Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:55 pm

ed wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:04 pm
The precedents being set, or at least suggested, by the democrats are going to fuck us over for decades.
Squeaky-clean Chuck says.....


Well, we'll see...
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22190
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by gnome » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:50 pm

Breaking news! People who were already going to oppose confirmation hearings say now they're super duper opposed.

Clearly this has just made us more fucked for decades.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67651
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3427 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Doctor X » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:02 am

Once he won over the two Moderate Republican women Senators, the game was over.

All over save the butt-hurt.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22190
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by gnome » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:04 am

On a more serious note, are there any damaging precedents left in SCOTUS judge selection that have not already been established?
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71412
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1227 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:17 am

gnome wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:04 am
On a more serious note, are there any damaging precedents left in SCOTUS judge selection that have not already been established?
The precedent is Bork.

It has never been the same since then.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:09 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:17 am
gnome wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:04 am
On a more serious note, are there any damaging precedents left in SCOTUS judge selection that have not already been established?
The precedent is Bork.

It has never been the same since then.
What about Garland?
...
In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "
He could not have been said to have been "Borked" as it were...it was more like he was pigeonholed.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

shuize
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by shuize » Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:04 am

Tough shit, Garland. See e.g. Harry Reid, "nuclear option" and "making one's bed."

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:47 am

shuize wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:04 am
Tough shit, Garland. See e.g. Harry Reid, "nuclear option" and "making one's bed."
Good point shuize...
November 21, 2013
Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 202393b452

And if the Democrats did not put enough lube on that thing, well,
they really shouldn't complain about the butt hurt now...
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71412
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1227 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:28 am

Clearly, the Democrats figured there would never be a Republican president again.

Because history was on their side. :mrgreen:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21744
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1410 times
Been thanked: 1234 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:39 am

Another prediction that Justice Kavanaugh means the end of Roe.

Hello, Justice Kavanaugh. Farewell, Roe.
Democrats had a shot at stopping Kavanaugh and saving the constitutional right to abortion access. They blew it.
In a few weeks, the Senate will likely confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he will serve a lifetime appointment. A few years after he joins the bench—or as early as next June—Kavanaugh will cast the decisive vote in a 5–4 decision that will eviscerate Roe v. Wade. Within hours, days, and weeks of that ruling, a slew of states will outlaw or severely limit abortion; others will resume enforcing abortion bans that remain on the books. None of this is hypothetical or seriously debatable.
Really? Not even seriously debatable? Oookay . . .
The American conservative movement has spent decades waiting for this exact moment. Now that it has arrived, they are determined not to miss their opportunity—and by all indications, they will not. Republicans are on the brink of achieving their long sought-after goal of abolishing the constitutional right to abortion access.
Gee, he seems to be very certain about this.
It is not surprising that conservatives have perfectly executed their well-laid plan to reverse Roe. What is remarkable, however, is how little resistance they have faced from progressives. While a majority of Democratic senators have already voiced their hostility to Kavanaugh, their base has utterly failed to mount a vigorous, sustained opposition to his nomination. If, today, liberals could channel a fraction of the outrage they will feel after Kavanaugh overturns Roe, they would have a shot at keeping him off the court. Instead, their relative apathy toward his impending confirmation has likely doomed reproductive rights for at least a generation.
Ah, it's the fault of rank-and-file Democrats for being too apathetic and not realizing the imminent danger.

So what are the evidences?
Kavanaugh has not been particularly subtle about his distaste for Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In his current job on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh attempted to manipulate these precedents in order to prevent an undocumented immigrant minor from terminating her pregnancy. Under Casey, the government cannot impose an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before viability. Yet the Trump administration had imposed a flat ban on abortion for undocumented minors in federally funded shelters. (It maintained that minors who wished to terminate their pregnancies should either find a sponsor in the U.S.—a near impossible task for many without family here—or leave the country.) Kavanaugh held that this position did not constitute an undue burden, in a ruling which would have forced “Jane Doe,” a 17-year-old who was already 15 weeks pregnant, to continue her unwanted pregnancy.

