Why elections matter....

Obviously whoever is elected President next should be the one to replace Kennedy. 

oh, never mind congress not doing its job and stonewalling the last obamma nomination.

deck is stacked.

there are no checks and balances.

your side(s) won. they have all the $, which is free speech...according to the same crooked court.

getting rid of unions. 

next up social security.

Why getting to the bottom of possible election fraud matters as well...

I still hear the voices of Republican senators talking about not allowing a Justice to be appointed if Hilary Clinton became President.

"We Won!"

"Proposed by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, its radicalism approaches that of a constitutional amendment. Their new AUMF would subvert an article at the core of the Constitution, gutting a vital protection against tyranny devised by the Framers. It would authorize multiple existing wars without even debating them individually. It would empower Trump and his successors to unilaterally wage war in new countries, expand their ability to indefinitely detain prisoners without charges, and empower them to unilaterally kill individuals even inside the United States."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/congress-may-declar...

Thom drives a Benz in solidarity with his Oligarchic brothers.

"The government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.”

>>>>If your side had pulled that one off you would have been cheering in the streets.

Laughable. Is that how you justify things? It makes sense though.

Maybe you’d be better served to take an honest look at the faults, failings, obstruction and general fuckery from “your side” rather than pontificating on how “my side” would have been cheering if they were scumbags as well. 

Wow

Plenty of Oligarchic scumbags on the Democrat's side, too Bucky. 

And we the people divided against each other is all the want for/from us.

Why getting to the bottom of possible election fraud matters as well...<<<

OP still believes this is an "argument to be won".

If the current POTUS was elected via election fraud, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned in terms of repercussions.

If it's a silent coup orchestrated by the deep state, then why don't you get your ass away from the keyboard and actually FUCKING do something about it?!?

there goes any semblance of a balance of power 

^^^^Neither did it. Mitchy boy did.

The difference between saying and doing.

Chris Matthews has been melting down all afternoon.

The guy is ready to stroke out, and this is  just getting started.

It's like arguing with a four year old; who claims his bad behavior is OK, because his six year old brother did something similar.

>>>>That was easy!

Great! Time to do it again! 

>> your side(s) won. they have all the $, which is free speech...according to the same crooked court.

The Democrats spent more than Republicans in 2016 election cycle. Money doesn't equate to votes, even though they are correlated. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2016

Trump will be impeached early 2019 after the Dems take back both houses.  Resignation by early spring.  

No SCOTUS vote in 18. Time to hold your Democratic Senator accountable unless you live in West Virginia

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/list-dem-senators-call-on-gop-to-...

>> Time to hold your Democratic Senator accountable

The last democratic senator from my state voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

the sooner we get off the two party bong the better.

I wish that we all could have an earnest conversation about this topic, but it pretty much seems impossible.

I personally feel that there is enough smoke regarding the 2017 election that the Special Counsel investigation is justified.

I personally believe that Trump received fewer total votes than Clinton did; thus, fewer Americans favor Trump and what he brings to our World.

It put me off when the likes of McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio were talking about not appointing a new Supreme Justice, essentially for at least 4 years, when it was basically assumed that Clinton would win (yes, before Comey announced that they were reopening the investigation).  You can probably shred this statement apart, just by pointing out that one of those senators really didn't say anything that I remember them saying.  I'm pretty bad with details (maybe McCain was one whose voice was featured instead of one of the other three).

If Democratic senators were doing the same thing in similar circumstances, well, shame on them too.

I believe that if Trump was illegally elected President, then it's not right that he can do what he's been doing to our country, our World.  Especially appointing new justices to the supreme court - that has some huge ramifications for many years to come.

Call me whatever category of labels you want.  Say it's sour grapes. But, the direction Trump is leading us on is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.  YUCK!

No one is saying that he can't appoint a judge. He already has. They are saying that we have to wait until after the mid term election for him to appoint. Even if the dems take the house and the Senate  and he gets impeached then Pence gets to make the choice. It is just a tactic to pu a break on things and maybe force a less extreme choice. 

