotus that is equally partisan and out of touch with America.
all along, we've had a gutless Democratic party leadership and membership in both houses, who've seemingly tried to play civil and gentleman-like. they don't seem to realize that the republicans don't play that game. civility and partnership went out the window long ago with them. they will do anything and everything to stiff the American public, and use the mass media to blow smoke, pull wool over our eyes and outright lie.
if there is ANY democrat who supports ANY judicial nominee put forth by the criminal trump, they in my eyes are equally part of the legacy of criminality of this administration.
personally, i've long lost trust in the democratic party leadership to stand up and fight to their last breath on behalf of the American people or our constitutional principles. although they've shown they'll do it for their campaign donors.
3
If a new judge is confirmed without at least their reputation irredeemably damaged in the process I will be very disappointed. This is not the time to be nice. Given what’s at stake and for how long, we also immediately must start attacking the SC as an institution, taking a page out of the tight’s playbook.
1
The revolution that Sanders' supporters who stayed home or voted Green hoped for has happened-and WE are the losers: the United States democracy. Evil people can run for office any day of the week. It's up to responsible voters to keep them out of office. Instead, vote abstainers handed Trump two Supreme Court Justice seats and 100 alt-right YOUNG federal judge seats who will destroy our environment, the middle class and civil rights for generations.
From the conservative voice of Lamb to the progressive voice of Ocasio - Democrats must build a coalition of voices that represent the variety in the party, and stand against Trump - one and all. Every single Democratic candidate is better than giving Trump a majority again in November - every single one.
For the far Left still angry about Clinton - get over it. For centrist Democrats angry about Ocasio winning the primary this week-get over it. Take a page from Crowley's book, his music book. He sang Born to Run after his ridiculously embarrassing loss to Ocasio (who, by the way, is close to Ted Kennedy's age when he was first elected Senator - and she has great education and a lot more work experience then he had! That's the script, people!)
Put Axelrod and Plouffe in charge of the DNC for effective strategy. STOP the infighting, and START playing to win, TOGETHER.
7
Sadly, our chance was in 2016. Democrats were expected to take the Senate, which would have blocked Trump. This year has twice as many Democratic as Republican senators up for election--an enormous disadvantage. The almost certain outcome of 2018 is that Republicans will hold the majority for the rest of Trump's term.
When Hillary lost Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two Republican Senators expected to lose were reelected. That gave the GOP majority control. And why did Hillary lose? Partly her fault, as she has repeatedly admitted on the public record. But part of the blame goes to purists on the left who continued to trash her right up to election night--and beyond. And no credit if you voted for her, but still trashed her--because that trashing helped depress turnout and left that thin undecided middle confused and thinking Hillary's emails were just as bad as Trump's thousand crimes or that the Clinton Foundation, which has helped millions of people, was just as bad as the Trump foundation which was a fraudulent profit racket. And no-shows for Hillary meant no-shows for all the Democratic candidates down-ticket, like for Senate.
The election of Trump will cost us a generation on the courts, which means that GOP suppression of voting by Democrats will continue. And that means Democrats will be disadvantaged in every election. If we don't stay unified, we lose. Just like in 2016.
13
The split off with Bernie Sanders also hurt Clinton's chances at election. I really do blame Bernie. He had good ideas but there was too much at stake. We lost and from what I have witnessed we are heading into a fascist state but too many people don't realize it.
4
The delay before filling Scalia's seat gave me an idea: why doesn't Congress reduce the court to eight justices? Congress can determine the number of justices. In the event of a tied vote at the court, the lower court's ruling stays in place. Having an even number of justices would ensure that when the court reverses a circuit court ruling, it would have to be by two votes. This spreads out the judicial power among multiple courts and makes sure one swing justice is not vested with veto power over the other branches of government.
1
Well, this is what the Democrats get for nominating the 2nd most-disliked candidate in history and the only candidate who could have possibly lost to Donald Trump. I hope they learn their lesson.
4
Another way of looking at that James is that, despite nominating a poor candidate, she would have been far better in representing the principles of the left/Dems/progressives than Trump is. Do you have any doubt about that? So it is the left's fault for not realizing that and closing ranks behind her, thereby preventing what is currently happening in our democracy.
2
The republicans in the Senate (led my McConnell) decided as a caucus to filibuster (let alone blocking the entire agenda of the previous administration) the Constitutionally guaranteed right of President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court nominee, with the Senate ''advising and consenting''
The republican Senate did not advise, nor consent, because they did not meet with the nominee (Justice Merrick Garland), nor did they have one hearing to advise. They just usurped the seat, by declaring that American electorate had to weigh in by the election that was EIGHT months.
Now the roles are reversed (albeit republicans still control the Senate by ONE) and it is a much closer time to the election (midterms in FOUR months)
The Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) has ALREADY declared that '' the President's nominee will be confirmed by the fall''. He does not even know who the nominee will be AND it goes against the same procedure he (republicans) initiated last time, to let the American electorate decide.
This is rank hypocrisy and cannot let stand.
It cannot be let to stand because, even with all of the above, the President has declared previously (multiple times) that he wants to appoint judges that will explicitly overturn it. The Press are responding (much like they did for a year before the election and a year after it to not even use the word ''lie'' ) They now say; ''maybe''.
If he gets his nominee it will happen. Democrats resist with all procedural mechanisms.
1
Put a fork in it liberals. We're done. Trump has the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. He has 33 of the governors and at least 33 states are gerrymandered to keep spitting out Republican representatives for our lifetimes. He's filled virtually every vacancy in the federal courts that went unfilled during the Obama years (dozens and dozens), and those judges will haunt us for decades. The Republicans have outmaneuvered and out gunned the Democrats at every turn. We've lost.
12
What battle? This is going to be a battle between a hammer and a nail. The battle for this seat was fought in 2016, and liberals didn't have the foresight to see this coming directly due to their spite for Hillary. Well, liberals, enjoy, because Neil Gorsuch (another Supreme Court travesty that the Bernie Bros. could have stopped) and this nominee/Associate Justice are going to be crushing absolutely everything you hold dear for the next 40 years.
9
The Democrats have nothing to work or bargain with regarding the Trumpian March to the far right.
This isn't only about replacing Supreme Court Justices, he completely believes in unifying the entire government under himself in the mold of Putin or Erdogan in creating a multi decade reign of power.
As much as people want to praise Mr. Kennedy for supporting same sex marriage or other "liberal" agenda items, he also was the swing vote for Citizens United.
2
We need a million woman March on Washington and a Million LGBT March on Washington to declare our concern. Women and all Minorities will suffer if the wrong person is appointed to this Court.
1
You can have a ten million woman March. The three branches of government are controlled by One person. That is all that matters. This is feel good nonsense Time for some sixties style civil disobedience. I know 9 th graders who were more effective at protesting
2
This is everything that is wrong with the Dems: you're (talking about) marching while they're voting
While the Republicans use brutal tactics to grab power wherever they can and to advance their abominable agendas, the Democrats are agonizing over civility and fair play.
Unless they rethink their priorities and methods of implementing them, the results of the 2018 elections and, heaven forbid , 2020, will be similar to those of 2016.
2
I don't claim to know why Kennedy chose now to retire, but one possibility is that he's 81 years old and wants to stop working. Frankly, that makes sense to me.
10
"Political war"? Please.
The Republicans have to worry about Murkowski and Susan Collins. Get one of them, and with McCain out, Pence breaks the tie and it is over. Cloture only requires a majority.
I worry that this political theater will distract from the only solution to this mess--turning out voters in November. A demoralizing, exhausting, yet preordained loss over a doomed Supreme Court nomination will not help.
3
The Republicans have the votes in the Senate. There is not much we or our elected representatives can do. Trump will get his justice. I don’t the Roe decision has too long to live.
This is the most retrograde turn in our history in the last 100 years.
4
Overturn Roe? It's about time. Like the infamous PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.," they've been telling us they're gonna do it. Like W, tens of millions of people have ignored them, sitting home election cycle after election cycle, not least on Nov. 8, 2016. Voting has consequences. So does not voting. Start getting used to a post-Roe world.
A president under federal investigation should not be allowed to make a Supreme Court nomination. The American people deserve to know the outcome of the Meuller investigation before Trump can nominate.
That should be our rallying cry. It’s right and it will drive Trump crazy.
4
He's not under federal investigation.
6
Trump's campaign certainly is under investigation with over a dozen indictments. So the taint is thick around Donald.
2
There are both state and federal investigations of trump.
1
Kennedy couldn't have waited to make his announcement until after the election? I guess the rapid overturning of his previous rulings doesn't matter to him. Thanks for helping bring progress to it's knees, Tony.
2
It's a fait accompli, at this point. The Democrats just don't have the votes.
8
I see the demonstrations of women today in many states wringing their hands and screaming of the ignominy of the supreme court choice to come. I ask myself how many of them voted, how many young people of color who are apoplectic now voted for Clinton. Obviously not enough for her to get elected. African American votes fell 7% to under 60% and Millenials were still under 50% of eligible voters.
Elections have consequences- not just for whom you vote for, but for whom you stay home for. Next time take some responsibility for your actions instead of complaining 18 months later and putting the rest of us in a horrible predicament.
4
A war requires two sides with an ability to fight. This is a done deal. If Kennedy had waited a few more months we might've had a chance. He should have waited until after the midterms. His timing was a gift to Trump and a lethal blow to justice for decades to come.
4
Trump is going to step on the democrats neck while he has the chance. Won’t be long before he starts bragging and rubbing salt in the wounds during a rally that he’ll show the Dems by nominating Roy Moore or Joe Arpaio
2
There are no traditions or principles left in Mitch's senate. Oppose SCOTUS nomination at all costs, the end justifies the means.
2
Not sure what the point of Democrats wanting to wait until the midterms is? Democrats are likely to lose seats in the Senate and Trump blockers Flake and McCain will be gone.
