Some on the Left Think Trump Colluded with Kennedy to Retire

[DarkFury]

Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.

Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.

You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.

That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.

He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.

It's the right of the Senate not the congress.

*sigh*

the Senate IS part of Congress.

NOT when it comes to advise and consent. ALL SCOTUS picks and cabinet choices go to the Senate branch ONLY.

 

[Kosh]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.

Wait until Trump gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

You will see holy hell break out..

Oh wait... Nevermind!

 

[edward37]

Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.

I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.

Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.

Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.

You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.

That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.

He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.

The time will come where that will bite repubs in their asses The sooner the better

 

[DarkFury]

I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.

Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.

Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.

You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.

That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.

He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.

The time will come where that will bite repubs in their asses The sooner the better

At this rate it will be 50 years and I will be 110. I really don't think I will care.

 

[task0778]

this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.

They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.

Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.

Impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the SC, does it?

If I am not mistaken, any federal judge up to and including a SCOTUS justice can be removed from office (impeached), same as a president. Actually, I believe any federal official can be impeached, including a member of Congress. Added: members of Congress can be expelled from office by their peers, so they don't get impeached.

FYI, from Wikipedia:

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789 (most recently the 2010 impeachment, then removal from office, of Judge Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana) with only the following 19 of these proceedings actually resulting in the House's passing Articles of Impeachment:

• Two presidents:
  • Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached on February 24, 1868 by the House of Representatives after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act by a 126 to 47 vote. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, which voted 35–19 in favor of conviction, but falling one vote short of the necessary two-thirds needed to remove him from office. The Tenure of Office Act would later be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in dicta.
  • Bill Clinton, Democrat, was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles: one was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote), the second accused Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. The votes to remove him from office fell short of the necessary two-thirds: 45–55 on obstruction of justice and 50–50 on perjury.
• Impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon were referred to the full House of Representatives for consideration and ended with his resignation.
• In 1876, cabinet officer William W. Belknap (former Secretary of War), resigned before his trial and was later acquitted. Allegedly, most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
• One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment. This established the precedent that Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment, as they can be removed by action of the House of which they are members without impeachment or any other action being necessary.
• One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase, impeached in 1804, was acquitted by the Senate.
• Fourteen other federal judges. Seven of these have been convicted by the Senate and removed, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted in 1989 for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives in Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal.

 

[Polishprince]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Justice Kennedy is 82 years old, why would anyone have a problem with the man retiring? After all, he is Eighty Freaking Two.

BTW, Ruth Bader Ginzberg should follow him. After all, she made a sacred vow to the American people to move to New Zealand after Trump won.

 

[dannyboys]

The DEMs are going to win the Senate like Maxine Water's hair is real.

 

[g5000]

Kennedy could have waited until after the mid-terms to retire.

His timing is deliberate.

 

[g5000]

The DEMs are going to win the Senate like Maxine Water's hair is real.

Her hair is more real than Trump's.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.

The thought crossed my mind, I admit. But Kennedy has been considering this quite awhile, I hear, so no, 75 is sure old enough for most of us to want to retire.

Yeah, and since he's actually 80, I'd say he's been ready to go for a while.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kennedy clearly knew the implications of the timing of his departure and the midterms.

Well, obviously. You don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice without some political skills, and you don't spend decades in DC without being VERY aware of the political currents there.

I think he hung in there this long, at least in part, because he wanted to be sure that the President who replaced him was going to choose someone he, Kennedy, would find acceptable.

I sincerely doubt there's a whole lot of active "collusion and conspiracy" involved in an 80-year-old man deciding to retire, though. My mom's 80, and you can't even get her to get out of her easy chair and put on a bra most days.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.

Well, they also think he has Mexican children's bones ground into flour for cookies to dip in their blood for a late night snack. It's what the left does when they can't win.

I hope you're happy. Now I'm hungry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.

I’m trying to think of this long shot was actually true why I would care. Seems reasonable a conservative (kinda) judge would want to go out with a president to replace them with someone similar. It’s also why I wonder why Ginsburg has stayed so long. She could have retired giving obie the power to replace her but didn’t. I’m thinking in my own little conspiracy she stayed because she thought Hillary would win. Then she would retire giving the liberals Two seats to fill.