>>I personally believe that Trump received fewer total votes than Clinton did; thus, fewer Americans favor Trump and what he brings to our World.

BTW this is a fact that only the fever swamp of Fox News viewers don't believe. 

Exactly Turtle ! THX For Posting

And HALL as Well

I believe that if Trump was illegally elected President, then it's not right that he can do what he's been doing to our country, our World.  Especially appointing new justices to the supreme court - that has some huge ramifications for many years to come.<<<

I'd go so far as to say that if it were revealed that he was illegally elected, that all previous executive actions be subject to immediate revocation; including Gorsuch.

Consider an extreme hypothetical:  what if it were discovered the absolute worst possible scenario has gone down and Putin has  literally has Trump compromised to the Nth degree and has been literally spoonfeeding Trump specific actions to execute (including Gorsuch's name as a nominee), should Putin's decisions via Trump as a proxy be allowed to stand?!?

^^Consider an extreme hypothetical

that's been going on for 500 plus days.

funny

I’d like to thank JR, FOM and Kxela for posting

NY Daily News has their opinion on tomorrow's front page.

 Even DT isn't crazy enough to consider Jeanine

This has been the plan since day one Orange Fuckstick stole the election.

Whether he gets his pick or not confirmed before the mid term election.

McTurtle told us yesterday that he would have it done in the fall.

Now how can you say that if you don't already know who your pick is?

This IS what the Republicans will be running on up to the mid term elections.

It'll also be the BIG excuse why the gap will be close, while pundits say WOW look how may single issue voters

came out to vote.

See if they can keep it close with bluster etc...

It makes it easier to steal votes via Gerrymandering, fear mongering, voter id, less polling places, longer lines etc...

Don't forget Naturalized Citizens votes will probably be down because of the Muslim Travel Ban,

Migrant children snatching and all the talk of Internment Camps.

So in a nutshell pundits and bluster will try to have you think it's close...

While stealing it in plain view. AGAIN!

BTW Russia doesn't have a vested interest in this.

So if you don't like what's going on with the our Democracy under the Trump/Republican regime.

Do your part and vote Republicans out.

BTW Russia doesn't have a vested interest in this<<<

Perhaps Russia - the nation - does not have a vested interest, but with Oligarchs in control, who is "Russia"?

In the same light, I'm sure many around the world are now asking who is the "United States"?

3 members of Trump's team have already pled guilty to lying about Russia,

another 17 combine for over 100 total charges from the Mueller probe,

1 has pled guilty and served 30 days and...

1 is currently sitting in Prison awaiting trial.

All in less time then the GOP held Merrick Garland's seat open.

So there is that.

Tom

Since you are in a winning mood, tell us how the recent SCOTUS decisions are good for most people.

During the Obama presidency, some progressive lawyers and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so that Obama would be able to appoint a like-minded successor, particularly while the Democratic Party held control of the U.S. Senate. They pointed to Ginsburg's age and past health issues as factors making her longevity uncertain. Ginsburg rejected these pleas. She affirmed her wish to remain a justice as long as she was mentally sharp enough to perform her duties.

All in less time then the GOP held Merrick Garland's seat open<<<

Dems need to pick up a trick or two from GOP re: playing hardball.

They need to pull out all stops and engage in any and all forms "civil disobedience" - not just citizens, but Senators as well. 

Without the filibuster, Republicans have no excuse to compromise on a moderate. 

>>> During the Obama presidency....

What has that to do with anything Ender?

Those were WORDS not ACTION.

McTurtle single handedly stole the seat and admitted it just yesterday.

ALL Republican Senators backed the action.

I'm only sleeping

Ender everybody around here knows your Far Right views,

But that's a really STRONG "Political Smackdown".

Ginsburg sleeping pic. Ooooh sick burn.

...

Attacking a STRONG DEDICATED Woman that has served her Country for decades.

Ok...

Tell us in regards to WOMEN, how you would like to take their right to choose what they do with their bodies away?

You gotta pic. or table for that??

>> Tell us in regards to WOMEN, how you would like to take their right to choose what they do with their bodies away?

