Anthony Kennedy to retire from the Supreme Court

[Captain N]

I happen to support our Constitution as it is written now. I have no desire to change it. If Gerrymandering is unconstitutional, then it should be ruled as such and stopped.

I want you all to remember this quote as it is written now...

..because you'll definitely see how hypocritical it is in threads about the 4th and 14th Amendment(at minimum) in the near future.

[alexw]

nah man hes a legitimate justice just like trump is a legitimate president and obama was a legitimate president. just because angry people are talking otherwise doesnt make it so. congress didnt have any obligation to confirm back in 2016 and they were able to run out the clock. its just the way things happened. and check the news right now. all the dem sites are a buzz with discussion about how to obstruct trumps next pick. a few dems politicians have tweeted about stalling the process until after november. its the games people play and we can choose to be ok with it when 'our side' does it and upset when the other does it or we can choose not to be hypocrites. but stacking with new seats just to give more power to the legislative branch would never fly. its totally unconstitutional. like what if republicans added more seats right now and instead of trump picking one new justice he picks five. see what i mean.

What do you mean it wouldn't fly? You mean like blocking the appointment of a judge for nearly a year would never fly? Or that a party would not gerrymander the f*** out of states because it would never fly?

The only thing stopping this is civility between the parties and wanting to adhere to established norms. Well, the republicans took civility and following the norms then shat all over them, so don't expect the democrats to do so in the future. You republicans have taught a democrats a lesson in this and I doubt the party is play by the rules when you never do.

[Draco-Onis]

I happen to support our Constitution as it is written now. I have no desire to change it. If Gerrymandering is unconstitutional, then it should be ruled as such and stopped.

The constitution is not an all encompassing document that predicted every future scenario like women wanting to vote or black people not being slaves.

[Orbitus]

Charlottesville and Clive Bundy weren't terrorists either. OKC was not exactly yesterday either. Both are during my lifetime.

Yes, actually it is labeled a terrorist attack, and Cliven Bundy's ranch and the wildlife refuge should have been labeled as a terrorist attack because they were trying to force the government to do something that they didn't have to do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...crime-or-both/
Here is Jeff Sessions, our current Attorney General labeling it a domestic terrorist attack and hate crime. And since was just given 28 hate crime charges yesterday, it absolutely was terrorism.

[Ghostpanther]

The constitution is not an all encompassing document that predicted every future scenario like women wanting to vote or black people not being slaves.

Then push to get it amended. It is your right to do so.

[Thekri]

I happen to support our Constitution as it is written now. I have no desire to change it. If Gerrymandering is unconstitutional, then it should be ruled as such and stopped.

I would put a great deal of money on you never having read the entire thing, and have no idea what the amendments say. Pretty much everybody that claims such things has never read it.

[Draco-Onis]

Then push to get it amended. It is your right to do so.

I know how hard it is to get it amended unlike some people who think the second amendment will vanish overnight until then the courts will decide. Since these courts are basically going to be Trump's water boy everyone loses, gerrymandering is in fact cheating I don't care what party does it.

[reliquit-salis]

He was not legitimately nominated as he was not nominated by Obama who's job it was to nominate him and they had not gone through Obama's nominations to deny them before they got to him.

i just dont buy into that 'stolen seat' mentality. the repubs ran out the clock using binden recommendation from the 90s. dems today are right now as we speak talking about running out the clock on this soon to be nominated justice. maybe if biden hadnt given that speech things might have gone differently i dont know. the people yelling about 'stolen seat' and how it was a 'constitutional crisis' are now perfectly fine with doing it now because it might benefit them. if there actually was a constitutional issue with what went down it would have been brought to court and settled but that didnt happen.

[Ghostpanther]

I would put a great deal of money on you never having read the entire thing, and have no idea what the amendments say. Pretty much everybody that claims such things has never read it.

I would never bet anyone I am a Constitutional expert. But I know enough, to not have a issue with anything in it that I am aware of.

- - - Updated - - -

I know how hard it is to get it amended unlike some people who think the second amendment will vanish overnight until then the courts will decide. Since these courts are basically going to be Trump's water boy everyone loses, gerrymandering is in fact cheating I don't care what party does it.

Then petition your representatives to introduce a law against it. Have you done that?

[God Save The King]

i just dont buy into that 'stolen seat' mentality. the repubs ran out the clock using binden recommendation from the 90s. dems today are right now as we speak talking about running out the clock on this soon to be nominated justice. maybe if biden hadnt given that speech things might have gone differently i dont know. the people yelling about 'stolen seat' and how it was a 'constitutional crisis' are now perfectly fine with doing it now because it might benefit them. if there actually was a constitutional issue with what went down it would have been brought to court and settled but that didnt happen.

Biden suggested it, but his own party wouldn't even agree to do it. It was a single lone man who was shut down my common sense and a desire for compromise. It wasn't until 2017 that Republicans actually went through with it. Note, Biden had a crazy idea and his party rejected it. McConnell had the same idea, and his party embraced it.