7
“This is not 2016,” Mr. McConnell said Thursday on the Senate floor. “These aren’t the final months of a second-term constitutionally lame duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We’re right in the middle of this president’s very first term.”
Once again Mitch lies about what's really going on. Denying Obama's nominee a fair hearing was bare knuckle politics, pure and simple. Obama wasn't a lame duck. Mitch's justifications then and now are laughable. Mitch wants to win with no regard for the customs necessary for a functional representative democracy and a balanced judiciary.
The founders feared tyranny above all else, and that included tyranny of the majority, tyranny of a faction, and tyranny of a demagogue, particularly one under the influence of a foreign sovereign. That's why we have have checks and balances, an electoral college, and various governing customs. When the country is bitterly divided, congress should have trouble passing a partisan agenda.
The founders weren't perfect. That's why we have amendments. But Mitch and his enablers want to establish rule by the right, which is basically rule by the oligarchs with major sops to the religious right.
I'm for Democrats working with Republicans when they can, but the slide into a permanently entrenched conservative government has to stop. It perpetuates the tyranny of a minority. It's undemocratic. And it's bad for the country at large.
There's no better time to resist than now.
6
The left had better fight. For the country, for our lives.. I’m tired of democrats rolling over and giving up, trying to be civil, trying to be nice. This is war. The middle is gone. I’ve had enough of being nice.
5
Yes, it is war! Here's what's at stake:
Voting Rights
Civil rights
LGTBQ Rights
Marriage Equality
Choice/Reproductive Rights for women (birth control was illegal in many southern states until the late 70's)
That's just a few issues. How about Donald's hate for the Press?! Our nation's future and the future of our freedom and democracy are in danger.
Donald promised during one debate during the campaign, that he would appoint ONLY "pro-life" justices.
PLEASE VOTE on November 6th!
8
Trump and the G.O.P. will install a new ultra-conservative judge and there is absolutely nothing the Democrats can do about it, so where is the story here? This is a done deal, don't get all excited.
5
This fight is for our lives. EVERYTHING depends on scotus. We need Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and John McCain (if he lives) to vote no on anything that will take us back to 1860 ( believe me we are 60 years backwards from 1960 now). Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi -there is no bargaining with the devil on this one. The recent 5/4 decisions on gerrymandering are the worst since People’s United. If you have no vote-you don’t have a democracy.
2
If Sen. Lee is appointed to SCOTUS and confirmed by the Senate, Sen Cruz will have one more justice sitting on the Supreme Court bench willing to say he is an Art. II, § I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen.
Count on McConnell to always engage in self-serving situational rationalizations. That's the sort of narcissist he is. But this time, the gloves are off. He may win, but his reputation is about to take a huge beating.
1
Your description sounds more like Harr Reid.
5
McConnell thwarted the American voters and the Constitution by refusing to allow the Senate to consider the SCOTUS nominee of the duly elected POTUS, Barack Obama. By so doing he committed a treasonous act and should have been impeached for his behaviour.
If Trump wants to prove himself a President of all the people then he should ask the Senate to consider President Obama's last SCOTUS nominee to replace Justice Kennedy..
4
Wait for the People.
You have no reason to pack the courts with partisans when Trump is under investigation for foreign meddling in our election!
6
Republicans must reinstate the 3/4 vote needed to confirm a supreme court nominee. American's did not sign up for a supreme court stacked with political extremist judges for either side. This is ridiculous and not good for the country.
3
Blame Harry Reid and his introduction of the nuclear option.
7
A president who behaves like a foreign agent, who is under criminal investigation and whose strange election suggests illegitimacy, should not be given the opportunity to nominate a life time appointment to the Supreme Court. For all we know, ultimately, he might be tried as a traitor to this country. All circumstantial evidence points in that direction so far. And since New Yorkers who know him best voted against him 9 to 1, my guess is that as soon as Democrats take over congress, he will be impeached.
3
It would be less irritating to me and infinitely more productive for "progressives" to stop pinballing between smug sanctimony and hysterical despair. Politics is a pendulum, and the center always holds. You'll be fine.
8
Enough is enough... Let's face it. The arrogant DNC's fetish for centrist candidates is a huge reason why Trump and the GOP control the Hill today. News flash, DNC: Your base is now LEFT of center, and I, for one, will NOT vote for another one of "your" candidates ever again. And I believe it's safe to say that there's more than just few who feel the same way. You are put on notice, DNC. Get it right in 2020 or you're going to pay dearly at the polls AGAIN.
3
More like you are going to pay dearly Tonabby if the left does not close ranks behind the whatever Democrat is nominated in their state and district this November and again in 2020. You will then get to live with an unimpeded Trump and Republican agenda for another 2-6 years. Would you like that if your "progressive" candidate of choice is not nominated?
I wonder if the Dems can refuse to show up for the vote... if all else fails.
1
I wonder if Kennedy fully understands the consequences of his actions
1
Democrats can do nothing because there is no procedure, rule or law that supports this. They should have heeded Mitch McConnell's words. Obama and his enforcer, Reid, were a disaster for the Democratic Party.
7
That's exactly what the Southern states said when the Civil War began:
"The most successful states in this country, in every way, are blue states. Let's get out of here."
One consequence of the Civil War: it was decided (by war) that, while a state may have chosen to join the US, it was NOT free to leave.
Without permission, of course. I suspect that red states would be only too happy to grant permission for blue states to leave the US. But consider how the electoral vote and popular vote would turn out if, for example, New York and California pulled out of the US and formed a different country. Would the residents of those states be leaving their friends and relatives (in, say, Vermont) high and dry?
2
‘Girds for Battle’ lol, nice try, there is no battle, the Dems have already lost!
4
I want to see Democrats raise hell as the Republican's have done. "You can't appoint a Supreme Court Justice while your administration is under investigation", and so many issues to make a stink about as in McConnell (Darth Vader) blocking Obama. Say "let the people decide" as McConnell said, we're too close to an election" Get angry about how now the Republican's feel just fine about getting another justice through in a 50 vote, not 60 anymore roll call. Scream like little girl Republican's would until it's overwhelming. Fight Dammit. I'm a Democrat not a door mat, and i didn't think i elected coward's, but i did. We did. If they don't fight now, i say, throw them out. And we have the solemn obligation to vote and we will be buoyed to turn out even more if we see some blow back....some fight....anything to delay this 'til election is over. We need to be united in this election and for now put our dis agreement's aside.
5
Time -- long past time -- for every honorable Republican in Congress, especially in the Senate, to step up and defend our nation against Trump. Starting with this U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. Stand up for the American people (who voted for Trump's Democratic opponent by over 2.8 million ballots). Stand up to Trump.
3
The die is cast now. Unfortunately the time for action is long passed. All those women who decided at the last minute that they couldn't trust Hillary Clinton are going to lose their right to abortion and, after that, probably birth control. All those blue collar workers who were seduced by Trump's lies are going to lose their right to form unions.
And we can, unfortunately, start writing the obituary for American democracy. When this Republican Congress, Republican President and Republican Supreme Court is finished, we will see barriers to voting enacted across the land that we haven't seen since Jim Crow, and Republicans will at last have their "permanent majority" that Karl Rove dreamed about 20 years ago. Which is a funny term, because it's not a majority at all -- 60 percent of the country disagrees with the direction of the country. But the 40 percent who follow Trump are going to rule for the foreseeable future.
This is what happens to democracies. Eventually they make the mistake of electing people who don't believe in democracy and don't ever want to expose themselves to honest elections. And then democracy is over. This is why democracies last, on average, about 150 years. It's been a nice run, United States of America, but it is coming to an end.
25
There's some disturbing news reports, from last year, describing how Justice Kennedy's son, who works in finance, helped bail out the Kushner Companies on a real estate detail. The Kennedy, trump and Kushner clans are cozy. The timing of Justice Kennedy's retirement is, let's say "interesting." This deserves further attention:
https://medium.com/@gaberusk/the-kennedy-kushner-and-trump-connection-a-...
49
I have seen no evidence in my lifetime of material sensitivity to conflicts of interest by Republicans.
4
Curious, isn't it? Kennedy-Kushner-Trump. IF our Congress was working FOR the people rather than Wall Street and the 1%, then they would stop everything and investigate this connection between these players! But nope.
3
We're headed toward 2 different countries - the separation that Abraham Lincoln should have allowed. The most successful states in this country, in every way, are blue states. Let's get out of here. In our country women will be free, Muslims will be welcome, and we will respect our neighbors to the south, not denigrate them. Thanks a whole lot, Justice Kennedy. Nice to know that you consider yourself more important than the health of the country. I thought SC justices were supposed to work outside party lines.
46
Indeed! I was thinking about this yesterday. The Left Coast with its booming economy and robust growth could easily secede and so could the Upper East states and north! Let the red states fend for themselves!
4
I like the idea too, but last I checked our only defense against Rocket Man is sitting somewhere in the Dakotas, no? We are pretty much out-of-lucked.
As a former Goldwater Republican who came to Washington in 1966, I learned and documented how Republican policies changed my thinking. Republican policies have caused great harm.
See
https://www.legalreader.com/republican-racketeers-violent-policies/
11
I do not see any way that the democrats can stop this train. I am now seeing the shootings in Annapolis and feel nothing. This is what the US is now and I'm beginning to understand that. We are no longer the United States that I grew up with.
18
I understand, but last night on the Rachel Maddox Show, she gave her opinion on how Democrats could indeed block another of Donald's nominees: use the "McConnell Rule" with which McConnell used to block Merrick Garland! The Republicans have a slight majority in the Senate, with the help of one or two Republicans, they will stop this atrocity!
Democrats can do nothing to stop this. POTUS is expanding his power and openly wishes his presidency could be like Un or Putin or Xi Jinping. He has carte blanche. There is no opposition. No crime is too great no behavior too shocking. When this administration is done probably in 8 years (gerrymandering was just upheld by the SCOTUS with Kennedy's help) we will probably have another Republican administration because there is nothing to stop R's from further protecting their power. They have all the time in the world to continue to gerrymander and inhibit voting rights. The majority of US citizens are powerless in the face of this. They have no voice, no seat at the table. Nothing.
