Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Just yesterday I wrote about how important it is to consider that whoever is elected president will decide who serves on the Supreme and other federal courts. Today Justice Kennedy announced his retirement. Unfortunately, since voters in some important states that should have gone blue in 2016 voted for Donald Trump, we are in for a dismal few years of replacement judges.

Hypocritical Republicans of course want the Senate to swiftly confirm whoever Trump picks. Not so fast. Remember when Republicans wouldn't vote on Obama's choice for a Supreme Court justice because it was too close to the election and they wanted the victor in the election to choose? Well, what's good for the goose may be good for the gander. Sen. Schumer is promising there will be no vote on a Trump-selected replacement for Kennedy before the elections.

Mr. Schumer said that senators should not “consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year,” saying that “anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy.”

“People are just months away from determining the senators who should vote to confirm or reject the president’s nominee,” Mr. Schumer said on the floor of the Senate, “and their voices deserve to be heard now as Senator McConnell thought that they deserved to be heard then.”

However you slice and dice this, ultimately Trump will get to pick Kennedy's successor. The Court will have a 5-4 conservative majority (and probably even larger before Trump finally is relieved of his desk in the oval office) and America will suffer for generations to come.

We get the government we elect. Everyone needs to exercise their right to vote in the November mid-terms and in 2020.

< Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban, Overrules Korematsu | Weekend Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It seems (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    the case being made is against a potential criminal making a pick for the supreme court.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:21:21 AM EST
    You comments are welcome.  I guess.  Your promotional links are not.

    trump will be meeting with Putin.. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    in Helsinki.  trump will have a better idea of whom to nominate after he gets his orders from Putie.

    He's announcing (none / 0) (#105)
    by itscookin on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    before he goes, but good try!

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 06:49:25 AM EST
    But a polite on topic one

    NY Times (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:37:31 AM EST
    reporting that Kennedy's son was Trump's money man at Deutsche Bank. Kompromat on Anthony Kennedy?

    Putin seems to be (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 08:58:54 AM EST
    the Forrest Gump of Republican politics.  Kennedy's son, Justin, was Deutsche Bank's head of real estate capital markets and he worked closely with Trump in his real estate developments.

     While Justin was at Deutsche Bank, the Bank became Trump's most important lender, dispensing over $1 Billion in loans to him for skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other banks were wary of during business with Trump because of his troubled business history.

    As we know, Deutche Bank figures in the Russia matter, having in 2017 incurred $630 million in penalties in a $70 billion Russian money laundering scheme, and, just two days ago, the Federal Reserve slapped a $41 million fine on the bank for not screening suspicious money transfers.

    And, now we have Justice Kennedy retiring as of July 31, personally delivering to Trump his letter of retirement warmly addressed to: "My dear Mr. President." Not waiting until a successor is confirmed...leaving a vacancy four months before an election.


    This argument Cory Booker is making (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    That he should not be able to appoint a judge that could very possibly sit in judgement of him is interesting.

    It seems like the one thing that might get some purchase with a republican or two.

    At least more so than anything else I've heard so far.

    Especially if Mueller brings something in before nomination is confirmed.

    In a way I'm starting to agree with that nitwit congressman yesterday just a little around the edges.

    Mueller, do something.  Charge somebody.  Indict somebody.  Just do something.  It IS tearing the country apart

    It's a sound argument (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 08:07:14 PM EST
    I agree with it entirely.  But I don't think a single Republican will adopt it - even those like Flake or Corker who have been critical of Trump and aren't seeking reelection.  Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    sure either but I wonder about those up for reelection in 2020 like Tillis in state that is trending away from the GOP. They'll probably vote for anything Trump tells them hoping voters will forget in 2 years.

    I have to say though this child separation thing has my congressman in a GOP +24 district spooked.


    We are witnessing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by smott on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    The collapse of our third and final pillar of govt. The founding  fathers never imagined a branch would be so supine as Congress has been in enabling a fascist Executive. Yet they were. Because so many are complicit and know it.

    All along we were horrified but imagined (stupidly) that the Judicial would save us. Who could have thought all three branches would collapse to a thug like Trump?
    Yet they would, and they have.

    Now the only question is which way the military will flip.

    MTracy probably knows more than me, but I'd guess that the upper level military brass will stay true to the rule of law, but on the ground, local PDs will go for Trump in red state areas. Which could be messy.

    In any case, does anyone imagine, with all 3 branches swearing allegiance to him, that Trump would accept an election result that goes against his interests? Or bow to a subpoena, much less a criminal indictment? Or even hold an election ?

    Or hesitate to declare Martial Law as needed to preserve his powers?

    This is Armageddon, folks.

    Col. Wilkerson (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 05:08:23 AM EST
    says that you can't rely on the military to not do a massive slaughter of civilians if Trump orders it.

    smott: "The founding fathers never imagined a branch would be so supine as Congress has been in enabling a fascist Executive. Yet they were. Because s"

    Per the contemporaneous notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a signatory to the resultant document, when asked by someone outside Philadelphia's Independence Hall at the adjournment of the convention as to what sort of government was decided upon, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."



    Barrett is least (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 08, 2018 at 08:51:56 PM EST


    She is a religious fanatic on the far right extreme.  She is compassionate?  To whom?......Just those who toe her line.....

    Beyond devout Catholic (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 09:04:13 AM EST
    I know devout Catholic; she is no devout Catholic.

    Even member of Opus Dei would likely think her nutty and way out there.

    I think his one abortion decision (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 08:35:17 PM EST
    Is going to be a bigger problem for him than his academic musings about presidents and prosecution

    It was the undocumented 17 year old HHS was not allowing to get an abortion.  Kavanaugh ruled against her.  And when the full court sided with her he dissented.  That's going to be a problem with the two republican women I would think.  

    And the excuse for a no vote from the red state dems.

    It has been said on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    that while Kavanaugh is a right wing conservative, he is not an extreme right winger.  All three of the possible nominees may have voted against Roe v Wade and other such topics, but Kavanaugh is said to be more supportive of Presidential decisions.  In other words Trump picked him to not vote for obstruction scenarios and any possible impeachment moves.

