Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire from Supreme Court

[erwins]

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court.

A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...eme-court.html

NFBSK! I hope he has a good reason, because if not, my opinion of him just fell by a whole lot.

[Tantalus Prime]

I certainly hope Sen. McConnell agrees that the replacement nominee should be approved by the Senate elected in the mid-term election that's underway right now.

At least that is what he said eight and a half months before the presidential election, so at the very least the same should apply to the mid-term election that is four and a half months away.

[Errata]

We're long past the point of giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They are not going to hold themselves to any standards of consistency or precedent. It's one rule for them and another for everyone else.

In 2021, the Democratic president and congress needs to play by Republican rules. Reduce wasteful government spending by streamlining the Supreme Court down to 7 members, with a Last In/First Out system. Then reconsider whether that isn't too few, and restore it to 9, with Merrick Garland and one other new appointee.

[Cervus]

I haven't been this sick with fear for the future of this country since the night of the 2016 election.

[E. Q. Taft]

After the disappointing rulings of the past couple of days, this comes as a real blow. if it's that bad with Kennedy...ugh.

I agree with someone who proposed that the next time the Democrats control the Senate with a Republican in the White House, they should adopt a policy of, "We're reserving one appointment. You stole one from us, we're taking it back."

[thorny locust]

unprintable unprintable unprintable ---

He couldn't at least have waited till after the midterms?

-- story says he announced it after meeting with Trump. Has Trump got something on him, I wonder?

Sorry, I am feeling paranoid right now.

[crocoduck_hunter]

I feel that if Trump had blackmail material on a person, he'd have trouble keeping quiet about it.

[thorny locust]

Well, there is that.

I should probably save my paranoia for the ways in which they really are out to get me.

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

He couldn't at least have waited till after the midterms?

-- story says he announced it after meeting with Trump. Has Trump got something on him, I wonder?

The meeting with Trump was probably him telling Trump that he was retiring.

And the timing of his announcement is actually ideal (at least in a normal world). SCOTUS is out of session until September/October giving the Senate the most amount of time to confirm an appointee before the new term.

[DawnStorm]

Get ready for a linger, hotter summer; all Hell is about to break loose.

[GenYus234]

If I were on the confirmation committee, I would ask only one question of all appointees:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, Merrick Garland?"

[thorny locust]

Yeah, I'm thinking that I hope the Democrats do absolutely everything they can to stall this till after the midterms -- while repeating, loudly and publicly, that they'd be happy to immediately confirm Garland.

[UrbanLegends101]

Maybe two other questions?

Do you believe that Pres. Obama was born in the United States and that the posted birth certificates are real or do you believe the long form birth certificate is a fabricated document?

Do you believe that David Hogg was a senior at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and was at the school on the day of the shooting at that school?

GenYus234, I think you've started a chain of important questions.

[GenYus234]

Discussion is certain good, but my intention was that the only criteria I would use to accept an appointee was if he was Merrick Garland.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Errata

We're long past the point of giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They are not going to hold themselves to any standards of consistency or precedent. It's one rule for them and another for everyone else.

Exactly. The fact that the DNC continues to pretend that they are dealing with reasonable people, despite all evidence to the contrary, makes you wonder if they are disingenuous or just unbelievably naive. You guys are basically Charlie Brown, always positive that this time Lucy won’t trick you and you’ll get to kick that football, while the GOP is Lucy.

[gopher]

Time for as many sane states as possible to put in place legislation protecting a woman's right to choose and autonomy over her body.

[Sooeygun]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8422751.html

As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr Trump paused to chat with the justice.

“Say hello to your boy,” Mr Trump said. “Special guy.”

Mr Trump was apparently referring to Mr Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by gopher

Time for as many sane states as possible to put in place legislation protecting a woman's right to choose and autonomy over her body.

Fortunately I believe that's already on the books here in California, but of course there are plenty of states that have been doing everything they could to make abortion more difficult without banning it outright. If Roe is overturned, they'll be on it like flies on a dog turd.

And it will suddenly make it a much bigger issue in every election (I expect California would get ballot propositions on the matter regularly), which might actually help the Democrats -- I've theorized that there are a fair number of pro-choice Republicans out there who just keep quiet about it, willing to accept the "pro-life" folks in their party as long as they have Roe as a safeguard, but might have to abandon the party if it gets kicked back to legislatures -- but not everywhere, and it will be ugly, and it probably won't be worth it.

[erwins]

I heard on the radio, but I don't remember the exact source, that about 20 states are likely to pass laws outlawing abortion outright now that Kennedy has retired, both to set up challenges to Roe, and to have those laws in place for when it is overturned.

I wonder if it will be overturned all at once though, or if they might take an outright challenge to Roe, along with some severe restriction cases, and putatively say Roe still stands, but let it be chiseled away until it's an empty shell. More of an overruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I've heard it said that Roberts is an incrementalist. On the other hand, if they are worried about being able to do it in steps, then maybe they will just go for it.

I do think putting the outright legality of abortion back into play may ultimately hurt Republicans. It was already an important single-issue voter draw for Republicans. But less so for Democrats with Roe in place.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Looks like Kennedy and Trump were a lot closer than previously suspected: http://www.businessinsider.com/antho...dollars-2018-6