9
You are correct. When the Repubs woke up on the day after the 2016 election, they realized they had won everything. And if anyone thinks they're giving up any of the power they have tried to get for 40 years in order to undo the New Deal, then you're not paying attention.
The New York crime family indebted to the Russian mob that is in the Oval Office will be running things for decades to come. Ivanka Trump will be the first woman president in 2025, and she will serve two terms, just as her dad did.
The Republican message is basically this: We won. We decide. It's going to be our way. If you disagree, you need to sit down and shut up. They'll have a constitutional convention soon and rewrite everything to favor the interest of the filthy rich, the white, the Christian, the gigantic business.
NATO will be a memory soon after Trump abandons it in the Putin summit, and then that's it: A world run by strongmen in which dissent is wiped out or muted. It's no surprise that Trump said Crowley lost because he wasn't respectful enough to "his president." This is just the beginning of what's coming.
The Republicans are building a strong wall around the American people. And we can't stop it.
3
Trump is our new P.T.barnum and 47% of the Americans have paid to see his acts.
6
If you think really deeply about what has and is happening to our country, it should give you cause to question our electoral system. An ex reality TV personality who is allegedly an unethical real estate developer who was voted into office by a minority of the population, will now put in place a Supreme Court that will do his bidding and those of the evangelical Christian Right. A man who has very little knowledge of world and U.S. history, who is incapable of telling the truth, who is a racist is grabbing authoritarian power because the legislative branch of our government has bowed down to him. The founding fathers worst fears are a real possibility.
32
Conservatism, as David Brooks observed the other day (quite blandly, IMO, but you take what you can get out of folks like him) is its own "thing". Its vague-its a bit of willow-the-wisp-not a lot of concrete doctrine, but there's a certain generalized ethos there.
No: but these people are reactionaries. They are one step removed from fascists. But what is certain is, they are not conservatives.
The media does these people an enormous favor by stating to an often uneducated, untutored, unwitting, or otherwise not knowledgeable public by allowing them the tag "conservative" - as in "Oh! Its all right. They're conservatives..."
We're now in a fight for the Republic here. Enough, already, of phony baloney civility in dialogue. Enough with applying politically and socially acceptable names to persons and movements that do not deserve them.
A form of fascism that has rooted itself in the American Body Politic. This is noa apparent result of the "slow moving coup" which is what Bill Maher has likened this situation to for YEARS now.
You are watching a dictatorship being established. It is happening right in front of your very eyes. This is no time for half measures, and no time for measured words.
Words matter. There is no voice of warning being sounded when we allow these grifters, these adventurers, these malcontents-this dreck-to be graced with a name that typically describes a mainstream of political thought.
11
Carrie Severino's characterization that Democrats will "return to...character assassination, distortions of judges’ records, and outright lies and deception,” funded by "liberal billionaires and special interest groups" shouldn't be a laughable projection, though it is quite astounding, almost operatic, in its audacity. Let it be a call to action!
4
No, it's spot on. The attacks on Kennedy just for retiring (at age 81!) are evidence enough.
6
He's just 81, and he's tired? What a wuss. I know people older than he is who run, hike, climb up on roofs, garden, and still work all day. When his beloved grandchildren find out about the situation he's left us in, they won't be quite so proud of grandpa. Wonder how he will sleep at night knowing that their rights will be slowly eroded, with a new Extremist court. Thanks for nothing. THIS will be his "legacy."
8
“They have been quick to point out that Republicans, led by Mr. McConnell, used exactly that argument in 2016, ahead of the presidential election, as they blocked even a hearing for Judge Merrick B. Garland”
No. Not “exactly that argument.” It was a different argument: 1) the president is not in a lame duck period, and 2) the Senate does not hold a majority against the sitting president.
The exact same situation would be: Kagan in 2010. First term president, with the Senate in same-party majority control. (Kagan was confirmed.)
It is sloppy reporting to assert that this is the same situation as 2016, however opposed one may be to the result.
10
And, it should be pointed out, that democrats in 2016 argued that a sitting president should have his nominee considered in an expedicious and timely fashion and that election cycles were meaningless.
3
I wish SOMEONE would ask Kennedy why he did this now when he knows the fury it would unleash. Why Mr. Kennedy? Why have you done this to our country!
5
The Democrats brought this on themselves by nominating a smug overconfident-candidate in Hillary Clinton. I’m starting to hear rumors that she wants to take another crack at it. Spare us. And then there is Nancy Pelosi and her septuagenarian minions in the House. Time to clean house and bring fresh faces into the leadership. Trump’s going to get his nominee on the bench and it’s the Democrat leaders who are to blame.
17
Why is the critical date “after the November elections”. The new Congress begins January 2019. Is a lame-duck congress barred from installing a Justice?
2
We don't need "door mats" in the Democratic Party. Fight like the American people's lives and our Constitution and rule of law depend on it, and they do. Cortez's win speaks volumes; too bad Nancy Pelosi wants to crawl back in the closet and pertend dark clouds aren't rising and everything is off the table..including mentioning impeachment. These times are changing and its not for the common good. Maxine Waters was right to speak out about protesting those who are partners in these crimes, the Democrats have been bullied long enough and Women need to realize that if all do not stand together, we will be back praying for the right to vote again. We need states to pass the ERA and we states now to find all the children that are missing, if it takes pulling child care center licenses if they don't come clean about children being sent to their facilities in the last two months. Enough is Enough. Too many people have gave their lives in history and fought for rights for all to have them taken away by 5 white men. Anthony Kennedy did a Pontius Pilate on the American People. Let's hope he enjoys his federal pension at the expense of the American people.
7
Unfortunately, there won't be any "battle" because it does not appear that there are any members of the republican party who care about anything except making Vlad Putin happy.
Maybe they'd like to surrender to Kim Jong-un yet again. I'm sure that would delight the entire Kremlin.
5
Let me see if I get this right:
Sen. McConnell refused to allow a presidential SCOTUS nominee by then President Obama because Sen. McConnell decreed that being in the last year of his second term in office as president made President Obama a "Lame Duck". Senator McConnell then dictated the nominee for SCOTUS must wait for "the voters to speak" by electing a new president.
==========================================
Presently, Sen. McConnell wants to hurry the new president's latest SCOTUS nominee so that it takes place before the upcoming senatorial elections where he may become the minority leader, and a new majority leader can scuttle SCOUTS nominees the way Sen. McConnell did to President Obama.
==========================================
Sen. McConnell's majority is currently a "Lame Duck" majority!
==========================================
Sen. McConnell is following a two faced policy and deserves being censored by Senate. He should be replaced because of these actions.
13
We are going to be stuck with another right-wing justice appointed by an amoral tyrant and will be confirmed by the Republican liars and thieves. The Democrats will sit on their hands and wonder why so many people consider them irrelevant.
7
President Obama was no more a lame duck president when he nominated Merrick Garland to SCOTUS in 2016 than Donald Trump is today a lame duck president.
Mitch McConnell and the Republicans had a constitutional obligation to vote on the Garland nominee then. But for them the end always justifies the means.
12
The sad part is, the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
The 65+ moderate House D's forced to vote for ACA by Pelosi was the same as shooting them each in the head. Replaced by Tea Party types in 2010, the chasm was set.
Worse...Democrats decided to tempt their fate by going with the 70 year old white establishment candidate under criminal investigation by the FBI..when 75% of the American people said the country was headed the wrong way.
You could have put up Biden. You could have insisted as R's did that there will be no more dynasties. But no..you had to believe that your cause was just and righteous, when it's anything but.
I hate Trump, but voted for him because the overreach by D's the prior 8 years was mind-numbing. I also voted for that empty Supreme Court seat and most certainly, against HER.
Next time...please offer us up something better than your moldy leftovers. The nation will appreciate it.
19
There is no doubt that ACA was a political disaster for the Democrats. It was suicide. Americans did not want it and they still do not want it. But Democrats do not listen to Americans they believe that Americans are stupid and that they need to be told what to want.
The result is a party that is so marginalized that it cannot delay a supreme court nomination for even a half hour. They just do not have the power. Americans have taken that power away from them.
9
Now I know whom to thank for this disaster.
You.
As Louis Rukeyser once said: Washington, DC, the entertainment capitol of America...
5
It would be nice to have a Supreme Court that consistently rules based on what the Constitution (and the laws passed under its purview) clearly state. Too often the "living document" notion means that some justices (most of the time the liberals, but occasionally the conservatives, too) just say to hell with what the law says. We really wish it said something different...so we're just going to rule that way regardless.
6
Reality evolves. Language evolves. Descriptions of reality can't stay as they were. Nobody is saying "to hell with what the law says." If the Founders had intended themselves to be elevated to Godhood they'd have done it. Instead they intended us to think.
2
Not really following you here Lakeisha. I'm fairly certain that all of the Supreme Court Justices view their rulings as based on what the Constitution states. And you should consider whether there is any practical difference between a "living document" judicial philosophy and a "strict constructionist" philosophy. For example, there is nothing in the Constitution about "net neutrality." "Living document" justices would simply say they are adapting the Constitution's precepts to the modern era. Those justices who have a "strict constructionist" view would say they are extrapolating what the Founding Fathers would have had to say on that modern-era issue, over 200 years after they lived. Both are effectively ruling in accordance with their view of things.
3
Thats why an amendment process was built in along with other aspects of the legislative process.
We wouldn't care if the Republicans hadn't stolen a seat--- heist by McConnell so a guy who lost the popular vote could appoint a reliably Republican vote. win the Whte House and Congress, and then pack the court.
4
So, the knives are out as ideology takes the upper hand in what promises to be a knock-down, drag-out fight to seat a new Justice in the Supreme Court. Yet, who can foretell how such a person will act once he/she is on the bench? Is everything reduced to a struggle to protect political icons threatened by change?