    I'm not even willing to discuss Kavanaugh (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2018 at 08:38:01 AM EST
    Until the Mueller investigation is completed.

    Donald is compromised. Putin has extensive kompromat on him. We all know this at this point.

    But Justice Kennedy's son could also be just as easily compromised. Nobody talks about that.

    Until the Mueller investigation concludes, Kavanaugh is Putin's pick.

    I don't understand how the possibilty that Russia has serious kompromat on Justice Kennedy's son is not even discussed.


    It will be discussed (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 16, 2018 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    In the hearings.

    These hearings are auditions for 2020.  


    I hope so (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2018 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    Also (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    Said he was always going to be the nominee.  That he was added to the "list" later specifically to get Kennedy to retire with the promise he would replace him.

    Say what you want about Kennedy saved us more than once.

    If this is true I find it a little comforting.


    I hope they will (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    Block it until the election.

    And I hope democrats can be made to understand as well as republicans do the importance of the court

    Because this is one thing that will bring out the republican base.  

    It's a gift for the republicans in the midterms.

    Kennedy's legacy is sealed.  That's for sure.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    the christo-facists were getting squishy on tRump, now they will remember what they sold their souls for in the first place. Bye-bye democracy.

    And IMO any one who thinks (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    The hand wringers,  Collins, Flake, Corker etc will lift a finger to stop this are dreaming.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnely voted for Gorsuch and all are up in the fall.

    I do not believe it will be delayed until after election

    I hope I'm wrong.  


    They (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:37:51 PM EST
    were never going to not show up. The real question is how this kind of thing plays with the middle.

    Block it until the election? No, not long enough (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    Block any Tr*mp nominee until the new Senate is sworn in, in January 2019, or until after the indictment, resignation or impeachment, which ever comes second.

    Rush Limbaugh called it (1.00 / 4) (#26)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    At 1:45 PM he said that someone would say, "Delay a vote until the impeachment".  I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.

    I agree that if Senator Nose Glasses (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    Doesn't stop it he is finished as a leader.

    That said, I do not think he will.  I'm not even sure he can.  See above.


    Kennedy (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    likes Trump...he nominated his former clerk, Gorsuch.  Kennedy swore in Gorsuch to the federal bench and to the Supreme Court.  I have noted a swift in Kennedy since Gorsuch joined he Court, I think he has been influenced by this guy.  How else to explain the inconsistency with the state Commisserr's "animus" to religion in the Masterpiece Bakery case, and the trusting of Trump, despite Trump working very hard to show that he had animus to Muslims.   And, Kennedy is a conservative Republican. and willing to help out, it seems.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    If there is one thing the democrats might do it's try to make sure who ever is next is no worse.

    I think there is hope there at least for reproductive rights.  I expect Trump will be smart enough to know he needs Collins and Murkowski

    But Kennedy overall may not be such a dramatic loss.

    I do not believe any existing gay right will be revisited like marriage or military service.  I just don't.


    Armando (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    has said we need to do court packing and expand the supreme court. Norms are out the door now so we might as well make them to our advantage.

    But the mere introduction of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was enough to temper and curtail the activist nature of a then-conservative SCOTUS majority that was hellbent on eviscerating the New Deal.

    FDR didn't get to pack the court, obviously, but he certainly used the threat to do so as leverage to finally get his way legislatively without SCOTUS stepping all over it. So if a similar bill was introduced, I certainly wouldn't oppose it for the same reason -- it is leverage. Besides, the times evolve, and the federal judiciary needs to as well. I'm open to the possibilities.



    Got to give him points (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    for creativity and balls.

    Howdy (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:48:41 PM EST
    Methinks you should move back to the Golden State.  How about Laguna Beach?

    I'll come and visit, especially if you get some lady friends of yours to drop by too.

    State law may get real scary in the near future.


    This is my home (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    My moving days are over.  There has been things happening lately that actually make me feel better.

    Medical pot.

    I recently had a visit from a high school friend who is running for state office this fall as a democrat so I am connecting with other democrats.  They do exist.  

    If I leave there would be one less.  Laguna Beach doesn't need me.


    John Roberts could surprise (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    He, not Kennedy, was the fifth vote to uphold Obamacare.

    Obergefell may hold.  Public opinion so overwhelmingly supports it now.

    And, I think Roberts would be loath to put the Supreme Court on the wrong side of history--at least on gay rights and marriage equality.

    Or, so I hope, and assuming Ruth Bader Ginsburg can hang on.


    Sure hope you are right, (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 01:59:29 PM EST
    "I do not believe any existing gay right will be revisited like marriage or military service..."

    While the Republicans would like to see Obergefell over-turned, they will go about it by chipping away.  
    Certainly, the firmly held religious beliefs will expand beyond baking cakes or arranging flowers for weddings... using the old saw that they can always go to another baker/florist, in the same way civil rights activists were told to go to another Woolworths, as if it had to do with sandwiches.  And, then look to a movement to "states" can decide and removal of federal recognition.  

    Since 2017, and the advent of Trump, polling
    has shown straights "less comfortable" with their gay neighbors, and gay respondents noted a jump in discrimination.

     Of course, transgender people will be in the sights of the family values Christians...literally, like the woman who takes her AK 47 into the Target bathroom because..you know.    The military may be the least vulnerable, but all you need is a Sec of Defense, like the homophobe Pompeo.  


    This was in POLITICO today (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    not just abortion right listing 5 areas of danger.

    In the gay rights part it says this

    While Chief Justice John Roberts seems likely to join with the court's liberals in holding the line against reversals of any of Kennedy's landmark gay rights decisions, the issue of religious and free-speech objections to anti-discrimination laws is certain to return to the court. Any Trump nominee seems likely to side with those seeking the right to opt out of such laws, making the rights of LGBT people more vulnerable in a post-Kennedy court.

    I agree.  While they won't expand they are not very likely to contract in a serious way.

    I do not think the same is true for choice.  

    That was my point.


    "say hello to your boy." (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 04:40:32 PM EST
    says Trump to Kennedy. "special guy."  "Your kids have been very nice to him, Kennedy replies.  "Well, Trump said, they love him and they love him in New York.
    ""The "boy" being Kennedy's son Justin, who Politico reports knows Don Jr. through New York real estate circles.

