Justice Kennedy to retire?
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
MSN News: GOP senator: Justice Kennedy is going to retire this summer "Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said in a speech last week he believes Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire this summer, according to audio of the speech obtained by Politico. ""Kennedy is going to retire around sometime early summer," Heller said in the speech, according to Politico. "Which I'm hoping will get our base a little motivated because right now they're not very motivated. But I think a new Supreme Court justice will get them motivated."" Yes, the Republican base will come out in droves in 2018 to ensure that they hold the Senate and can therefore support Trump's pick for another "Neil Gorsuch" on the bench. Hopefully it should also fire up liberals too, but maybe they're too into other "feel good" stuff. My sarcasm.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I'm not holding my breath that liberals will show up in droves in order to hold Donald accountable when it comes to judicial nominees. If Democrats didn't decide to sit out the 2014 election then we would have had a liberal judicial system for decades to come. And it's not like they learned their lesson because they did the same thing in 2016. It appears that it's easier for them to bitch and moan about everything than actually getting off their ass and doing something about. However, I don't know how much weight I'd put into Heller's claim. Kennedy has a pretty solid staff of clerks for this upcoming term, which is typically a precursor of things to come for Supreme Court justices. If he didn't hire any new clerks or dramatically downsized their number then I'd be more concerned. Although I'll be the first to admit that I'm no prophet considering what happened in 2016. None of that may matter though because the Senate map is so depressing that it's going to take a near miracle to retake the chamber, so Kennedy probably has a couple more years to make his decision. The sad thing is that Democrats will be up in arms when he's replaced by a far right-wing justice, but the Bernie or busters who voted for Trump or the nearly 50% of Americans who were too lazy to vote at all won't take any responsibility for putting us in this position in the first place.
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The last 50 year problems of the Democratic Party are 1) certain liberals taking our country for granted and not participating in our great democracy by voting, 2) certain liberals not taking the time to understand how our three branches of government work and that the executive branch does not have unlimited powers - the expression I use is "la la land", 3) certain liberals applying purity tests to office holders and candidates who do not conform 100 percent with their ideologies, and 4) certain liberals voting their emotions instead of critical thinking. I use the expression "certain liberals" because I sure have seen a lot of them bitch and moan, and play the blame game rather than look in the mirror. Now there are a whole hell of a lot of liberals who think like me, but when we are up against a ruthless Republican machine that will promise the world and never have any plans on delivering we need "all hands on deck". It has happened before. As Jared pointed it the 2000 election could have been a big win for liberals except that so many in Florida and a few other states sat on their asses or made a protest vote for Ralph Nader. Ditto for 2004. Some 78 million voters stayed home on election day, plus the Republicans were "swift boating" Kerry with lies repeated again and again. I've already talked about my experiences in 2008 - 2016. Same ole story...mixed results.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:The last 50 year problems of the Democratic Party are 1) certain liberals taking our country for granted and not participating in our great democracy by voting, 2) certain liberals not taking the time to understand how our three branches of government work and that the executive branch does not have unlimited powers - the expression I use is "la la land", 3) certain liberals applying purity tests to office holders and candidates who do not conform 100 percent with their ideologies, and 4) certain liberals voting their emotions instead of critical thinking. I use the expression "certain liberals" because I sure have seen a lot of them bitch and moan, and play the blame game rather than look in the mirror. Now there are a whole hell of a lot of liberals who think like me, but when we are up against a ruthless Republican machine that will promise the world and never have any plans on delivering we need "all hands on deck". It has happened before. As Jared pointed it the 2000 election could have been a big win for liberals except that so many in Florida and a few other states sat on their asses or made a protest vote for Ralph Nader. Ditto for 2004. Some 78 million voters stayed home on election day, plus the Republicans were "swift boating" Kerry with lies repeated again and again. I've already talked about my experiences in 2008 - 2016. Same ole story...mixed results. Schmidt, it probably never did sink in, but don't just blame it on the "voters". Why can they in France get 83% to show up? No it is the corrupt antique system as well only a two party system, as I mentioned so many times. People here are not interested in "politics" because it "stinks" here, because of the refusal to make this a real Democracy with proper laws. My take is since I lived in other places that the US fell asleep after the Constitution was drafted and made in 300 years about only a 100 plus changes which made things only worse. Corruption is everywhere ask Mueller. That is the main reason people are fed up with this government (approval ratings about 16%). As long as only "money" drives elections, then you never get a decent honest government. Get the "lobbyists" and "billionaires" out of voting; that may help, as well educate the voting people about how things should work in any society. Laws of 1800 don't cut it for sure, as well no laws for getting a President "vetted" let alone, if in power, what his limits should be etc. does not help either. The proof is in the "pudding" Also the Supreme Court is an "crazy' part of it; elected for "life" is ridiculous and is asking for "dementia" .
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote:T.J. I don't believe that; I doubt if it will be a "blue" wave. The reason is simply said, that a lot of the population still is in hibernation; especially the main center and south portion of this country who did vote for Trump. Even the evangelicals still believe in him; so I don't think the "voting" public is "wild" about "voting" because for them it is the same old "corrupt" government with empty promises. If it would be voting to get rid of the "corruption" and "lobbying", may then they would be more inclined to vote for that.
We'll see in Nov. I am more with TJ, i don't think the entire nation is laying down, giving up, to the will of the almightly trump.
Yes, there is about 30% of population who want a White Man to preach to them what to do, and what to think, and trump is taking advantage of that segment of the population. That 30% will always be there, but will never get bigger than about 30%. I'm confident that that swing voters who got trump elected now see him as a major failure with no leadership skills, and if they could take their vote back and give it to HC, they would do it. I agree its frustrating, but frustration doesn't mean the entire nation has become his base, or given up. If trump had been elected governer of the state of WA, he would be gone by now in a recall election (or soon to be gone). Here, nobody likes the trump, and we want him out of the WH before he even took office, but sadly at the state level we can't impeach him.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
wwjd Wrote:Dutch Wrote:T.J. I don't believe that; I doubt if it will be a "blue" wave. The reason is simply said, that a lot of the population still is in hibernation; especially the main center and south portion of this country who did vote for Trump. Even the evangelicals still believe in him; so I don't think the "voting" public is "wild" about "voting" because for them it is the same old "corrupt" government with empty promises. If it would be voting to get rid of the "corruption" and "lobbying", may then they would be more inclined to vote for that.
We'll see in Nov. I am more with TJ, i don't think the entire nation is laying down, giving up, to the will of the almightly trump.
Yes, there is about 30% of population who want a White Man to preach to them what to do, and what to think, and trump is taking advantage of that segment of the population. That 30% will always be there, but will never get bigger than about 30%. I'm confident that that swing voters who got trump elected now see him as a major failure with no leadership skills, and if they could take their vote back and give it to HC, they would do it. I agree its frustrating, but frustration doesn't mean the entire nation has become his base, or given up. If trump had been elected governer of the state of WA, he would be gone by now in a recall election (or soon to be gone). Here, nobody likes the trump, and we want him out of the WH before he even took office, but sadly at the state level we can't impeach him. J.D. I'll sick to what I said; most people here believe this country is corrupt; the "news" is even corrupt ask Limbaugh. The approval rate for the government is about 16%. Thus I've got the feeling that no one is enthousiastic about "voting" An only two party system does not represents an huge part of the country and that are the "independents"
|