I wouldn't.

You won't tell us?

or you wouldn't support somebody ie: Trump and or the Republicans that want to REVERSE Roe vs. Wade?

Just so we're clear, I support Roe vs. Wade.

I'm pro-choice. Because I'm not a woman, I'll never have to make that decision and wouldn't dare tell someone else what to do with their body.

(I do think Roe v Wade was a wacky decision though having read it in it's entirety.)

When asked for the other two, he was quick to point out Bader Ginsburg as the next in line.

“Ginsburg,” Trump answered. “What does she weigh? 60 pounds?”

And the fourth?

“Sotomayor,” Trump said, referring to the then recently-appointed Obama justice. “Her health,” Trump explained. “No good. Diabetes.”

https://forward.com/fast-forward/404294/trump-is-banking-on-ruth-bader-g...

Putin has won, and is casting this country into turmoil, in my view, rarely seen. 

Let's hope we can somehow work together and keep our eyes on what's best for our country's future. 

This is unchartered territory in my lifetime. 

Here's something the optimist in me wrote: 

There’s a chasm in our country

Getting deep, getting long

It’s being dug with the words

I am right,  you are wrong

With the pride that we have in our country

And hope in the land we live

There’s not a chasm in this world

That we can’t bridge.

Choose hope

Choose love

Choose the chance

To rise above

Choose to be

The one to find

The path to peace

in our time.

>>> I do think Roe v Wade was a wacky decision though having read it in it's entirety

Whether you think it's "Wacky" or not...

Women's right to choose is on the line with this Supreme Court pick.

I hope you'll stand up with Women and voice a STRONG stance against Trump,

Republicans both local and on the National level.

Because they do want to take it away, if they vote with their Furher.

This is what Drumph said on October 16, 2016

Right before the Election:

Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices...

At this point, I'm just hoping for some balance...

Tod getting all worked up on a dbmb is pretty funny. Be the change...ha ha!

I had a wonderful breakfast with some jurists this morning and started the conversation with my belief that far too many people think the Supreme Court is a political animal, when it actually isn't. While politics may help shape the prism that the justices see certain issues, the norm is that they base their opinions and votes on fairly strict interpretations of laws that they did not write. There have been many times that arguments from the opposite side of the line, both conservative and liberal, have changed a justices mind and has them vote the opposite of what "politics" dictates. This shows a maturity and respect that each justice has for the others. None of them are knee jerk reactionists. Unlike what seems to be the case in the general population of the United States these days, they are not screaming, yelling and wishing ill fortune upon each other. As a matter of fact, the holders of two of the most diametrically opposed legal thought processes of all time were, in fact, BFFs; Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia. Rather than ignore each other's opinion, they welcomed them and used each other to help form their view of issues. Pretty much all of those in attendance this morning agreed that while some decisions might go one way or another with another conservative justice, all in all the justices will still follow their own thought processes with little, if any, thought to the politics involved.  

Bush v Gore was not a political decision?

Its not just one justice, although that is always big. By changing the rules the GOP has assured that the POTUS can appoint an extremist without concern for whether (s)he will be confirmed.  Our government was constructed on the need to find common ground and compromise, so GOP has taken away the need for balance.  Not to mention the refusal to vote on Garland.  I would have opposed the same action had the dems ever done it.  It made me feel sick to watch McConnell literally shit on our constitutional structure.  Combine that with the fact that a radical racist authoritarian demagogue is in charge, backed by a racist mob who revels in its own ignorance, and a government packed with evangelical Christian culture warriors, damn straight we should ALL be concerned.  We'll look on this as one of the Dark Ages of America, one of the worst since we stopped allowing child labor and locking women into factories.  

The isn't that the judges work politics, but judges have viewpoints and perspectives just like anyone else. If you have ever appeared in front of a bunch of them, you know this.  That's why we often can predict how two judges will decide differently on different issues.  The issue isn't the judges themselves being political, but any administration looking for a smart, well-qualified, even tempered judge to fit into a particular ideological slot can find one.  True that sometimes over times judges shift their perspectives on issues, but the concern is that of either side being able to choose a judge who starts out too far to one side or another, or with some hard core beliefs they may be hard-pressed to shake.  I do not have a lot of faith in Trump to respect the gravity of the situation and look for someone moderate. 