      Justin, a lawyer, moved into development/finance after 11 years at Deutsche Bank.  Another Kennedy son, Gregory, was at Stanford law with a Trump advisor, Peter Thiel. Gregory's firm, Disruption Technology, has worked with a Thiel company.  Gregory, was an advisor at NASA (that never closed), as a senior financial advisor during the early months of the Trump Administration.

      In February, Ivanka and her daughter were guests of Justice Kennedy during oral arguments.


    If this was known (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    And Kennedy was nominated now people would be setting their hair on fire

    And he was not all bad.  Not a bad thought to take to bed tonight


    No, Justice Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    leaves a legacy, made all the more important owing to his basic conservative bent, demonstrated in so many decisions, including Bush v Gore and Citizen's United.

     The information about the boy supports my impression that Kennedy likes Trump, and sees no problem, and maybe relishes, giving Trump the opportunity to appoint his replacement.

     And, Kennedy's replacement is not the same as a replacement for say, Justice Breyer.  Kennedy seems to me to have run out of gas, for example, if you look at his position in the Muslim ban case. But, yes, we are in big trouble on social issues, not only Roe v Wade, but Griswold v Conn. (access to conception control).

      Gay rights, particularly, Obergefell, will be protected by precedent and general popularity (although Trump sure doesn't care about anything but his deplorables) and,the longer it is in place, the better. This does seem inconsistent with overturning Roe v Wade (1973), but this cause has become the raison d'etre for Christians and their fund raising. So maybe, the Christians will be thrown a sop with the entertaining spectacle of humiliating and terrorizing their fellow citizens.


    Also (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    I think there are more ways and more effective ways of gutting Roe v Wade without an outright repeal.

    I suppose we can hope (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    Thomas will exit at a time that will restore some balance.

    He is 70

    Ginsburg is (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    85, 15 years older than Thomas.  But if I were betting Sotomayor would be the one I would worry about.  She has diabetes and has had at least one episode where an ambulance was called to her house.  Both Sotomayor and Kagan are some what overweight which does not bode well for longevity.  Ginsburg on the other hand is said to exercise on a regular basis and does manage to stay thin.

    both sides are Hypocritical (none / 0) (#5)
    by nyjets on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    Both sides have used political to mess up judicial nominations. Neither sides hand are clean on this point.
    Strictly speaking you can say that the Democrats started it with the nomination of Bork  but since then, both sides have gamed the system.

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:10:24 PM EST
    Robert "Saturday Massacre" Bork? He was soundly defeated by regular order with 6 Republicans voting against him. You call that gaming? I call what the Republicans did with the Garland flat out cheating, not surprising from monsters.

    There is no comparison whatever (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    to what McConnell did to President Obama's right as our elected President to select Merrick Garland.

    What options do Dems have (none / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    To block anything?
    They can maybe get their 49 but they still need 2.
    Maybe 1 if McCain is unable to vote.

    But block? How?


    The Democrats can slow-walk the process. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 08:59:09 PM EST
    I mean, gee, what a shame it would be if the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't have quorum on the day the confirmation hearing was scheduled, or the Senate itself couldn't achieve quorum when the nomination was introduced and referred. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

    51-49 holds lots of possibilities for intrigue.


    Need 51 for quorum I believe (none / 0) (#43)
    by smott on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    If McCain is available, it's happening

    Normally, Senate session days go by without anyone calling for quorum, so the chamber is mostly empty, with 10-15 senators, their aides and the clerk's staff present on the floor at most at any given time. Senators meander in and out of the chamber at their leisure, because most of the business is either procedural or announcements / messages. Only when there's a floor vote scheduled for Second, Third or Final Reading are the members summoned to chamber to assemble en masse.

    So, when the Supreme Court nomination is first introduced on the floor for referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearing, which is normally a pro forma exercise which nobody opposes, there needs to be one Democrat in chamber who can immediately call for roll call and quorum. This is a superseding and non-debatable motion that requires immediate disposition. That would bring everything to a temporary halt, as the Senate's presiding officer summons the Majority Leader from his office and word is sent out for all members to appear in chamber physically to establish quorum.

    It's a petty and annoying move that will inconvenience chairmen who are in the middle of holding committee hearings, and will further require all 50 majority members to be physically present in the Capitol building or their office buildings on the day of introduction, so they can be summoned to chamber. Otherwise, introduction of the nomination will be delayed until such time as quorum is officially established. All Senate business must cease, so long as the superseding motion for quorum is on the floor. And that's one way that you can slow-walk Senate business to a crawl. I'm a trained legislative parliamentarian, so I'm aware with the tricks of the trade.

    That said, while I think it's imperative that Democrats fight this nomination tooth and nail, I'm under no illusions that we can likely win if Republicans are disciplined and stay in line. For that to happen, Sen. Schumer has to hold his entire 49-member caucus together -- here's looking at you, Sens. Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp -- and further depend on at least one defection from the GOP ranks, preferably two. And that's a tall order for Senate Democrats. But by the same token, with only 50 available members, GOP Majority Leader McConnell likewise has little margin for error.



    Good (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    point, but what is the vision? I'm definitely not knocking you, but you are such a mechanic, a true nuts and bolts operative, as such you offer up tactics but never a strategy.

    I have been all over the place on this one, from folding immediately to fighting to the bitter end. I'm thinking maybe a middle ground where the Democrats are able to control the narrative, if we can turn this into a David vs Goliath story, where it is our side defending civil, reproductive, voting and worker's right.

    Or the Democrats could blow it and allow themselves to be labeled  as obstructionists, it's a close call.


    And what exactly would you have us do? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 04:21:06 AM EST
    Democrats are the minority, and our options are limited. If the majority Republicans hold their ranks in place, the best we can hope for is a tactical delay of the inevitable. Our opportunity to strategize on such matters was lost when Republicans changed the Senate rules and dispensed with the filibuster, which means they only need 51 votes. There's no strategizing around that reality.



    "Mom, he started it." (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:38:20 PM EST
    No, Bork had an academic career at Yale with writings that indicated he was not in the mainstream of legal thought. Extremist and scary. Fine, for an academic, not so fine for a Supreme Court Justice.