The full D.C. Circuit swiftly overturned Kavanaugh’s ruling and granted Doe access to abortion. In response, Kavanaugh penned a furious dissent that brimmed over with anti-abortion rhetoric. The majority, he sneered, had granted Doe “abortion on demand”—a phrase that, as Irin Carmon notes, is deployed by the right to “denote women capriciously making decisions for themselves.” He claimed that Doe was not mature enough to make this “major life decision” on her own, even though she had already received the necessary judicial bypass from a state court. And he asserted, incredibly, that the Trump administration was being unlawfully forced to “facilitate” Doe’s abortion by merely stepping aside and letting her obtain it. (This argument is fundamentally theological, not legal.)
On its own, Kavanaugh’s approach to the Jane Doe case is enough to prove his anti-abortion, anti-Roe bona fides. But if that doesn’t convince you, consider his 2017 address to the American Enterprise Institute—the speech that seems to have bumped him to the top of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist. During his address, Kavanaugh took gratuitous swipes at Roe, praising then-Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent and disparaging the doctrinal foundation of Roe’s constitutional holding. His lavish praise for Rehnquist’s anti-abortion dissent sent a clear message to Trump and his advisers: Put me on the Supreme Court, and you can trust me to overturn Roe when the time comes.
Well, maybe. Of course, there are 8 other justices and he seems to be taking for granted that Roberts will also vote to overturn Roe.
All of this is on the public record. And yet the Democratic base has not treated Kavanaugh’s confirmation like the emergency that it is. There is none of the urgency that surrounded Congress’ botched repeal of the Affordable Care Act. There is little of the rage that greeted controversial Trump nominees like Betsy DeVos. Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican senators who stand a chance of opposing Kavanaugh, have said that they do not feel significant pressure from their constituents to vote against him. There is “a different level of intensity,” Murkowski explained in July. The confirmation vote is simply too abstract, too impersonal to ignite the passions of last summer. There is no sit-in movement, no mass outpouring of fear and frustration. Activists seem to have devoted relatively little time and money to shoring up red-state Democrats’ opposition to Kavanaugh. And it seems that they’ve barely bothered to appeal to the rest of the Republican caucus.
Well. Anyway, I guess this is a prediction as well as a scolding of regular liberals for not being apoplectic enough about this, as if that would make a difference in the end.

FWIW, most of the public doesn't seem to think it's likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Only 27% think it's likely, 62% think it's unlikely. Further, 66% think it would be a "bad thing" if it were overturned.

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol ... story.html

I guess a lot of people are in for a nasty shock if this guy turns out to be right.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67651
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3427 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Doctor X » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:40 am

You know, the World was going to end if Clinton/Bush/Obama/Her Turn/Trump were to be elected.

Won't be long now.

jdReport

P.S. Yeah. People who cite Roe seem to forget a later precedents such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey that would also have to be overturned. This is typical "Obama's Nominee/Trump's Nominee will TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION!!1!!!1"

However, if it ever actually happened, the US could not sustain a situation where an activity is a valid and protected medical procedure in one state while an act of criminal homicide in another.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:16 pm

Judge Kavanaugh's hearing must be delayed
Sherrilyn Ifill is the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc. The views expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinions on CNN.

(CNN)The ongoing investigation into President Donald Trump's conduct in the 2016 election is not just an inquiry into whether he or his associates committed crimes. It is a test of America's commitment to the basic principle that our justice system should treat every citizen equally.

If the US Senate is serious about upholding that principle, it will delay Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearing until special counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation. If it does not, it risks tarnishing the Supreme Court and undermining the rule of law -- blows from which our nation will not easily recover.
US Senate to Ms. Ifill, We will take that request under advisement,
meanwhile feel free to ....

Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71412
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1227 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:41 pm

Trump Court Will Bring Fundamentalist Version of Sharia Law
LA Progressive

Do they really believe this shit, or are they just hoping you will?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:55 pm

Trump SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh in hot water after hearing
After Brett Kavanaugh's hearing, it's clear that Democrats want no part of him. To weigh in on the tumultuous times of the SCOTUS nominee, Rory Little, a professor at the Hastings College of Law, stopped by ABC7 News.
It comes with a few videos...Democrats are very butt-hurt over "missing documents" during the time he was "the Presidents secretary"....

:yawn:

Democrats still butt-hurt over Garland...

:MajorYawn:

Where is it...ahhhh
:Popcorn:
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33584
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1747 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Grammatron » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:31 pm

"After Brett Kavanaugh's hearing, it's clear that Democrats want no part of him."

It was clear before.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8880
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by xouper » Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:08 am

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/ wrote:
Kavanaugh, Garland voted together 93 percent of the time
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 5, 2018

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh voted 93 percent of the time with his colleague Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama unsuccessfully nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016, when they both heard cases together on a federal appeals court in D.C.

. . . Both nominees served together on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

. . . According to Mr. Cruz, Judge Garland joined 27 out of 28 opinions written by Judge Kavanaugh, while Judge Kavanaugh joined 28 out of 30 of Judge Garland’s rulings.