What about guarding social and political myths that inspire us to live better lives and appreciate the views and beliefs of others? In the divisive, emotional whirlpool in our nation's "Swamp" there is much speculation, fear, and acrimony. But what about the responsibilities of our elected officials - Senators in this case - to look after the integrity and sanctity of human life and strive to keep us from being thrown into another culture war with dimensions of disaster we cannot imagine?
5
Sorry, but the GOP started this war by stealing Merrick Garland's seat. Your concern about avoiding a culture war comes too late. The issue is how to win it.
34
Trump's ruining the USA, while "little rocket man" is building up his nuclear program!
8
Go figure, elections and the decisions of voters really do have consequences. Instead of closing ranks in November 2016, the left was still bickering just enough to open the door to a Trump presidency. And of the many foreseeable and detrimental results of those electoral decisions, we will now 5-4 conservative SC decisions for a generation. If not longer, especially if RBG leaves the bench before Trump is out of office.
Say what you will about Clinton, but if she had been elected we would probably be looking at a 5-4 liberal majority at this point. (Also, we would probably still be a member of the Paris Accords, would not be separating children at the border, would have been shoring up the ACA over the past year instead of destroying it, etc., etc.)
And while I'd like to think this is a "lesson learned" for the left, it is too late and I'm not convinced it has been learned in any case.
37
The United States is too free, too tolerant, and too inclusive for the conservatives involved with Trump and the Republican Party generally. They want the government to reflect the values of the right people and to stop having to share their treasure and enfranchisement with the underserving people who they see as having gained so much power because of liberal policies and judicial decisions. It's a political war driven by the values shared by traditional human societies of small villages and tribes since the evolution of homo sapiens many thousands of years ago. Basically, they oppose the tolerance of diversity that developed in big communities, cities, and nations.
7
Enormous challenges? Democrats have a better chance of getting cold fusion to work than preventing a conservative justice from taking Kennedy’s seat. From what wellspring of political power are you relying on to generate the force necessary to prevent an anti-abortion justice from being nominated, the movies? Your magazine articles? Quick, organize a rally, we’ll figure it out then.
21
The startling thing is how entitled they feel to a liberal or non-conservative SCOTUS justice.
3
If there is going to be political war to replace Justice Kennedy, imagine what will happen if the seats held by Justices Breyer and/or Ginsberg will be available to be filled by President Trump. That will be thermonuclear. This is only a skirmish in preparation for Armageddon.
18
This is why focusing on re-taking the Senate in 2018 is far more important than trying to impede this inevitable nomination.
2
There will be no battle.
Democratic Senators in "red" states hoping for chance of being re-elected will grudgingly issue press releases reaffirming the President's right to select his choice for Kennedy's seat. Most of them will still probably lose but they will have done the only thing they could to give themselves a fighting chance.
And just like the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation, it will be over in a few weeks with Schumer and his leadership team looking as impotent as they truly are.
The greater lesson of the Kennedy decision, however, will be to those liberal voters and activists that nominally call themselves members of the Democratic Party that chose to desert Clinton for Gary Johnson & Jill Stein.
They were the ones that put ideological purity over pragmatism and still to this day fail to grasp the concept that you can't govern if you don't win.
When Roe and reproductive rights are "rolled back" - and they most certainly will - the only one's they'll have to look to for this tragedy is themselves.
46
It will not be rolled-back. John Roberts will be the deciding vote. He will not let this happen.
2
McConnell obstructed President Obama's right to nominate Justice Garland to the Supreme Court.
The Democrats need to stick together with their 49 Votes in the Senate and hope that 2- 3 Republican Senators have enough moral and Ethic common sense to see the hypocritical strategy of McConnell, who now claims the Senate's right to Advise and Consent when he obstructed the right of President Obama to nominate.
This is reprehensible of the highest degree, make no mistake on the hypocrisy of the Republicans in the Senate.
23
This "fight" was started by Mitch McConnell two years ago.
22
No. It began with the Bork nomination in the 1980s.
3
Actually, the fight was started in 2013 by Harry Reid. How soon we forget.
4
Wrong. Harry Reid, Obama's enforcer. Between them, they were a disaster for the party.
3
There is no "war", Republicans with their majority and their elimination of the filibuster will get their way, maybe even if the nominee is another serial groper like Trump himself! The idea of a "battle" seems to me to be useful only as a fundraiser for interest groups and for getting folks to click on, read, or watch the coverage.
13
The Democrats will fight hard on this one, and I am with them, but we're going to lose. I say let's go ahead and lose, and allow the Hard Right to gain full control of the Judiciary.
Without the traditional whipping boys -- Roe v Wade, protected civil rights, and the existing sensible limits on the criminal justice system -- we can all get a good look at the new American standard, and very likely discover that -- whoops, that isn't The Answer after all.
If we survive all this, perhaps we can stage a revolution and clean up the mess for our grandchildren. If we don't survive, well, good riddance.
18
Let me put in bluntly. If the Democrats allow McConnell to push through a nominee and confirm a Justice before the Midterms, I will not vote for a Democratic candidate in the Midterms.
Someone (anyone?) is going to have to finally step up and suck it up and fight tooth and nail to counteract these Republican ideologues. You sat back and lost the Garland seat by being subservient and polite. Now you'd better put a plan in place as to how you are going to block whoever is nominated!!
29
Yes that will work! Punish the Democrats for not having enough votes to win gerrymandered districts ...... by given them even fewer votes.
5
Dems can yell and scream if you'd like, but they don't have the votes to stop this - the damage is done. If you are in fact a supporter of Democratic Party policies, you need to focus on the November elections
2
I totally agree with you 110 percent. Since the Democratic party insists on ignoring its base, it's time for the base to abandon the party.
3
Play the Republican soundbites about waiting until the election. Make political ads with their own words.
4
As we gear up for this war, an old warrior needs to fade away. John McCain needs to resign so that we have a full complement of senators to vote on this important nomination.
Rumor has it that John McCain wants his wife to be appointed to replace him. If that rumor is true, then shame on him. He has to realize in any event that his country comes before himself, and resign immediately.
6
A lawyer friend recently won a case by a motion for summary judgment, which applies only when there are no facts at issue in a case. When the judge issued his ruling, he said the case was so lopsided that "speedy justice" was warranted. That took three years. Meanwhile a very substantial sum of money was frozen.
That's about as good as it gets here.
5
If President Trump were truly a strong leader, he would be able to nominate and get approved a Supreme Court Justice with something greater than a 51% consensus. If he were truly a great president (as he boasts), he would nominate someone who could garner 75 or more votes in the Senate. That fact that he only nominates judges who appeal to his base is a telling indication of his weakness.
8
Trump's base is people who consider his behavior normal acceptable and commonplace.
2
Oh please, even a liberal president couldn’t have that happen.
3
Apparently MS Severino hasn't been listening to Trump's berating of judges that disagree with him. She looks like an uninformed fool saying what she said.
5
Shameful hypocrisy and manipulation from Speaker McConnell. We are no longer a real democracy and this new Supreme Court appointment will only further this country's slide away from "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
10
You never were in a normal democracy. No other country has ever based itself on the US Constitution. Even the constitution the US wrote for West Germany after WW II bears no resemblance to it.
3
Political war??? C'mon, what political war? At best, it's a war of words. Senate Democrats can't slow down or stop the nomination. (Sadly, the Democrats probably wouldn't put up much of a fight anyway.) Why amp up the headline, NYT? Oh yeah, that's right. Gotta keep those clicks coming...
8
The Supreme Court is no longer a place where rulings are concerned with justice or ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all Americans. Rather, it is a place where partisanship rules and “conservatives vs. liberals” marks almost every decision. Justice is not “blind” in our country anymore...
5
Clarence Thomas may carry the day here:
"The Supreme Court is the top of the pyramid. The big concern is the Federal level courts that make decisions that effect every day life."
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's travel ban case, complaining that many (most?) district courts that issue injunctions pending trial extend the injunction to cover the entire US (or the entire world) rather than just the district involved. Like it or not, most lawyers are familiar with the arguments pro and con for that practice.
More important, though, if (as Thomas obviously would like to do) the Court issues a blanket prohibition against "nationwide injunctions," the effect will be great. For example, would the Supreme Court's reversal of the Hawaii district-court judge's injunction have mattered all that much if he'd limited his injunction to Hawaii?
1
Each Federal Circuit makes its own judgments until the Supreme Court intervenes. It's another fine example of how "equal protection of the law" really works here.
Steve,
True, but most Circuits usually agree. In fact, the odds of the SC taking a case go up dramatically if there's a disagreement among the Circuits on a key issue.
That may be the best way to get any case to the Supreme Court, Three Cents. Win it in one circuit, and lose it in another.
That anyone would mobilize (which means fund raising) to support or oppose the nomination of anyone who hasn’t even been selected yet saddens me. It suggests that the nominee will not be evaluated on merit, but merely tribal team.
A pox on both your houses. Actually, the whole neighborhood is sick.
17
All I ever get from the Democratic Party is pleas for money.
3
If people truly want to stop the permanent right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court, they will need to launch massive street protests during the confirmation hearings both in Washington DC and other major cities. Nothing short of major civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale will work. And don't waste a lot of time waiting around for Congressional Democrats to lead the effort.
23
Trump will view massive protests as a national emergency, declare martial law, and cancel the midterm elections.
1
Get ready for a short, disappointing battle in Washington. There is not a single Republican who will offer the slightest opposition to Trump's nominee, no matter how right-wing or extremist that nominee's views and background may be. The confirmation will be quick and painless, and Republicans will win more votes in November because of it. Don't mourn the Democratic Party. No really, don't. In a few short months the entire party will be outlawed, and mourning them will be considered an act of treason.
4
How ironic - the Republic of Ireland, a deeply conservative Catholic country, has just voted overwhelmingly to legalize safe abortions for its citizens and the United states is a Donald Trump/Mitch McConnell Supreme Court justice appointment away from once again banning them. We are destined to play the 1950's and 1960's game of Musical States in which women who want safe abortions must travel to those states that have voted to legalize them.