    And, his government career hardly showed his integrity.  He became acting Head of DOJ after Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy AG Wm. Ruckelshaus refused to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The Saturday Night Massacre, that began the end for, the crook, Richard Nixon, the first president forced to resign. But, Bork did his part to save Nixon although to no avail.

    Biden let the vote out of his Judiciary Committee for a floor vote with a recommendation not to pass. Bork, did not fare well in the advice and consent department, being rejected 58/42. Reagan appointed Douglas Ginsburg, but then there was his personal use of marijuana and his withdrawal.  And, then came Anthony Kennedy, approved 97 to 0.

    Along came the spider.  McConnell, who stole the Supreme Court nomination from Judge Garland and President Obama, not even giving the judge an interview, let alone a hearing.  Yes, bothsiderism.  As Michelle Goldberg says, we have a crisis of democracy, not of manners.  


    So if both sides do it (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    Let's learn to do it better

    Can you explain (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    to me why anyone would nominate someone who carried out the Saturday night massacre to the supreme court? Is that the best they could do?

    Both siderism get thee away! (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    No filibuster (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    for Supreme Court nominees.....Mitchell killed that one.  

    Here's a bet (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    He will nominate a woman.  There are several on "the list"

    Curious if there are any thoughts on any of these women.

    But yeah, he will make it that much harder to stop with a woman.

    Schumer and the Democrats (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    are calling for the Kennedy replacement to wait until after the fall elections.  McConnell wants a quick confirmation.  

    Waiting, is a double risk it seems to me: (a) it banks on the senate changing hands, and (b) it will be a clarion call for the Republicans in fall. If no change to Democratic in the fall elections, the result will be the same as with McConnell's quick election.  And, once the inevitable Gorsuch-like justice is confirmed, the driving force of Republicans will likely be abated for this election. And, the confirmation of a Trump horrible may bring out the blue wave.   Hobson's Choice.  But, then what about her emails.

    I agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    There is no way Mitch won't get a vote this fall.

    I think it may be a bad idea to lead democrats to thinking there is anything short of taking hostages that can be done to stop it.

    I think if they a big show they will just end up looking weak.  Again.

    Twenty is screeching and screaming about how it has to be stopped but will not specify exactly how


    TWEETY (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    Is screaming

    I thought he was going ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    ... to have an aneurysm.  I felt bad for Steve Kornacki, who was trying to calm him down and get him to answer a question about how Dems would stop a nomination.  Tweety just kept saying there were "ways" they could stop it without saying what they were because, as usual, he was just making it up.

    I don't see how telling (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    People it must be stopped and suggesting in every way they will, which I see one ekected democrat after another doing, is a great plan.

    They almost certainly won't IMO.

    Which will leave people disappointed angry even more frustrated than they already are.  How is this a good plan?

    Would it not be smarter to tell the truth?  They will do every thing they can but they only real solution is electing  more democrats.


    What you usually hear (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    Is some meandering version of "we will stop it! We only need to get one of our republican friends"

    That is simply not going to happen.  Collins has already said she will not help prevent a vote.  No republican is going to help prevent a vote on a SC nominee.  

    Clearly they think they can weasel and say, well, we said we needed republican help.  That is NOT what people are hearing.


    There (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    Is talk of Senator Mike Lee being named, if so it will be a slam dunk with probably only muted debate, civility you know.

    Saw that (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    Thought it might be a woman.  But he won't do that unless he "needs" to.

    He probably doesn't


    A (none / 0) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    quick easy win, will look very appealing to tRump. The skids will be greased for Lee just as well as with a woman, with the bonus of having the right body parts. How  the he!! do you build a paternalistic theocracy with women making the important decisions?

    I don't think they can ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    ... stop it.  They should make it clear that they will do everything they can while also managing expectations.  Tweety's claim that they can magically stop it though some unnamed means is ridiculous.  OTOH, I also don't think they can say they can't stop it - at least not yet.  Conceding before the fight (even an impossible fight) will make them look weak.

    You are probably right (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 06:18:47 PM EST
    The thing is I am not convinced stopping it until after the election is a good idea.

    If there is one thing we know without doubt it's the republican base is motivated by the supreme court like nothing else

    I assume the hope is democrats could win the Senate.  Which first of all is not clear in even the best scenario.  But if we explicitly give republicans a supreme court nominee to vote for we might not even get the house.

    And then after the election we would get the worst pick imaginable


    Yep (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 07:45:11 AM EST
    ... and there are 4 or 5 red state Dem Senators who could be badly hurt with this issue during the election.  I think it's s lose- lose situation.  Pull out all stops to engage in a likely futile fight that could lose the Senate or House, or pi$$ of the progressive, activist wing of the party who wants the fight.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    it it seems like a lose lose situation, matter of fact in my darkest moments I really think all is lost and we are already living in a totalitarian society. There is no bottom to the depravity.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    The democrat leadership is fu@king this up.  They are inflaming the base.
    Making them think if we fill the streets we can stop this.

    Do you think Mitch gives a flying fu@k about demonstrations?

    This is stupid stupid stupid.

    Tell people the truth.  This is going to happen

    If you hate that, VOTE. get others to VOTE.

    what they are doing could actually depress the vote.  Stupid.


    I think we need both (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    When people in the streets doesn't work THEN people also vote. But I think both things need to happen.

    Americans are too many not politically informed and engaged right now.


    We certainly need both (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    With honest leaders

    There is a difference between going to the street expecting to win because they have told us it's up to us and going to the streets to show solidarity for the fall.


    I hear you (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    I hear you loud and clear

    There is also a learning process

    I always go back to the Iraq War and how our country processed that. The first protest after the nation submitted to the war was one battle, but few of us showed up for it Capt with that firmly in our understanding.

    And once we knew the nation was with us, the Vietnam Vets called a meeting and told us that forcing our arrests would then be counterproductive. We had won a battle. It is important to understand that. And I was ready to hear that when they told it to me 3 days into a protest. I was not ready to hear that on day 1.

    When the protest fails to completely fix it but gets us all together, that is when we realize the protest is a consolidation that then moves to the ballot.