. . .
:shock:

If that's true, then what is all the commotion about?

Does anyone know which cases they did not agree?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10461
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Skeeve » Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:39 am

xouper wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:08 am
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/ wrote:
Kavanaugh, Garland voted together 93 percent of the time
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 5, 2018

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh voted 93 percent of the time with his colleague Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama unsuccessfully nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016, when they both heard cases together on a federal appeals court in D.C.

. . . Both nominees served together on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

. . . According to Mr. Cruz, Judge Garland joined 27 out of 28 opinions written by Judge Kavanaugh, while Judge Kavanaugh joined 28 out of 30 of Judge Garland’s rulings.

. . .
:shock:

If that's true, then what is all the commotion about?

Does anyone know which cases they did not agree?
I was watching this part of the show.
Does make me wonder what differences the 2 or 3 non=agreements were about too...

However, at the end of the day, I think it just has a lot more to do with continual butt-hurt over Her Turn, some amount of TDS,
what we used to call "partisan politics"...
Then Skank Of America could start in...

shuize
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by shuize » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:33 am

Skeeve wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:39 am

However, at the end of the day, I think it just has a lot more to do with continual butt-hurt over Her Turn, some amount of TDS,
what we used to call "partisan politics"...

I agree. I saw part of an interview with a Democratic pol on one of the MSM news shows a few days ago crying about how their partisan use of the nuclear option to appoint appellate judges was totally, totally different from the way Republicans are using it now.

I know the MSM is one giant left-wing circle jerk, so I didn't expect any serious push back. But Lewis C.K. was right about bringing back the N-word for times like this. She wasn't black and still I thought "N~gger, please."

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21744
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1410 times
Been thanked: 1234 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:05 am

xouper wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:08 am
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/ wrote:
Kavanaugh, Garland voted together 93 percent of the time
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 5, 2018

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh voted 93 percent of the time with his colleague Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama unsuccessfully nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016, when they both heard cases together on a federal appeals court in D.C.

. . . Both nominees served together on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

. . . According to Mr. Cruz, Judge Garland joined 27 out of 28 opinions written by Judge Kavanaugh, while Judge Kavanaugh joined 28 out of 30 of Judge Garland’s rulings.

. . .
:shock:

If that's true, then what is all the commotion about?

Does anyone know which cases they did not agree?
I don't know how much you can tell from raw numbers alone. Appeals courts probably hear a lot of cases that aren't the sort of cases that would go all the way up to the Supreme Court, any many of them are probably pretty cut-and-dry.

The statistics don't seem to be easily searchable. Perhaps you will have better luck than I did.

I did find out that over half of Supreme Court decisions in the most recent term were unanimous. Liberals and conservatives on the Supreme court can agree more than 50% of the time. Those cases don't get much attention though. It's the 5-4 decisions or 6-3 decisions that everyone focuses on.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/ ... you-think/
Over half of the cases in the most recent term were unanimous.

Apparently
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

shuize
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Post by shuize » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:03 am

Doctor X wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:40 am
You know, the World was going to end if Clinton/Bush/Obama/Her Turn/Trump were to be elected.

Won't be long now.

jdReport

P.S. Yeah. People who cite Roe seem to forget a later precedents such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey that would also have to be overturned. This is typical "Obama's Nominee/Trump's Nominee will TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION!!1!!!1"

However, if it ever actually happened, the US could not sustain a situation where an activity is a valid and protected medical procedure in one state while an act of criminal homicide in another.
I'm not sure the Court would have to go back and overturn every post Roe case.

IIRC, Roe said states could not completely ban abortions.* In Roe, Blackmun** used a formula that tried to balance the various interests at each of the three "trimesters" of pregnancy. It was unnecessarily complicated and did not hold up well with advances in medicine. Casey simplified matters by dividing things into two stages: Pre-viable and post-viable. Now I'm pretty sure the test is no "undue burden" on abortions when the fetus is not viable. But it still rests on Roe's fundamental right to "privacy" re abortions language. If, in the unlikely event the Court wanted to, I think it could say "That whole fundamental right to 'privacy' thing in the Fourteenth Amendment? Yeah. We were high when we wrote that. Roe and everything that follows is out. States can do whatever the fuck they want to with abortion. Fight it out on the state level and a pox on both your houses."



* Somewhere in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment there is a fundamental right to "privacy." Don't ask anyone to show you the specific wording, just believe them when the tell you "It's there."

** Overrated.