What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
infection said:
Link?
Click to expand...
A link to footage from the House UnAmerican Committee? Ok....



Dalton Trumbo was threatened and given prison time for contempt of Congress, and he didn't act like half the puss Kavanaugh acted like, who was under no threat of arrest.
 
ONE LOVE said:
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh: Signed, 2,400+ Law Professors

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

This should mean something, right? What other proof do you need?
Click to expand...

Law schools are likely the most liberal institutions in the country. 2,400 of the approximately 16,000 legal professors from these institutions signed this letter regarding a very polarizing subject. So what is this proof of?

As an example, 40 Harvard professors signed the letter. Harvard has over 130 Full-Time professors (double that when you add the <FT professors).

One thing I have learned, is judges call it how it is. Kavanaugh has been on the bench a long-time, and his on-bench demeanor has never been an issue. I don't want him on the Supreme Court, but I think he is qualified, but due to the cloud of accusations (and my political views), I would prefer someone else.
 
Liberal Justices on the SC are certainly concerned at the future where partisanship and the loss of a swing vote are concerned. "What goes around, comes around" is the last thing I wanted to hear from Kavanaugh, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed notwithstanding. But, we shall see.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/elena-kagan-supreme-court-kennedy-877288

With Washington still reeling from the most fractious Supreme Court confirmation battle in decades, Justice Elena Kagan warned Friday that the high court's credibility is at risk because it now appears to lack a justice whose swing vote made the court seem more unpredictable and less partisan.

Speaking at a Princeton University conference for women, neither Kagan nor fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor commented directly on the fight over President Donald Trump's nominee Brett Kavanaugh or the sexual assault allegations that triggered protests and a re-opening of his confirmation hearings.

However, Kagan said the departure of the man Kavanaugh would replace — Justice Anthony Kennedy — leaves the court in danger of being perceived as a political institution rather than a neutral arbiter of disputes.

"It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way," Kagan said. "That’s enabled the court to look so it was not all by one side or another and it was indeed impartial and neutral and fair. And it’s not so clear that I think going forward that sort of middle position — it's not so clear whether we’ll have it."

"All of us need to be aware of that — every single one of us — and to realize how precious the court’s legitimacy is," Kagan declared, with her warning drawing protracted applause from the Princeton crowd. "It's an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7cdc94-c8dd-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

This is a dangerous, even scary, moment for the court — one in which Kavanaugh’s admonition against seeing the court in partisan terms seems laughably naive.

Indeed, even before the latest eruption of confirmation ugliness, that view was more fanciful aspiration than reality. Certainly, the view of the court as an institution above partisan politics was not furthered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) successful blockade of President Barack Obama’s ability to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.

Certainly, it is not the way the president who nominated Kavanaugh envisions the institution. “We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!,” President Trump tweeted in March.

With the replacement of swing justice Anthony M. Kennedy, that instrumentalist Trumpian vision of Republicans definitively holding the high court is about to be made manifest. As law professors Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum have observed, the court is at a unique moment in its history, for the first time divided into clear blocs in which justices’ ideological views align perfectly with the political party of the president who appointed them.
 
Red said:
Liberal Justices on the SC are certainly concerned at the future where partisanship and the loss of a swing vote are concerned. "What goes around, comes around" is the last thing I wanted to hear from Kavanaugh, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed notwithstanding. But, we shall see.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/elena-kagan-supreme-court-kennedy-877288

With Washington still reeling from the most fractious Supreme Court confirmation battle in decades, Justice Elena Kagan warned Friday that the high court's credibility is at risk because it now appears to lack a justice whose swing vote made the court seem more unpredictable and less partisan.

Speaking at a Princeton University conference for women, neither Kagan nor fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor commented directly on the fight over President Donald Trump's nominee Brett Kavanaugh or the sexual assault allegations that triggered protests and a re-opening of his confirmation hearings.

However, Kagan said the departure of the man Kavanaugh would replace — Justice Anthony Kennedy — leaves the court in danger of being perceived as a political institution rather than a neutral arbiter of disputes.

"It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way," Kagan said. "That’s enabled the court to look so it was not all by one side or another and it was indeed impartial and neutral and fair. And it’s not so clear that I think going forward that sort of middle position — it's not so clear whether we’ll have it."

"All of us need to be aware of that — every single one of us — and to realize how precious the court’s legitimacy is," Kagan declared, with her warning drawing protracted applause from the Princeton crowd. "It's an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7cdc94-c8dd-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

This is a dangerous, even scary, moment for the court — one in which Kavanaugh’s admonition against seeing the court in partisan terms seems laughably naive.