    You're gay, you know how this works. The LGTBQ folks must have a bible written on it somewhere. I think gay Americans grasp the realities because you've all been one hate crime from the grave your whole lives. White girls in general not so much Capt, we are a pregnancy from the grave, but that's sporadic usually. But we can get to the understanding. We've just have some priviledge we have to face down first


    All the protests (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    that have rolled the country sure have upset conservatives though. I have never though protests were very effective but maybe they are if protests are activating previously lethargic people.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    I think the Civil Rights protests and the anti-Vietnam War protests were ultimately very effective.
    Of course, those were different times.

    Women did not gain abortion rights (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    Until 1973. The Vietnam War did not end until 1975. We had to change the vote first. The protests changed the vote eventually. Lots of protests though. I was born in 1965, and protesting moved right into the 70's

    We used to be a protesting bunch...and proud to protest too.


    I will be there tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    Here? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    You're coming here?

    If you are the steaks will be marinating.


    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:15:52 PM EST
    That would be great.  No.

    There are 5 in my state but I am going to one in MO because it's closer and I know people


    Dude if you come up here (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    And don't stay 1 night here and grill with us I will be devastated. Just know

    That would never happen (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:21:16 PM EST
    And wine (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:16:11 PM EST
    Good wine

    Anybody from TL can stay here for any protest


    Unveils be fun (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    With Boones Farm

    Geez (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:20:34 PM EST

    Back in the day (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    But so much throwing up

    I've got some Chambord, maybe a little Cold Duck?

    I'm such an alcohol abuser :) For ages


    We could go to Peace House together! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    Oh My Gawwwwd

    I got involved (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    in the anti-war protests when I entered college- you would have been one year old that year.  The Kent State killings happened when I was in my senior year in college.  We all thought, at the time "That could have been any of us."

    Kent State (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:19:33 PM EST
    Was my freshman year of college.

    Let's face it, (3.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    We're old.  ;-)

    Nah, Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    you're just a kid.  Besides, as history shows, you are never too old to be shoved into a boxcar.

    Yesterday, 85-year old Rabbi Arthur Waskow was arrested in Philadelphia as part of a group that calls themselves, "The Old Farts," (aka, Elders and Friends Standing with Immigration Children and Their Parents) for blocking an ICE office.  Rabbi Waskow was helped off the ground by a police officer who cuffed him and gave him his cane.

    I joined a protest yesterday, mixed ages and demographics.  As all of us, we have been in protests over the years, but this was so different: protesting not a particular cause, but a government (ours) who puts babies in cages, requires toddlers to appear alone in court, grabs babies from breast feeding mothers, separates children from parents and doesn't bother to keep track of them....either illegally (asylum seekers) or because of a possible misdemeanor.


    Arthur Waskow, before he became a rabbi (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    authored the Freedom Seder, in 1969. A very fine, pathbreaking piece of work in liberation theology.

    A wonderful (none / 0) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    human being. God love him.

    Coming soon! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    To a US military base near you, concentration camps. Yes you heard that right ladies and gentlemen. The United States WILL be keeping those crying babies together with their parents. Concentration camps. New and improved. Just like a campout! Tents! Free bad food!(don't tell the US taxpayers). Bugs. No AC. Heck, they should be paying the US for the experience of a lifetime.

    Remember, Fascism doesn't swoop in overnight. It comes in little pieces. It takes time. Watch the flashbacks from the Handmaid's Tale. How they got to Gilead. And number one, study 1930's Germany. Study how the Nazi's really took Germany. (and for you all readers who get your panties in a wad over comparisons to the Nazis, I have one simple thing for you. Eff off! STFU.)


    Heh the 3 won't change a thing (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 05:22:21 PM EST
    We're old.  

    Maybe (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    Peter doesn't feel old.  :-D

    I was a high school senior when Kent State (none / 0) (#106)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    happened. Just a few weeks before graduation. And the shootings at Jackson State happened right  around the same time.

    Yes, Zorba, we are old.


    My first anti-war demonstration was a silent vigil (none / 0) (#107)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    on Christmas Eve 1966, sponsored by the local Quaker Meeting; I was a high school senior. Kent State happened in the spring of my junior year in college. I was home (100 miles from campus) in bed with mononucleosis at the time, and had been for about five or six weeks. Although by then I had basically stopped attending demonstrations (after doing many over that four-year period) because the tone had become too violent and angry for me, I basically bounded out of bed, headed back to school, and joined the demonstrations and then an all-college bus trip to Washington for lobbying and mass meetings.

    It was the very first state in the nation to make that option available to women expressly at their own request. Several other states soon followed suit. What the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade did three years later was to extend that right nationwide, by establishing a uniform legal framework to guide state legislatures on the issue.

    And even if Roe is eventually overturned, abortion will still remain legal in states like Hawaii and California. But in many red states like Kansas and your former home in Alabama, a woman's right to reproductive freedom will likely be severely curtailed, if not altogether repealed.



    Let me be clear (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    Protests are good

    Unrealistic expectations not so much.

    The idea that demonstrations are going to turn a single republican vote are unrealistic.

    of course it depends on the nominee but republicans are going to vote for this unless it's Charles Manson risen from the grave.  

    Then there is the three democrats he met with last night.  In the white house.


    Bill Kristol (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    He pointed out (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    That since she has been in a military court she has no history with any, or most, or the controversial issues.

    Especially Roe


    I would (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    think it is very unlikely that she is an evangelical woman and probably more like Sandra Day O'Connor.

    Well (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:34:42 PM EST
    Kristol is not exactly in Trumps inner circle

    He may have been thinking it would be smart.

    No idea.  But I do think a woman would be strategically smart.


    Well, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:52:39 PM EST
    it would be interesting to hear a woman being asked about all the cases where women are suing Trump.

    I heard that he's going to pick... (none / 0) (#98)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 07:40:25 PM EST

    Just kidding.  Rudy's too old.


    Yeah, just a f*cking (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    Brown nosing military tribunal jarhead huh?

    Don't diss the girl in uniform. She will be the ultimate untouchable.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    And we know Donald loves the military

    Sounds (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    like a repeat of David Souter. That's certainly not likely to motivate their base to come out. Of course either way I'm not sure putting someone on the supreme court before an election is going to motivate the evangelicals.