How sad.
14
They are powerless and it’s severely depressing. Our only hope is to elect Democrats in overwhelming numbers and enact solid, better laws.
4
I saw the headline "Political War Over Replacing Justice Kennedy on Supreme Court Underway" and, once again, I found myself having to make a decision on whether what I was about to read was plain truth. Moreover, I wondered if the article was worth reading, worth being the lead story presented to me first thing in the morning. I decided it wasn't.
I'm a staunch Democrat, liberal to the core and speak with my vote since the world went mad 18 months ago. I find it supremely difficult to absorb important stories like this when the NYT and every other media outlet out there washes it in a bucket of pain, suffering, he-said-she-said, victimization, vindication, sensationalism, fear, anxiety, just plain nonsense.
When will my beloved NYT stop succumbing to this kind of journalism and be about the business of promoting a new 21st century language of truth necessary to raise our collective consciousness as we evolve in the age of instant news? This type of coverage, used for any topic, is offensive to me - I expect excellence and I get tabloid fodder. Stop it.
Rise and create a level of journalism that I thirst to read, can rely on as clean, clear fact, and will reference with pride as forward thinking, speaking, and believing.
I fear this falls on deaf ears... the "surprise" loss Joseph Crowley experienced is further evidence that folks and institutions just aren't paying attention. CHANGE or be left behind.
26
Great comment-conservatives should call out fox news and the wsj in similar terms-lets face it-objective journalism is an oxymoron- dissimulation bias and outright lying in their reporting is common-unfortunately Trump deploys these tactics more effectively then they do, and they portray him as a moron!!! Please stop playing by his rules and maybe he won't keep winning while you repeatedly lose while claiming your so called moral and intellectual superiority.
2
Frederick:
On any day, less than 2 million people watch FoxNews. It's only progressives who believe the views of 80 million republicans originate there. Progressives' fixation with FoxNews is hard to understand. It's almost pathological.
1
I fail to see what is "conservative" about smashing decades-old stare decisis to further a far-right wing ideological agenda. Do we really need an alt-right Supreme Court, dedicated to tearing down precedent in order to further entrench the power of those who already have it all? Trump and his ilk are NOT "conservative". They are radicals in pursuit of aggrandizing power in the few and the utter disenfranchisement of ordinary Americans. They deserve condemnation and removal for their near-traitorous dedication to the destruction of democracy and their fealty to an ideology that espouses the the installation of a government that serves only those who possess enormous wealth.
7
Why not postpone a hugely consequential vote until we have a president who's not under a counterintelligence investigation?
7
Republicans fight. Democrats cave. Look how Obama reacted to McConnell stealing his USSC pick. Not even a whimper. There will be no fight this time around.
Democrats are eviscerated and powerless, and their leadership isn’t even threatened or repentant. They just want a seat at the table and some of the donor cash. Just a little.
1
I noticed an error in your article. You included the word "judicial" in the phrase "announced a retirement that could reshape the country’s judicial future."
A jest, but sadly not a lighthearted one. You know as well as I that a 6-3 court will have vast repercussions on our country, our economy, and our society in general for at least the next few decades, and likely the next century.
3
would the left be so upset if hillary were in office for 4-8 years and had to put 1-3 justices on the bench? No!.
this is how the system works.
16
How can you say this?!? Obama nominated a justice and the GOP blocked it for a whole year. How is that the system "working"? Do you think for a second McConnell would have just gone ahead and approved a clinton nominee without blackmailing someone for something? No, that is NOT how the system is supposed to work.
And moreover, wait until after this fall when congress is finally clawed back from the "know nothing" brigade. When they block one of President Orange's appointments, I hope you remember that its "how the system works".
2
If the system worked, Garland would be on the SC instead of Gorsuch.
Obama shifted the ideological balance of the court too. But the Leftist NYT didn't worry about that. But hey, at least neither he nor Trump threatened the court as His Royal Highness FDR did, to bully them into submission while he proceeded to run roughshod over individual freedoms and rights in this country. Democrats should hang their heads in shame about FDR's court-packing scheme, except Democrats have no ability to use reason.
17
So FDR's attempts to recover from the greatest challenge the nation had faced since the Civil War was a "scheme" while McConnell blocking Garland was just good politics? I know I am wasting keystrokes because someone who dehumanizes the opposition so blatantly (no ability to use reason? really?) is clearly not interested in a fair reasoned discussion. Facts actually matter, and so does sound reasoning. So here's an example: what right did FDR actually plot to take away? I would be surprised if you can even make one up. Most of his opponents argued that he was providing too many new rights and was most often referred to as a socialist. Thoughts? Or am I too unreasonable to understand?
2
That New Deal stuff was terrible. I wish we could be great, like before Social Security, when old people died in the streets of starvation.
2
In NO way should there be a quick confirmation before the midterm elections. McConnell can choke on his hyprocrisy.
13
"....and you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction..."????
welcome to Gilead.
8
Democrats always say they want America to have a high speed railroad. They are about to get one.
6
Liberals talk as if a conservative judge would be the end of the world. Are you all so self possessed, so cocksure of your leftist agenda, as to completely write off what the other half of the country thinks? 50% of the US wants a conservative SCOTUS pick. And Trump gets to choose one. Liberals do not have a lock on choosing everything. They had it for 8 years, our turn.
20
What?!? Mr. Gorsuch is NOT whom President Obama nominated. He nominated someone moderate and McConnell blocked it in one of the most cynical and now clearly most hypocritical political moves in a generation.
For almost all of Obama's term the GOP did everything it could to block legislation and appointments. No, liberals did not have a "lock" on choosing anything.
Your willful ignorance is why history will not look kindly on this era. We need common sense and common cause. Not desperate rear-guard actions. The blue wave is coming. Rejoice.
5
"50% of the US wants a conservative SCOTUS pick."
Wondering where you got this statistic from. Neither presidential candidate won a majority of the popular vote in 2016, though the loser did get a few million more votes overall.
The electoral college is what it is, giving more power to voters in smaller states, but the Supreme Court oversees the entire populace. By that measurement, your statistic is actually a guess, and it is incorrect.
"They had it for 8 years, our turn"
Actually, it was around six or seven years. You may recall the GOP Senate's 2015-16 blockade of most federal judgeship nominations, highlighted by the refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee, from the previous president (who did win, handily, the popular vote and electoral college in both his elections).
1
The only political war over replacing Kennedy will be carried out in the leftist press. This is a done deal and we will have a new conservative justice by October.
16
by hook and by crook--the latter being the way Republicans "win." (witness the last two Republican presidents, not coincidently, two of the worst in modern history.)
3
This is what the Democrats get for going with a very unpopular presidential nominee in 2016. The Democratic leadership decided that it was Hillary's turn, that somehow the nation owed her the presidency, so no Democrat (other than O'Malley) opposed her. There should have been around a dozen Democrats in the primary. Then she would not have been the nominee. She lost to Obama in 2008 despite him being just a first-year senator at the time.
The Democrats did this to themselves. Time to wise up. Time for new leadership. Time for Schumer and Pelosi to clear the leadership bottleneck.
15
American democracy is doomed if we can not separate religion form our politics, which is also influencing our academia and even judiciary at a faster and more damaging way these days.
14
This battle was lost when voters decided to stay home or “protest vote.” Conservatives at least can keep their eye on the ball. Democrats are easily manipulated into not voting or staying home and having hissy fits.
We were warned a thousand times in 2016 what a Republican victory would mean with the Supreme Court. I guess some folks are content to just fill out online petitions while “conservatives” rule.
And they’ll do the same this November because so many have single issue ideals that make other Democratic candidates seem like the enemy. Divide and conquer: works every time.
7
Unfortunate and so true. Pragmatism is thrown out the door in service to ideological purity. I also think that there is more than a little nihilism in choosing to allow the far-right to destroy what remains of our democracy. No-shows were 45% of the electorate in the last election. Personally, I believe that it is a matter of conscience to vote, even if for a corporate shill, to prevent the likes of Donald Trump and the alt-right to take over all three branches of our government.
1
Thanks to McConnel's efforts both in blocking Merrick Garland and rush the confirmation process for new federal judges, the US judiciary will become increasingly be ideologically out of step with the U.S. population. By the time Millennials approach the age of 45 the country's demographic transformation will create a political gap more extreme than any time in our history. The only other similar experience this country had was when the Supreme court blocked parts of the New Deal at the height of the depression. This will be so much worse that it will create an unprecedented political crisis that will make the current divide seem like a mild political debate. If the country is lucky there will be constitutional amendment for judicial term limits. If not I foresee attempted assassinations of supreme court judges.
12
Democratic Party lawmakers can gather on the steps of the Supreme Court, they can call for deferring the appointment until after the mid-terms, they can gear up, mobilize and organize, but this won't change anything. It seems highly probable, barring a catastrophic development, that President Trump will submit his nominee and the Republican-controlled Senate will approve the nomination, perhaps even with the vote of certain Democrats who are seeking re-election. No matter how you slice it, the Democratic Party is not positioned to win this one.
7
Washington can gird for battle all it wants but this will expose us all to lawlessness. All you have to ask yourself is: Did you agree with McConnell when he denied Obama his appointment to the Supreme Court? Obviously, McConnell and the right thought they were so right - so correct - and that an Obama appointee would be so bad - so evil - that they should deny the appointment. Did you think that was right? ...fair? ...democratic?
If you were flabbergasted that McConnell denied Obama an appointment no matter how correct he thought his side was, then like me you will not advocate for a two-year delay in making an appointment to replace Kennedy - we lost the election*. We live with the consequences. Just as I will not exclude people from a restaurant based on their political views (if you're for inclusion - be for inclusion!) I will not advocate adopting the right's tactics regarding SC appointments.