Indeed, even before the latest eruption of confirmation ugliness, that view was more fanciful aspiration than reality. Certainly, the view of the court as an institution above partisan politics was not furthered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) successful blockade of President Barack Obama’s ability to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.

Certainly, it is not the way the president who nominated Kavanaugh envisions the institution. “We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!,” President Trump tweeted in March.

With the replacement of swing justice Anthony M. Kennedy, that instrumentalist Trumpian vision of Republicans definitively holding the high court is about to be made manifest. As law professors Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum have observed, the court is at a unique moment in its history, for the first time divided into clear blocs in which justices’ ideological views align perfectly with the political party of the president who appointed them.
Click to expand...

We may see another justice swing towards center. Likely Roberts.
 
Red said:
With Washington still reeling from the most fractious Supreme Court confirmation battle in decades, Justice Elena Kagan warned Friday that the high court's credibility is at risk because it now appears to lack a justice whose swing vote made the court seem more unpredictable and less partisan.
Click to expand...
I’m confident she and others with this concern would have similar feelings about the importance of the balance and the swing vote in the event that Clinton had made the last two appointments.
 
infection said:
I’m confident she and others with this concern would have similar feelings about the importance of the balance and the swing vote in the event that Clinton had made the last two appointments.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced Clinton would not have sought to appoint moderates, and not someone as partisan toward the Right, as Kavanaugh chose to be toward the Left in his opening statement last Thursday, but yeah, clearly neither Clinton nor any other Democrat would have nominated a strong conservative. I do agree with JAZZGASM that Roberts is actually likely to swing toward the center given the very real concerns the Justices must have of preserving the legitimacy of our highest court. At any rate, what Clinton would have actually done is something we will never know. In contrast, and in the real world, not the hypothetical alternate time line where Clinton won the 2016 election(and if the multiverse theory tells us such alternate time lines exist, I wish I lived there right now, lol)Trump's appointments are what matter now.

And a short piece by the former dean of the Yale Law School, commenting on the effect of Kavanaugh's partisan statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/a...ugh-confirmation-temperament-yale-dean-221086
 
Red said:
I'm not convinced Clinton would not have sought to appoint moderates, and not someone as partisan toward the Right, as Kavanaugh chose to be toward the Left in his opening statement last Thursday, but yeah, clearly neither Clinton nor any other Democrat would have nominated a strong conservative. I do agree with JAZZGASM that Roberts is actually likely to swing toward the center given the very real concerns the Justices must have of preserving the legitimacy of our highest court. At any rate, what Clinton would have actually done is something we will never know. In contrast, and in the real world, not the hypothetical alternate time line where Clinton won the 2016 election(and if the multiverse theory tells us such alternate time lines exist, I wish I lived there right now, lol)Trump's appointments are what matter now.

And a short piece by the former dean of the Yale Law School, commenting on the effect of Kavanaugh's partisan statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/a...ugh-confirmation-temperament-yale-dean-221086
Click to expand...

Clinton would likely have had to appoint a moderate judge to get through the Republican controlled Senate.
 
Let’s pretend Clinton gets two appointments, then Clarence Thomas comes out talking about the importance of a balance and the swing vote. I don’t think most would have any problem recognizing the belief/statement for what it is: partisan BS. Of course one isn’t concerned about balance when those perceived as being on the same ideological side — the correct, compassionate ______ [whatever] side — wields the power. But when those perceived as opposite ideologically wield said power, the damn sky is falling. But I suppose that’s justified, since them damn other-siders are just flat wrong, if not overtly evil.
 
Sens. Collins and Manchin might want to double their security details and upgrade home security.
 
It's ironic that a political party that has spent the last few decades whining about "activist judges" is now bragging about how their judges will now rule from the bench. Sell off your morals? Check. Sell out on fiscal responsibility? Check. Collude with Russia? Check. Rationalize for Trump? Check. Why? "So we can control the courts. You know, the stuff we've accused liberals of doing for decades."

I guess this is how you rule when you're a minority and your agenda is unbelievably unpopular.

It'll be interesting to see where the GOP goes after Trump. Will a new (moderate) conservative party emerge? You know, one that actually does care about decency, foreign policy (not just attacking globalists), free markets (not trade tariffs and farmer bailouts), and fiscal policy? Democrats have a real opportunity if they can move into and become the new moderate party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top