    Too old (none / 0) (#95)
    by ragebot on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    Amy Coney Barrett is my bet on age alone.

    She is 8 years younger (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    But she is going to be hard line on choice I would think.

    and a member of People of Praise

    People of Praise is an independent Christian interdenominational[2] charismatic "covenant community" with no ecclesial affiliation

    If that is what I understand it to be she is going to be as hardline as it gets.

    Who knows.  That might be just what he wants.


    I would think for trolling points alone (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by smott on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    It will have to be a woman, and Stephen Miller right now is making sure Trump gets that.

    Avenatti on Twitter has some good points. The next Dem will have to be an absolute street fighter. This is going to be balls out war. Assuming we actually have an election, with results that are counted. Here's hoping.

    The road to fascism is paved w civility.


    ragebot could be right (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 06:09:50 PM EST
    It's sure looking like Amy Coney Barrett.

    Amy Coney Barrett belongs to a "small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise," The New York Times reported in September 2017. According to The Times, the group's members "swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a `head' for men and a `handmaid' for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family." The group now calls handmaids women leaders instead, the newspaper reported

    The Times reports that members of the group take direction from the heads and handmaids (or woman leader) on major decisions, even down to whom they marry, employment choices, child raising, and where to live

    "Current and former members of People of Praise said that Ms. Barrett and her husband, who have seven children, both belong to the group, and that their fathers have served as leaders," The Times reported, adding, "The group believes in prophecy, speaking in tongues and divine healings, staples of Pentecostal churches that some Catholics have also adopted in a movement called charismatic renewal."

    I would say you can't make it up but Margret Atwood already did.

    And btw
    She was just recently confirmed by the Senate and DiFi grilled her on speaking in tongues.  All the blowback was on DFi.  For questioning her religion.

    I can't see how Trump could love this more.


    THE EXAMINER (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 06:20:12 PM EST

    In a much bigger, higher-profile version of that same fight, Democrats and especially their supporters will be even less capable of controlling their hostility and anger. In Barrett's case, Dougherty is right that her large family and evident religious practice, and even the fact that she is a professionally accomplished woman, will enrage the Left beyond anything we saw in Gorsuch's confirmation. And that's the whole point. It will galvanize Trump's most reluctant supporters, especially in the states with Senate elections this year

    Like I said, this is exactly what he wants.  Probably.


    All elese being equal (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 08:25:11 PM EST
    8 years is two presidential terms.  It seems like the norm now is to stay on the SC till they almost have to wheel you off; unless you make a strategic decision to leave so a prez of your party can appoint a friendly replacement.    RBG may have made a mistake in staying when she could have left under Obama.  Both she and Sotomayor have age or health issues and Kagan is also somewhat overweight; not a good sign for long life.  Given what happened to Scalia I would not be shocked if we see something like that again.

    I would love to go to a protest (none / 0) (#92)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 05:57:59 PM EST
    up there.  I never go anyplace anymore, except the gym to let them know about true truth.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 06:00:22 PM EST
    When the sh!t really hits the fan, we know it will, we can organize that.

    At some point we may all (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    have to converge on the DC area to fight Trump.  How many of us can you handle at your house, MT ?

    I would add a ( c.) (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 06:16:15 PM EST

    If they manage to block a nominee the next one will almost certainly be worse because it would be even harder to stop two in a row

    They should (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    all just vote against whomever Trump picks. It always comes back to haunt the GOP anyway. The GOP are the ones that voted for these awful candidate picks of Trump.

    There is one possible (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    Path to a real showdown.  And it comes down to whether or not Collins and Murkowski will walk the walk and demand the nominee answer the Row v Wade question.  Recently there has been a standard refusal to answer any questions.

    I think it will come down to that.  Will those two republicans say if you won't answer the question I will not vote to confirm you.

    And if that makes you feel safe you are braver than me.

    Of course you don't have to repeal the law to gut it.

    Like I said, I think the gay marriage genie is out of the bottle.  I don't think there is any way the are going to marry thousands of people or kick them out of the military.  

    The big question is reproduction.  And the answer is two female senators


    That is (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 07:52:54 PM EST
    To UNmarry thousands of people

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    I'm not going to put any hope in either one of them. They always seem to cave at the last minute.

    Yep . On our side... (none / 0) (#112)
    by smott on Sun Jul 01, 2018 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    Right up until it counts

    Elena Kagan (none / 0) (#18)
    by itscookin on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 06:03:55 PM EST
    was appointed to the Supreme Court in August 2010, a mid-term election year during Obama's first term. That's the appropriate precedent. Mitchell stone-walled a nomination during a presidential election year. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them. Besides, if the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice is delayed until after the mid-terms, the Republicans will be swarming to the polls to vote. They understand the importance of Supreme Court appointments better than the Democrats do.

    Not for long. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 09:05:08 PM EST
    Democrats are wising up. Better late than never. Anyone remember what happened to the Republicans in Virginia on Election Day last November? I do.

    OT but (none / 0) (#45)
    by smott on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    Capital Gazette newspaper in MD was just shot up, multiple people dead.
    Suspect in custody (I.e. White male).

    Seriously. Time to move out of this country. Looking at all my options.

    News reports (none / 0) (#94)
    by linea on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Jarrod Ramos was involved in a defamation claim against Capital-Gazette Communications. Maryland's second-highest court last week upheld a ruling in favor of the newspaper.

    Top 5 (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 09:01:36 PM EST
    Reportedly, the White House has narrowed the list to these candidates:

    Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Amul Thapar, 49, of the 6th Circuit

    Amy Barrett, 46, of the 7th Circuit

    Thomas Hardiman, 52, of the 3rd Circuit

    Raymond Kethledge, 51, of the 6th Circuit.

    A total disgrace to America, (none / 0) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 02, 2018 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    Anthony Kennedy, says Michael Tomasky.  Only a matter of time before Obergefell is overturned---a landmark case to stand alongside  Brown v Board of Education.  Some day, he fears, the US will no longer be among other Western Hemisphere countries with federal same sex marriage protection.