Sadly, I'm in a minority at this site. If you look at our comments and you read them regularly, you know that there are a lot of things wrong with Fox News but they have no corner on dogmatic absolutism, name calling, and self congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual posing.
So, let's not adopt the other side's tactics at public places (make 'em a wedding cake, serve 'em a meal, be inclusive), let's not adopt their tactics in obstructing an appointment or other government functions, and let's not turn this comments page into a left-side version of the Hannity evening commentary.
12
Sure, let's surrender without fixing a shot.
3
What I would argue is - if we're going to take a shot, make it the right shot. Let's stop standing for silly, far-left ideas about socialism and open borders. Let's return to the New Democrat/Democratic Leadership Counsel ideas of the 1990s that won the day, won elections, and put the country on a balanced fair, and sustainable path. Bill Clinton (not Hillary), Al Gore, Al From, and Gary Hart had it right - no one wants more government so let's dampen the Democratic party's reflect to regulate and tax but support government doing the things only government can do for the greater good, and let's support "socially liberal" notions of equity and inclusion. The party of Pelosi, H. Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and E Warren will never win a general election. Swing voters have little interest in Dreamers, micro-aggressions, or cisgender issues - those resonate in Cambridge, Amherst, San Francisco NYC and Berkeley - the Democrats need to find platforms and positions that resonate with the sensible center, issues about middle-class welfare and economic opportunity. If you read these comments at the Times you'd think we were all sophomore sociology/victims studies majors - the country has left us behind on he campuses of the 1970s
Considering how the rights of millions of individuals are now at risk, and that Mr. trump has proven he is not to be trusted with them, it would be best if the same course is taken as Mr Mcconnell took in 2016. This is an election year. The people should have a voice as to who they want to cast their vote for a person that will affect their lives in actual tangible ways. The nomination should be held off until after January of next year. For one, this is a minority-elected administration. Second, this president is currently under investigation, as well as facing a number of civil actions, so any choice he makes for a judicial appointment must be looked upon with suspicion, as they will probably be making decisions as to this president's fates in the near and not so near future.
6
A new SCOTUS absolutely should not be appointed until after the mid-term elections. The people should have a say if they want the courts to have an extreme right wing bias or not. Let the people VOTE for their representatives, and if it turns out people want an extreme right wing bias they will vote that way in the mid -terms.
2
Forget the mid-terms. We should wait and see if Trump will be indicted and removed as a fradulently elected President
4
The Supreme Court is the top of the pyramid. The big concern is the Federal level courts that make decisions that effect every day life. The Muslim ban got an immediate response at this level. It has taken it two years to hit the Suppies. States sue the government over policy. The lower courts and states feed the Supreme Court.
It’s up to the states to write well crafted laws that can withstand the challenge. For bad or good that will be the challenge.
3
If Democrats are looking for someone to blame for this debacle maybe they should look in the mirror. The left is totally responsible for making Trump's next SCOTUS nominee a slam dunk. In 2013 Democrats took the dramatic step of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system. Dems used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees & executive-office appointments could advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super-majority that has been the standard for nearly 40 years. The rule change represented a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. The Dems by changing the rule gave a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate an absolute certainty of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction. And lets be honest. Dems did this in an effort to stack the D.C. Circuit court, which reviews many cases related to federal laws & regulations, to tilt its balance in a liberal direction. We should note to their credit every Republican voted against this rule change. They said the way Democrats upended the rules would result in fallout for years. The GOP vowed to reciprocate if they reclaimed the majority. And they have. We have met the enemy & it's us.
8
I’d like to remind my democrat friends that the Senate approved Obama appointee, Keegan, in August of 2010, just before a midterm election. And perhaps more importantly, again, the democrat party broke with tradition and changed Senate rules to confirm several federal circuit court judges…also while Obama was president. So yea, it must be gut wrenching, but as the old saying goes – you reap what you sow. As for Kennedy's replacement, I suspect a nomination will be made quickly and there is nothing the democrat party can do to stop confirmation.
8
I'm 66, and so tired of having to mount another fight against my rights being taken away. I have a long bucket list, and more of a past than a future.
Our founding fathers were not as concerned about tyranny coming from a national government, Madison and the likes were more concerned about how the 'majority' of the people who abuse the 'minority.' They got that right.
4
Trump is stoking civil war. Republicans don't care.
And we are doomed with the Supreme Court, which just upheld massive voter suppression by the state of Ohio.
The partisan court's majority opinion literally said we must “presume” the “good faith” of the legislatures in determining whether a state was engaged in racial discrimination......
" because race and party overlap so much in places like Texas, what looks like racial motivation may be partisan motivation."
So discrimination is ok since it's political? This is just one of many rationalizations! The Supreme Court is Republican rule from Republican jurists. We are doomed. And it will get worse.
6
If Mueller has ANYTHING on Trump, he better file it now. IF Trump gets one more judge, he can ensure he and his thugs will never stand trial for their treasonous, illegal behavior before and after 2016. Alos, Schumer, Bruni, Pelosi, note Mc Connell changing the rules about not confirming a judge before an election. The GOP does not recognise "civility," "going high," or any of those fine high-minded phrases. They just want to win, and have/will continue to cheat and steal elections and power. The time for civility is over. This is war...
8
The US is poised to lose its talent if these ultra-conservative pipe-dreams become policies. Those of us with highly sought after credentials can live in just about any country we choose, and let’s face it, 90% of US scientists are not conservatives. If the new Supreme Court decides to over-turn labor laws, equal rights or any right or freedom Americans had to fight and die for, I’m out. I’m getting real tired of living in a Corporatocracy (Theocratic Corporatocracy where I’m from), and when I look to places like Sweden or New Zealand, I see opportunity and freedom. In the US, I see corruption, political backstabbing, and oppression. I think the legal term for this is nolo contendere.
5
The problem is that most of the talent in our country, while educated, is not competitive when compared to the native populations of other countries. Most would just be another graphic designer, marketing admin or journalist.
We are far behind these other countries when it comes to STEM, so even our scientists and engineers might not find it as easy a ride as you claim. It’s also telling that so many of these professionals are CEOs of their own companies. That’s largely because US patent law gives them a more lucrative deal than these other nations. So even if you relocated, you’d probably be working for one of those American corporate behemoths anyway.
Finally, the issues you care about have a moral component. How moral is it to “escape” while you can, leaving those who can’t get out behind?
To accomplish what you predict, and satisfy a liberal conscience, you’d likely have to move to a Third World country.
"nolo contendere" is a plea that means "I don't contend the charges" that throws the defendant on the mercy of the court, without a plea of "guilty".
Don't expect to find much mercy in Trump's courts.
I would beg to differ. We have lots of talent here, from all over the world, and great schools. I work for a university, who obviously employs hundreds of scientists, and only about half of them were born here. During my time in college, I took three classes from a Mexican immigrant with a Ph.D in physics who was involved in programming sensors for the LHC. Currently, the US does not lack talent.
You make a good point though. Americans with generational history here (including myself) probably won't leave. We'll likely weather the storm and roll with the punches. "Escaping" would feel wrong.
However, taking into consideration those who immigrate here, maybe they decide they don't want to renew their work visas. Perhaps US citizenship isn't what it used to be. If we're losing our competitive advantage anyway, wouldn't they naturally choose to work somewhere else?
Ain't gonna happen:
"To me, blue state secession is looking like it's the only way to prevent a wholesale collapse of American democracy."
You're certainly not the first to propose this, but the Civil War resolved the question.
Not that "red" states would be unwilling to re-open it. If, say, California and New York wanted to secede from the Union, I suspect the reaction of, say, Utah and Texas would be something like: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
1
Agree or don't with their decisions, SCOTUS should continue to be lifetime appointments. If you feel that this or that justice is not acting in the best interests of our country, the remedy is the people whom we elect. Corrupt judges come from corrupt self-serving politicians which we elect.
Binary partisan ideological positions will never be an adequate replacement for on-the-ground good judgement. Plainly our elected congress and POTUS are a reflection of the same lack of good judgment in the average American voter.
People we elect will determine the makeup of SCOTUS. We must do better.
1
Not happening. This is the final Republican antic and we will no longer play doormat and stand for it.
It is time to hit the streets in protest, to donate whatever we can to Democratic candidates of any ilk anywhere in the country and to start knocking at doors.
Thank you, Republicans, you have finally woken the sleeping donkey. Like our symbol, we are slow, hardworking and steady and we will prevail.
God Bless America!!!
2
Trump is under investigation for possibly treasonous participation in the 2016 election with the Russians to his own benefit. In no way should he be able appoint any jurist until this blanket of question is cleared.
7
From the looks of today’s front page, Anthony Kennedy woke up this morning as the most important person in America. I just hope he did something special for breakfast to celebrate. Can’t wait to see who tomorrow it will be, or at least what they ordered as I’m sure it won’t be the Cheerios that I always eat.
1
Battle? The battle is over. The GOP won this one bigtime.
We progressive's are left with our future votes. Which should turn this ugly tide soon enough.
10
Rob, you are right, and it is important not to waste our votes out in the Sanders/H. Obama/Warren left wing of the party. We need to recognize that the "New Democrats" of the 1990s - the Wm. Clintons, Al Froms, Al Gores, and Gary Harts were right in many ways including in principle (socially liberal yet pulling always for limited government - while allowing for government to play the right, moderated role in making a better society) and practice (Bernie Sanders was an amusing distraction - no major economy will ever go socialist again - even the parasite economies of Scandinavia where a rock band or you-build-it furniture company can be the largest economic player have recognized that socialism dampens innovation, economic growth, and the resulting well-being of the people).
If the Democratic party goes with the San Francisco limousine liberals then the Republicans will continue to win. The "swing voters" are unmoved by the silly "sis-gender" "micro aggression" and "Dreamers" issues - they want the country to be fair, robust, and growing.
5
Hogwash. If the Democratic party does not move left economically with the large majority of the American people it is finished. The 1990s Clinton Democrats are pathetic ghosts.