That's the distinction. Biden was not and is not the voice of the Democratic Party. Republicans needed a majority vote to remove the filibuster rules, and they achieved it, purely on party lines. Biden wasn't able to do that. Calling it the "Biden Mandate" is disingenuous, and is meant to make low-information voters believe it was the Democrats who instituted the policy, not the Republicans.

[reliquit-salis]

What do you mean it wouldn't fly? You mean like blocking the appointment of a judge for nearly a year would never fly? Or that a party would not gerrymander the f*** out of states because it would never fly?

The only thing stopping this is civility between the parties and wanting to adhere to established norms. Well, the republicans took civility and following the norms then shat all over them, so don't expect the democrats to do so in the future. You republicans have taught a democrats a lesson in this and I doubt the party is play by the rules when you never do.

congress is specifically granted the power to confirm by the constitution and it doesnt say they have to do so by a certain date. what that other guy was suggesting was the dems creating a bunch of new seats on the bench so they can pick who sits in them. thats just not how checks & balances work. its like putting extra players on the pitch just because youre team is behind in points. dont work that way.

[Draco-Onis]

Then petition your representatives to introduce a law against it. Have you done that?

Yes but it's never going to come up for a vote because both parties use this when they have the advantage. The fact that the vast majority of policies are not influenced by the people but lobbyist should bother you but I suppose after this whole kids in cages thing nothing does bother you as long it benefits someone with a R next to their name.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes but it's never going to come up for a vote because both parties use this when they have the advantage. The fact that the vast majority of policies are not influenced by the people but lobbyist should bother you but I suppose after this whole kids in cages thing nothing does bother you as long it benefits someone with a R next to their name.

Good. Then vote and be persistent.

[reliquit-salis]

Biden suggested it, but his own party wouldn't even agree to do it. It was a single lone man who was shut down my common sense and a desire for compromise. It wasn't until 2017 that Republicans actually went through with it. Note, Biden had a crazy idea and his party rejected it. McConnell had the same idea, and his party embraced it.

That's the distinction. Biden was not and is not the voice of the Democratic Party. Republicans needed a majority vote to remove the filibuster rules, and they achieved it, purely on party lines. Biden wasn't able to do that. Calling it the "Biden Mandate" is disingenuous, and is meant to make low-information voters believe it was the Democrats who instituted the policy, not the Republicans.

eh hold on youre trying to make it to be more than it was. those repubs brought up bidens speech because he was vp so it was a perfect way to troll. they were like 'hey look mr obama your own vp thinks you should wait'. but thats all it was just a label. nobody went around saying it was democrat policy or policy of any kind. it was just fodder.

[Theodarzna]

The constitution is not an all-encompassing document that predicted every future scenario like women wanting to vote or black people not being slaves.

Yes, however that document was altered by the process outlined for changing it to allow those things to happen.

[Draco-Onis]

Yes, however that document was altered by the process outlined for changing it to allow those things to happen.

And those outlets are impossible as an option in today's world, the founding founders never thought America would become a two party system.

[God Save The King]

nobody went around saying it was democrat policy or policy of any kind. it was just fodder.

I mean, that's exactly what Republicans and right wing news outlets did.

[reliquit-salis]

I mean, that's exactly what Republicans and right wing news outlets did.

eh youd have to show me that cause i dont remember it being that way.

[God Save The King]

congress is specifically granted the power to confirm by the constitution and it doesnt say they have to do so by a certain date. what that other guy was suggesting was the dems creating a bunch of new seats on the bench so they can pick who sits in them. thats just not how checks & balances work. its like putting extra players on the pitch just because youre team is behind in points. dont work that way.

Actually Congress is the body that decides how many justices are on the Supreme Court. It has fluctuated between 5 and 10 since the country was founded. Congress can absolutely add more seats if they feel the need.

- - - Updated - - -

eh youd have to show me that cause i dont remember it being that way.

Here's the quote from the Senate Leader at the time, Mitch McConnell “We're following the Biden rule. And Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992, in a presidential election year, he said the Senate should not act on filling a Supreme Court vacancy if it had occurred that year. . . . So, all we're doing, Chris, is following a long-standing tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year.”

[reliquit-salis]

Actually Congress is the body that decides how many justices are on the Supreme Court. It has fluctuated between 5 and 10 since the country was founded. Congress can absolutely add more seats if they feel the need.

right but check the premise that guy had when he posted the idea. the idea of the legislative branch creating new seats just to enhance the power of itself isnt what checks & balances is about. like imagine if we had 6 liberal justices right now shutting down everything mr trump and the repubs were doing. repub congress says 'heres 5 new seats mr trump lets stack the bench so we can do what we want'. that wouldnt be right. that would defeat the purpose of the judicial branch. the intent to add seats has to be born out of genuine need not 'elections have consequences' mentality.