There have been many times that arguments from the opposite side of the line, both conservative and liberal, have changed a justices mind and has them vote the opposite of what "politics" dictates.<<<<

I believe you're generally correct about justices not explicitly taking a partisan perspective on issues; however, I also believe it's nearly impossible to completely "step outside of oneself" and embrace what might be a "neutral" footing ... we all bring a unique set of DNA and experience to the table & people have a somewhat predictable nature.  How else would you explain the statistics in regard to a very general consistency of rulings in so far as how they are typically broken down by justice (for/against)?  

4 of the current justices rank in the top 10 conservative supreme court justices in the last 100 years...

the concern is that of either side being able to choose a judge who starts out too far to one side or another, or with some hard core beliefs they may be hard-pressed to shake. <<<

Making matters worse:  of all three branches, the Judiciary is the furthest removed from the sovereignty of The People in terms of not being directly elected; nor are SCOTUS Justices subject to the same level of oversight as elected officials.

True, but I agree with Sadler that thus far justices tend to take their positions seriously enough not to be dicks about their power.  I guess that could change if Trump goes to cray-cray with his choice.  But the very reason we have SCOTUS is that citizens or congress, at times, will want to do things that are illegal, whether unconstitutional or on conflict with some other law.  It's the check on the majority, to keep us grounded to the base level principles and laws.  Most of the time, presidents try to thoughtfully choose someone suited to this role.  However, the "power behind the throne" Heritage Foundation and Trump are pretty radicalized right now, so I'm not expecting much.

I keep reading the thread title in the voice of Gilda Radner's Emily Litella character.

I also agree, thus far ... although I wouldn't put anything past Trump at this point.

I've started to wonder in recent days if justices haven't also "picked their side" like the rest of the country?  I'm sure all have their own personal ideological leanings and have already formed an opinion (or suspicions) one way or the other about Trump and the circumstances surrounding his rise to power.   If a Constitutional crisis regarding Trump's authority emerges that gets thrown to the SCOTUS, I'm curious how their personal beliefs will play out?   If Kennedy's exit is any indication, it would seem there's substantial faith in Judiciary as a larger institution (vs any given individual) ... but would such a faith be misplaced?!?

If Trump is successful in getting an extreme ideologue on the bench, would a "partial presence" compel other Justices to abandon any neutral ground in order to counter such a dynamic?   If so, would there be a chain reaction that ropes in most if not all Justices?

dude

Obviously, it goes without saying that if it were not for Russia's undue influence the people that cast their ballots in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan & Wisconsin would've voted differently, it was almost like a subconscious brainwashing on an industrial scale, like an episode of X Files, or Stranger Things, they probably used some kind of subsonic YouTube frequency...while voters were innocently watching Dave Mathews Band videos they felt this strange inexplicable urge to vote Jill Stein, who was of course in on it, there's a picture of her seated next to Vladimir Putin at the Moscow Humanitarian Awards.  The next time you see those guys with the inconspicuous DMB logo on their stylie Land Rovers at a red light take a good hard look at who brought this upon us.

Wasn't he under investigation when he nominated Gorsuch?

Yes, now 2.

Interesting thing about Gorsuch is he was a former Law Clerk for Justice Kennedy.

Not only...

Justice Kennedy's son Justin Kennedy worked at Deutsche Bank from 1998-2010 and was President Trumps main bank

dude.

Lots of Legit stuff on this just google.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-ret...

http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-kennedy-son-loaned-president-trum...

<<Deutsche Bank loaned President Donald Trump over $1 billion for his real-estate projects while Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's son led a real-estate division there, The New York Times reported Thursday.

Justin Kennedy was the global head of the real-estate capital markets division of Deutsche Bank, which loaned to Trump when other banks wouldn't.>>

this hurts. all I can say is thankfully i still have music to ease my aching heart/head.