Nothing will define Anthony Kennedy’s tenure on the Supreme Court like his leaving of it. Quitting when the worst president ever is in the White House is the low, despicable act of a man who is comfortable with the demise of the US constitutional system that he was sworn to protect.
125
At last someone puts blame where it belongs!
2
So now turning 82 is a crime? What a world you envision.
And as far as bad presidents, Bush was still worse.
4
I wrote a comment yesterday that the NYT published, and in it I thanked Justice Kennedy for his “fairness”, while on the bench for those many years. I’d take back my “fairness” quote if I could today. Retiring at this time, before the November Election? I and the other American voting public could use a good deal of real TRUTH, once and for all about what led up to his retiring in this heated/divided American climate. My request is not sour grapes in any form, lest someone accuses my comment as such, but something smells rotten in the cotton. 74 years are upon me and we older Americans have seen and smelled lots of dirty politics from both parties over the years.
So why retire NOW, Justice Kennedy?
Something rotten in the cotton! I’m weary, but not so weary as to become a silent senior.
Younger folks... Take heed!
3
While I believe myself to be a progressive liberal of the center, I also believe that it would be good for the country if Supreme Court were more conservative and tradition-oriented. I am for the women's exclusive right to terminate their pregnancy, I am not against legal civil unions of generically deviant individuals, but I am agaist the legalisation of cannabis. The latter is a ploy to convert the people into lotus eaters without free will, who would follow blindly the dictates of the radical left.
The current block of four leftists in the Supreme Court, should be weckened, particularly as two of them are radical trouble makers.
2
I don’t want to leave the country.
Can the west coast buy their freedom from the rest of the country?
They could pay a VAT for defense.
I’ll go.
3
Sadly, there is a great deal more red in the western states than you might think. Take a look at election results by county some time. The red stain just keeps spreading. Our liberal and progressive values are on the wrong side of history. Who knew the turning of the tide would be so swift and so complete?
3
Maybe DC restaurants can refuse to serve the new conservative Justice and she'll just resign from hunger?!?
4
Everything will be relitigated now. Abortion on demand, voting rights, the separation of church and state, state's rights, desegregation, the meaning of the tenth amendment - they're all back on the table. All the old battles since the passage of the 14'th amendment are about to be refought. Replacing Kennedy and probably Ginsburg with judges who think that the Progressive era, New Deal and civil rights reforms were assaults on personal liberty and the sovereignty of property rights before the law will be the final, or a least the generational, triumph of money, authoritarianism and racism over the common good, democracy and equality before the law.
We are all in for some very bad times over the next few years; but the people I feel the most pity for are the young. I'm an old guy who's already made his pile. Heck, I may even benefit from some of the nasty things that will occur. But the young will have to live with this court and the triumph of money for most of their adult lives. They are the ones who'll have to bear the cost of our plunge into collective insanity. Bad air, bad water, endless wars, economic immiseration and the destruction of American democracy will be my generations legacy to them all. No more shining city upon a hill for them.
All this because of a bunch of silly emails. A farce that has turned into a tragedy.
5
Regarding the triumph of the Trumpublicans: Does anyone know of the requirements for immigration to Canada, or any other civilized country?
1
The more money you can bring with you, the easier it is to get into anywhere.
1
Yes. They all have tougher restrictions than the USA. You’d better be a refugee or a millionaire. If not, a close relative or spouse is your only hope.
2
What you can expect from the Democrats is their classic "roll over and play dead". They will put up no fight, as usual, and the right will get what they want, as usual. Perhaps finally, just finally, the Democrats will begin to realize that you have to put up candidates that can WIN. If you didn't know HRC was going to lose well before the election, then you deserve to have lost. (Full disclosure - I am a Democrat and knew from day 1 she would lose) If you are dumb enough to nominate her again....well, I may have to vote for Trump just to spite you. Please Democrats, start trying to learn the lesson that winning ugly is better than losing pretty.
1
The only hope to save Roe v. Wade is now firmly in the hands of Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and perhaps those of John Mccain). They voted to save Planned Parenthood and they can insist that only a conservative judge who will openly vow not to repeal Roe v. Wade will get their support. As Bill Clinton explained "It's all just aritmetic." With a narrow 51-49 Republican majority, two votes can preserve "a women's right to choose" and have control over her reproductive organs.
1
I wish the Democratic senators would stop trying to appeal to Mitch McConnell's sense of "fair play" in waiting until after the election to install the next justice.
IT'S PATHETIC AND EMBARRASSING!
He's really going to do that!
It's exactly why we always lose these fights.
Get in the game, for Pete's sake!
5
Heitkamp, Donnelly, maybe Tester and definitely Manchin need to vote yes to be re-elected.
Even if McCain passes and Flake “flakes”, I still think Trump will get his Justice.
If nothing else, media companies just hit 5 months of ratings gold
2
So far, our Progressive Resistance has gotten us a face full of conserva-dirt.
Alas, pendulum's swing based on how far they are pushed from the norm.
The current attempt to roll back human rights will be steamrolled into asphalt soon enough.
Or crushed rather, as the pendulum swings back hard and fast, accelerating history, which is the story of progressives stuffing their pro-human agenda down the throats of those trying to conserve old ways.
1
With so much at stake it does seem reasonable to wait until after the midterm election to nominate and confirm a new supreme court justice.
Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland was before the Senate for 293 days. It does feel to many that it was a stolen seat on the court by the Republican congress.
We need to slow down and proceed cautiously and make sure that our country does not become even more divided by the choice of a supreme court justice before our mid term election in November.
Only 52% of eligible voters participated in the 2016 presidential election and less than half of the 52% voted for the president. We need to have more people participate in the midterms and the choice of a new Supreme Court Justice who will be serving the country for many decades.
5
Exactly right:
"Kennedy's retirement is bad for liberals, but losing focus on the midterms will be far worse."
Kennedy's retirement has long been expected, and he's not exactly the "liberal" he's now said to have been. Far more consequential will be Trump's replacement of Ginsburg if she dies or retires while Trump is in office. If the Democratic Party controls the Senate then, it can simply decline to confirm Trump's replacement nominee. That's exactly what I expect the DP will do.
I remember well Chuck Schumer's remark to John Roberts during the latter's confirmation hearing. Schumer told Roberts that he (Roberts) was the "most qualified" nominee he (Schumer) had seen come down the pike in all of his many years in Congress. Very soon thereafter, however, Schumer voted against Roberts -- just as he and Roberts and everyone else knew he would do when he was praising Roberts.
Whether that will happen again will depend on whether the DP controls the Senate or not. That, in turn, will depend on how the DP does in the mid-term elections.
What do you think about the implications of making judges responsible for judging what a "sincerely held belief" is, Three Cents?
1
Steve,
I assume you're referring to the "wedding cake" case. If so, no judge did draw this conclusion. The Supreme Court opinion merely noted that both sides had agreed on this.
It is quite likely that Chief Justice Roberts will step into the shoes of Justice Kennedy and fill the needed role of a moderate. His vote to keep Obamacare indicates a willingness to "be nice."
I don't for a second believe Roe V. Wade is at risk even if an extremely conservative Justice is appointed. I also don't believe the strides made for LGBTQ will be undone.
The Red State Democratic Senators "at risk" are very likely to vote to support Trumps nominee simply to avoid a campaign issue that could easily divide wavering voters - they have enough baggage already with their vote against tax cuts.
5
This situation highlights the need to eliminate the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Appointments are not based on judicial ability or experience, but rather on age and adherence to the ideology of whoever happens to have power at a random point in time. We now face the situation where a President lacking any experience in law, knowledge of the Constitution, or respect for the truth can appoint someone who will influence laws for the next 50 years. Changing to 19 year terms would give each justice plenty of time to make an impact, but allow better, more experienced and mature judges to be appointed, taking the pressure off making appointments to lock in a political view for decades.
Chief Justice Roberts is concerned that his court not appear political. Too late. The Executive Branch, backed up by the Senate, is using the Judicial branch as their minions.
3
There would be much less fear and loathing attached to Supreme Court nominations if all Supreme Court justices were textualists who based their rulings on the ordinary meaning of the Constitution’s text instead of pretending that it requires “interpretation” or feigning an ability to divine the intent of the Constitution ‘s authors. Some even profess they discern natural or divine human rights that transcend the Constitution.
The Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, but is silent on most issues. If Americans think Americans are entitled to a right not included in the Bill of Rights they should use the amendment process to add it to the list. But political party hacks have discovered that achieving a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is easier than ratifying an amendment.
Political parties politicized the Supreme Court and should not complain when they get outvoted.
3
The conservative side is all set for a war on this. David Brooks has recently pointed out that many on the right today aren't conservatives. They're anti-liberal. So, they are ready to go against anything liberals want. I don't think they've stopped to realize that it's not much of a philosophy of government, just to be against what one group wants.
4
Donald Trump could unite the country by appointing Merrick Garland.
But don't hold your breath!
14
“Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,”
While no president can predict how a justice will vote (though we pretty much can with Gorsuch) Trump could take the wind out the Democrats sails and say his nomination would be someone with a demonstrated record of decisions upholding the rights of people and would likely put none of these in danger. And he could back it up with a selection that while conservative is not a religious ideologue or someone who sees rights of others as diminishing his own. The Republicans could say we have no interest in undoing previous Supreme Court decisions.
That he/they can't or won't tells you that Pelosi is absolutely correct. The rights of people, of the working class, of women and those who are different are threatened.
P.S. "the leftist agenda" is people, as in We the People.... not we the corporate class...
Focus on Corker, Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. Those four can hold the key to a moderate Judge. Win them over, I do think Collins and Murkowski are already there, and it will be a long drawn-out hearing.
2
Bailing out before the next Congress is called, seems to me a political capitulation to Trump (and McConnell) and a poke in the eye to all the 'liberal' rulings Justice Kennedy took part in. What kind of 'legacy' of that?