Never forget that judges tend to be a bit power-obsessed, and the higher the court on which they sit, the more obsessed they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Democratic Party is wading further into Alex Jones territory with each passing day. I mean, this is just stupid.

Finance is, of course, deeply involved in every level of American government; the connections between Trump and Kennedy have been reported over the last two years. There is no reason to believe that Kennedy’s ties to Trump affected any of his votes. But as this new report details, these ties coincided with “a quiet campaign” to ensure Kennedy’s retirement and give Trump a chance to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s relationship with Justice Kennedy sounds shady in this new report.

That's ******* stupid. Kennedy has been looking to retire for the last several years. He severed this country with honor and now it's time for him to enjoy his twilight years.

Kennedy doesn't want to end up dead with a pillow over his face.

Exactly. Nearly 80 year old men with coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes, and, a whole host of other ailments don't just drop dead.

Well, apparently, they also don't decide, "**** this bullshit" and retire without a conspiracy to blackmail them into it.

Hell, I'd retire tomorrow if I could afford to, but it's completely unfathomable that Kennedy might just wanna spend a couple of years hanging with the grandkids and going fishing before he kaks off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.

They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.

Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.

Impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the SC, does it?

Do you mean impeachment of the President, or do you mean can Justices be impeached themselves?

 

[task0778]

this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.

They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.

Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.

Impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the SC, does it?

Do you mean impeachment of the President, or do you mean can Justices be impeached themselves?

To clarify: the SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with the process to impeach anybody, including the President. And certainly not themselves; any impeachment begins in the House of Reps, who vote on impeaching somebody for whom impeachment is possible. If it passes the Senate, the Senate votes on whether to have a trial of the accused, if the articles of impeachment pass the House. If they vote to have the trial, a 2/3 majority is required to convict the accused. If convicted, the convicted gets removed from office. Neither the President nor the SCOTUS has a say.

 

[Pete7469]

Bullshit.

No one on the left thought that.

They don't have the ability to think.


.

 

[edward37]

this is just the next 'outrage' that the left is preparing to gin up against America.

They cannot stop the nomination and appointment of a Justice now, so they're going to try and place an asterisk next to the next judge in a hope to show contempt for a possible impeachment hearing if they get the Senate back.

Does impeachment still require a 2/3 majority vote? Hard to believe they would go that far, but I would not be surprised if the tried to "pack the court" with say 6 more liberal justices if and when they win the WH and the Senate.

Impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the SC, does it?

Do you mean impeachment of the President, or do you mean can Justices be impeached themselves?

To clarify: the SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with the process to impeach anybody, including the President. And certainly not themselves; any impeachment begins in the House of Reps, who vote on impeaching somebody for whom impeachment is possible. If it passes the Senate, the Senate votes on whether to have a trial of the accused, if the articles of impeachment pass the House. If they vote to have the trial, a 2/3 majority is required to convict the accused. If convicted, the convicted gets removed from office. Neither the President nor the SCOTUS has a say.

Are you saying there is never a reason for SC to have anything to do with a president being drummed out of office

 

[Polishprince]

Kennedy could have waited until after the mid-terms to retire.

His timing is deliberate.

I don't think the Justice wants to work during the fall session.

The timing is definitely a test for Manchin and Heitkamp and Donnally.

Senators for Red States that are up for reelection.

 

[Darkwind]

I think it does. They could also be trying to build a foundation for an argument on why Trump should not be permitted to nominate a justice until AFTER the presidential election in 2.5 years.

Well he shouldn’t. Right? I mean you guys set a precedent and all.

Incorrect. They should do what is best for the country and putting a Constructionist on the bench is best for this country.

You mean what YOU THINK IS BEST even if it means breaking with precedent and rules that have long governed these things.

That is not good for this country any more than obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. Denying a president his right to appoint a SCOTUS is an abuse of power.

He was not denied. The answer to his nomination was no. That IS the right of Congress.

The time will come where that will bite repubs in their asses The sooner the better

In reality, the time will come when a President is once again denied a nominee. It happens, then people move on.

There won't be a thing you can do about this one, however. Only the GOP can **** this up.