    For those interested (none / 0) (#122)
    by linea on Fri Jul 06, 2018 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    It wasn't easy to find but someone asked in a post so I have been searching:

    Kethledge attends weekly service at:
    Anglican Church of North America

    "Anglican" is generally used in parish (none / 0) (#123)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 07, 2018 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    names in the U.S. to refer to the more traditional or conservative wing of the Episcopal Church, as I understand it. The branch that broke away within the last ten years over resistance to women or gay priests, for example. I have argued (once) in court before Judge Kethledge, and have met him at a meeting or two. Super smart on the bench, and very nice in person. Which is not to say I'd be pleased to see him on the Supreme Court, except in comparison to a couple of others on that list.

    My Prediction for Monday (none / 0) (#124)
    by linea on Sun Jul 08, 2018 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    Here is my candidate synopsis and Sunday prediction on who Donald Trump will announce for SCOTUS on Monday.

    Trump's reported Supreme Court finalists: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge

    Raymond Kethledge. Ann [ ] launched the opposition to Kethledge describing him as an open borders zealot who is weak on immigration law. Supporters have countered by asserting he is strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights and have pointed out that he is a man who hunts, drinks beer out of a bottle, and carries a 40-caliber Glock for personal protection.

    Kethledge is Anglican and attends weekly service at a church affiliated with the Anglican Church of North America. He was born in New Jersey and raised in Michigan where he attended a public school (i.e., common school) and later the University of Michigan Law School.

    Brett Kavanaugh. He is the pick of prominent Trump supporters such as Laura Ingraham. Conservatives who support Kethledge are asserting Kavanaugh is weak on religious liberties and are citing numerous cases where they feel he didn't uphold the religious freedom of Christians.

    Kavanaugh Is Roman Catholic and from a wealthy family. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School, Yale University, and Yale Law School. He appears to be aligned with the Bush wing of the Republican Party.

    Amy Coney Barrett. She appears to be out of the running. Politico claims she performed poorly in her interview with Trump (per a source).

    Amy Barrett is Roman Catholic. She graduated from an all-girls parochial high school in New Orleans, Louisiana and she graduated Summa Cum Laude from Notre Dame Law School.

    Who will Trump pick?
    Of the choices offered, in my opinion, Amy Barrett Is the least objectionable because of her life experiences, the fact that she is female, and because she is compassionate enough to adopt children. But obviously it's a toss-up between Kethledge and Kavanaugh for the actual nomination. My best guess, I feel Trump already picked Kavanaugh (before the row) because Kavanaugh is male, from a wealthy family, and attended Yale Law. Trump believes people from wealthy families and those who attend expensive schools are better, because that's better. The way spraying everything in a hotel lobby with gold-coloured spray paint is better.

    You just may be (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 at 10:27:59 PM EST
    Spot on!

    But given your past, uh, comments (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    It seems odd you would be ok with the idea she must submit to her husband.

    "This teaching, that the husband is spiritual head or pastor to his wife, is one of the most firmly held and foundational teachings in that community," Reimers wrote. "The wife, as a good member of the community, has a prima facie obligation to obey her husband as the bearer of God's will. In practice, this means that the two do not -- indeed, cannot -- relate as equals. His will reveals God's to her, whereas her will is merely human. The two cannot meet as equals, because the husband always has divine authority on his side."

    Which beyond being bullish!t (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    Would seem to open the question of who would really be deciding court decisions  

    If he "always has Devine authority" over her it's a fair question.

    All that said I still think she is likely to be the nominee.


    Mitch McConnell (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 08:12:06 AM EST
    Judge Hardiman was also, along with Judge Kethledge, one of two finalists Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, recently recommended to Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, arguing that they posed the least risk of a confirmation failure.

    I guess it will come down to the question does he want a fight.

    I still think he might think a brutal or even failed confirmation process would not only be good to whip up the mouth breathers for the midterms but a distraction from his own legal problems.

    Considering the source (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    Hardiman may have a leg up because he BFFs with Trumps sister the judge.

    You know what (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    Hardiman is my bet.

    Family Ties could be the working title of this reality show.


    Kavanaugh Article Has Something for Everybody (none / 0) (#139)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    The judge's 2012 article in the Minnesota Law Review has been cited because he advocated Congress shield the president against criminal and civil procedures while in office.  However he also advocated something that would have caused a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016.
    Regardless of whether there is a fifty-one-vote or sixty-vote
    or some other numerical vote requirement, a good way to alleviate
    the judicial confirmations mess and help fix Washington
    is to agree on the ground rules, make them known to all parties
    ahead of time, and allow nominees to receive votes in the full
    Senate within 180 days.

    I will be surprised (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    If it's Kavanaugh.  

    For several reasons


    He has also (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    Written extensively on the subject of impeachment as a Ken Starr person.

    He Might Not Vote in Favor of Trump (none / 0) (#143)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    In a case which reaches the Supreme Court where Trump tries to quash a civil suit or criminal indictment.
    the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
    temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.
    Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
    members of the military. Deferral would allow the President
    to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
    Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
    respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.
    In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
    a President--while in office--from criminal prosecution and investigation,
    including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
    or defense counsel.
    Kavanaugh seems to say the Congress should supply the President with such temporary immunity, but since Congress hasn't given that to the POTUS yet, he doesn't have such immunity..

    NBC says Kavanaugh (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    Going to be an interesting (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    Confirmation for sure

    It's an (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    easy no vote for red state dems because Kavanaugh doesn't believe that presidents can be criminally prosecuted, shouldn't have to answer questions. This is why I figured Kavanaugh was going to be the pick. Trump thinks he is getting a get out of jail card.

    That may be his reasoning (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    But as the comment above says, that not entirely clear.  He has written that a president should be protected from prosecution.  He has also said congress would need to do that and currently they have not.

    I have no idea what he will do and I'm sure Trump has gotten his loyalty pledge but what he has said is a bit murky.

    I don't agree it's an easy vote for red state democrats.

    But like I said it will be interesting.  In the Chinese sense.

    I thought it was interesting he said he thought an independent judiciary was the crown jewel of our democracy.  