5
Just to re-cap:
- Kennedy authors Nush v Gore
- Kennedyauthors Citizens United
- Kennedy sides with the “conservative” side of the Court in six of it’s last seven decision including those that damaged unions, damaged voters rights, upheld the racist Trump travel ban, and weakened women’s right is in California.
- decides to resign and give Trump free reign to appoint a successor before the electorate gets their say in November.
I get that he has, a few times, sided with someone other than Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito, and I get that Trump can, and likely will, replace him with someone very much worse, but mourning Kennedy is simply ridiculous.
1
President Trump won the election. Not the other candidate. He gets to pick the Supreme Court justice. Next time the Democrats should put up a better candidate for president, then they can pick.
10
The Democrats had a better "candidate" in President Obama. His pick for the Supreme Court was blocked by O'Connell and his henchmen. The seat was stolen by Gorsuch.
1
McConnell should have the guts to wait for the mid-term and actually makes it an issue to mobilize the conservative vote. Instead, he is just conceding the mid-term to democrats and want to act quickly, like a robber...
1
Students pf history and current events need to understand why one party goes into so many conniption fits over a simple change in the membership of the Supreme Court.
Were the Court only known for ratifying new laws passed by Congress in regular session, the passing of a Scalia or a Kennedy would not send the political fringe element into curses and multiple exclamation points.
Since the Vietnam era, the progressive Left has been reduced to hoping that the Supreme Court will put into place the demands they have that they also know FULL WELL will not be agreed to by any legislative body any time soon.
Were, say, Brown vs (Topeka) Board of Education put up to a vote, the U.S. of that era would have agreed to it out of simple moral convictions, I have no doubt.
But the 1973 one-vote majority finding a fictional national excuse for abortions or the more recent decision on gay marriage stand in direct opposition to how the people of the country and their elected representatives would vote, and the Left KNOWS it.
So what the public angst we see this week is ABOUT is the demands of radical progressives for more social-justice warriors to veer SCOTUS into grayer & grayer areas that no Congress would agree to.
2
"Were, say, Brown vs (Topeka) Board of Education put up to a vote, the U.S. of that era would have agreed to it out of simple moral convictions, I have no doubt."
I for one have very serious doubts that federal legislation to outlaw school segregation could have passed in 1954. No Senator or Congressman from the South would have voted for it. There probably would have been enough "no" votes from elsewhere to kill it as well. The civil rights movement needed the next decade in order to create the conditions that enabled the enactment of the Civil Right Act of '64. But it's a big question whether it would have passed had school de-segregation been included.
The possible future status of the Supreme Court, impacted by Gorsuch and the retirement of Kennedy, has caused me to rethink the era of the failed ERA. The Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution was as loudly opposed by that decade’s Moral Majority as loudly demanded by women and their supporters. Why?
It’s simple: the result of constitutional equality of women would place an obstacle in the way of then, now, and future denial of fundamental rights of women, especially over their own bodies. (The handbook of that era was appropriately titled “Our Bodies, Our Selves.”) Nothing was more repugnant to both men and, incredibly, other women who would dominate American women than losing total control over them.
The questions that I am pondering today are: If the ERA had been passed then, would women be concerned about losing their right to free choice now? Would it be this easy to subjugate half of our country’s population to the personal moral beliefs of others? Is it this simple to remove the constitutional prohibition of a state-sponsored religion?
Ground Hog Day. The Clash of Titans, the Battle Royale for the American Soul, that was going to galvanize the Dems and lead to their victory in November? The Times assured us that would happen in 2016 when Garland was nominated to the court. Instead it fizzled, trumped by McConnell’s quietly effective procedural maneuvers. Here we go again.
1
The Senate Democrats can deny Mitch a quorum.
All they have to do is go on vacation.
1
It is a bitter irony that the impending retirement of an 81-year-old Republican means losing a last remaining (occasional) tether of the country's legal and political systems to any vestige of human decency.
4
Justice Kennedy was no liberal. He was and is a Republican whose first instinct was to promote the interests of the moneyed establishment party in any dispute. He did not, however, suffer from the cultural prejudices of certain of his fellow Republican justices. He was not a reactionary. It is a very sorry statement about the state or our politics and our Supreme Court that the retirement of a justice who, until very recently, was viewed as a conservative Republican is seen as (and is likely to be) a catastrophe by what passes for the left. We don't have equal rights now - ask an African American; ask a woman. Whoever Trump succeeds in foisting on us will surely accelerate our decline.
"You reap what you sow." I'm glad the Democrats are using the same tactics that McConnell did. Democrats have gone too complicit in allowing the GOP to do what it wants. Now it is time to fight dirty just like the GOP did when Obama was still president.
4
Question: why didn’t this man wait until after the elections? To energize which side?
Who knows? But it would have been better.
3
The ideal scenario would be for Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to vote for whatever candidate Trump proposes in a futile attempt to save their necks, followed by them being tossed out as part of the Red Wave in November.
4
My personal experience of the judicial system as a defendant in two lawsuits, and discussions with others of similar experience, is that the entire civil legal system is operated as squirrel cage extracting money for nothing, as far as "little people" are concerned. There are very few Judge Judy's of TV holding forth in real courts.
5
I do not care how many obstacles are in our way, we still must fight our hearts out. We must relentlessly put pressure on our lawmakers, every single one of them from Joe Manchin to Susan Collins. Because of their cowardice, we will see before our eyes the regression of our nation and an uprooting of the very foundation of our democracy...equality for all and the dignity to live our lives in accordance with our God-given human rights. You Democrats who are in Red States, you have a choice: Your soul and the spirit of this nation or selling that very soul for your own gain, which by ceding to the will of this administration will place you on that same road to perdition.
13
This is an incredibly sad moment in our history. The fight is lost, with the deluded rallying behind those that will ultimately destroy us. If you think for one second that the nominee will not be ultra conservative, and confirmed without issue, you're out of your mind.
I encourage everyone, dem and rep, to read more history. This is exactly how dark times begin.
50
Hmmmm, my history book says this is the time when counter-movements are born.... the kind that reverse the bad, and accelerate the good.
1
Donald's obvious choice is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who has experience enforcing many aspects of the Constitution and federal law. Sessions has strong views on the Civil War amendments (13th, 14th and 15th amendments) and many other issues critical to the alt-right base. Taking him out at AG would serve Donald's purposes well. On the other hand, Jared is much younger and does have a JD from Harvard.
11
"Taking him out at AG would serve Donald's purposes well."
In theory, yes. It would remove as AG someone who had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation (thus leading to Mueller's appointment) and would open the post to someone who would not have to recuse him or herself and could thus fire Mueller.
In practice, though, Senators McConnell and Grassley (the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) have already told President Trump that there will be no vote on any nominee to succeed Sessions if he is fired. Would a Sessions nomination to the Supreme Court be enough of a difference to get them to relent on this issue? If not, would President Trump be brazen enough to go through with it anyway and dare the Senate Republicans to reject the nomination? It would make for a very interesting spectacle, that's for sure.
You are very cynical and 100% right.
No doubt, the Supreme Court picks have become so political that the court should change members on an alternating basis.No one should be chosen at age 35 and stay on the bench for another fifty years, That has not happened but it could.Oliver Wendell Holmes stayed in the Court until age 90! When the Constitution was written longevity was not the norm.Also at that time a civilized dialogue was possible- it no longer is.Brown v Board of Education was made law when I was in college.During my darker moments I wonder if it would become law today.
8
It has been said that the Supreme Court has had a conservative majority for the past 50 years since Chief Justice Warren called it a career. I can't speak for the period from '68-'88, but I can say that the Court's conservative majority from '88 onward stems from the confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate of Kennedy in '88 and Thomas in '91, both of them nominated by a Republican President.
The other 7 justices were all nominated by a President from the same party that held the Senate majority at the time. I think it's safe to say that politicization of the Supreme Court has reached the point where this is the only way a Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed for the foreseeable future. The stakes are simply too high to allow confirmation otherwise.
Conservatives in particular feel like they've been betrayed by many Republican nominees over the years (Warren (an Ike nominee), Blackmun (a Nixon nominee), Stevens (a Ford nominee), Souter (a GHB nominee), Kennedy himself (a Reagan nominee) many times, even Roberts (a GWB nominee) for the ACA decision in 2012), and this has deepened their resolve to "get it right" with nominations going forward. It's not as pronounced with liberals, but they have their litmus tests too (upholding Roe v. Wade but undoing Citizens United, among others).
Forget "calling balls and strikes." It's all about ideology and policy preferences now. All Republicans understand this. Any Democrats who don't, need to get with the program.
3
Age-old debate:
"Judicial appointments should not be lifelong."
Most states elect state-court judges, but all federal judges are appointed for life. The former group complains that their judicial decisions might be swayed improperly by transient political whims, while voters complain that "lifetime" judges ignore people's desires.
Under the "federal court" system, assuming that a President picks a Justice who reflects his views, that President will be wielding influence long after he leaves office -- often even after he dies (Kennedy, for example, was picked by Ronald Reagan). Nevertheless, like it or not, I doubt either system will change any time soon.
8
I hope Democrats have learned something from the Garland obstruction and are prepared to one-up the Republican hypocrites. I haven't seen much gumption from the Dems in the last year and a half. They need courageous and smart leaders who aren't afraid to challenge the GOP and beat them at their own game. It really is just about the only hope that we have left besides the ballot box. It's time people. Get out and vote in your own best interests and support candidates who do with your time and resources. Look what doing nothing has gotten us.
30
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction."
"The next justice could dramatically change the direction of #SCOTUS for decades. The American people deserve a voice in that conversation.”
(Mitch McConnell, 2016)
If the republicans do anything less than wait until the American Public have had their say (i.e. AFTER THE ELECTIONS), why I would think that their actions re: Merrick Garland's nomination indicate a naked power grab.
Let me be frank: republicans do not have a leg to stand on in regards to pushing for quick confirmations. None. ESPECIALLY from an administration that has so many people under indictment or even convicted.
10