    Dahlia Lithwick (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    Just said exactly that on Rachel.  About the being immune from prosecution

    On PBS (none / 0) (#151)
    by linea on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 08:14:08 PM EST
    `A graduate of Yale and Yale Law School' - Donald Trump

    Brett Kavanaugh. I was right. Not just on the facts but I believe on the motivation. I was also the only one who risked making a Sunday prediction.

    My original post was insightful and excellent. Few if any here knew of the row happening in the Conservative community that I highlighted, or of the `drinking beer from a bottle' and `glock pistol' rebuttals. Additionally, for those who believe that Brett Kavanaugh is a more acceptable nomination than a religious woman who adopted children, I continue to disagree. There are issues at stake that aren't being discussed, and given the limited choices available, I have a different view of the lessor evils. I feel a compassionate woman, irrespective of the opposition on this forum to her expression of Catholicism, is more likely to be a suprise opposition vote against a variety of Republican/Libertarian issues which aren't being discussed including such issues as the death penalty, the use of torture, the treatment of prisoners, protection of children, and sexual slavery of human trafficking victims. My opinion.


    Your opinion of your own posts (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 09:00:33 AM EST
    as "excellent" is noted. What was wrong with Barrett is not her strong religious faith as a Catholic. It is her failure to perceive or acknowledge that she allows her religious faith to determine her legal (and particularly her Constitutional) philosophy and opinions. That's what Feinstein was trying to say, but clumsily failed to articulate or communicate. Your suggestion that you would celebrate a judge's applying her religious principles to decide cases (whether on abortion or on refugee rights or on the death penalty) shows an attitude (or "opinion") toward the role of a judge in the American legal system that I find most disturbing.

    Re: `That's what Feinstein was trying to say...' (none / 0) (#166)
    by linea on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    `... but clumsily failed to articulate or communicate.'

    Two of the weirdest comments by Democratic Party politicians has to be:

    Feinstein's oddly worded `the dogma lives loudly within you'

    and Nancy Pelosi's bizarrely Gnostic `spark of divinity' apologetics.


    Peter Baker tweet (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    Peter Baker
    Peter Baker
    Buzz at the US courthouse in DC: Brett Kavanaugh spotted leaving in a black sedan accompanied by four black SUVs with security agents presumed to be Secret Service, per source

    Could of course be misdirection

    Gotta love that Trump (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 09, 2018 at 07:43:59 PM EST
    Introduced Ed Meese at the ceremony and thanked him for "all he has done to protect justice"

    ... I would offer the opinion of my late maternal grandmother, who was devoutly Catholic herself. She warned us to beware of the all too earnest practitioners like Judge Barrett "who wear their religion on their sleeves, because there is no room for true faith in their hearts."

    From The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 6, the "Sermon on the Mount," Verses 2-6, in which Jesus instructs the faithful to avoid ostentatious displays of piety:

    "So, when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Emphasis is mine.)


    Peter G (none / 0) (#156)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 07:31:45 AM EST
    Do you happen to know Matt Kavanaugh, and if so do you have an opinion on his selection.

    I have never met or argued before (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    Judge Brett (not "Matt") Kavanaugh. I agree with Howdy's analysis. The Democrats should oppose this nomination only in ways and with messages that will not endanger -- indeed, only in ways that will enhance -- their chances of taking the Senate in the midterms. I further suggest that everyone assume everything he said last night, everything he says from now until he is sworn in, and everything said about him by politicians and political and/or legal activists on both (or should we say "all") sides is 98% b/s and spin. I do think he's not as bad as Barrett would have been, but that's not saying much.

    I was wondering this too. (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 08:16:06 AM EST
    Wondering where everybody went on this subject too.

    From what I have read and heard since last night the consensus seems to be, yes he is a conservative 5th vote and that is bad on many levels but it could have been worse.  Ben Wittes  had some interesting things to say about it along those lines.   That he is as good as we were likely ever going to get from any republican president. Let alone Trump.

    Here's my fear.
    Dems have to fight and they absolutely should.  If there is any hope for stopping him, meaning if a republican votes against him, dems should be united and if they are not should get the blame.


    If republicans hold together, they will IMO, and there is no chance of stopping him, if they hang together there won't be, red state dems should not be punished for voting to protect their seats.

    Just once I hope dems can be smart enough to play a longer game and not add losing 3-4 senate seats to losing the court.

    I am skeptical that can happen.  I see the circular firing squad forming already.


    A thought on the executive power stuff (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    IMO this is a valid issue but the building hysteria is not so much.

    Yes, he is the only nominee who has written the executive branch should be protected from civil or criminal charges.  It's true

    It's also true he is the only one who has written that no such right currently exists.  That judges can not protect the executive and an act of congress is needed to achieve this.

    It's also worth noting this article was written in the first year of the first term of the first black president.  That's is not insignificant.

    I was going to make the same observation (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 10:07:36 AM EST
    Commentators who are focusing on this article are making the common error of those who do not understand our legal system, of thinking that a professional or personal (including a religious) opinion about what would be good national policy is not a basis on which a judge can (or can be expected to) rule. Kavanaugh apparently wrote (I have not read the actual article) that Congress should enact such a statute. That published view in no way implies -- indeed, it tends to refute -- that as a judge he would rule that way in the absence of a statute.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    But you know what

    This think this IS STILL why Trump picked him.

    Be careful what you wish for


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#165)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 10, 2018 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    Brett Kavanaugh's Minnesota Law Review article was what clinched his nomination. He had many conservative judicial qualifications, but Kavanaugh was best for him. The basis for all his decisions.

     As for the interpretation of Kavanaugh that indictments, not to mention investigations, are off limits for a president while in office may mean that a president can't pardon himself---since any culpability remains, but is on hold.

    On the other hand, I tend to interpret Kavanaugh the way Trump seems to....as a District or Appellate Court judge this may be the case, but as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court faced with such a decision and in the absence of any congressional laws to interpret/guide, he would find a constitutional basis to find for the president.

     It does seem a little too aw-shucks for a law review article to find, after working for W. Bush (and meeting Bush's private secretary/future wife and all those likely discussions) that the job of president is intense and time consuming. Hard to chop wood and mountain bike and run the world,and be subject to an investigation, too. And, that the Starr investigation might not have been such a good thing, after all.  But, things do change.