It looks as if Justice Kennedy will not be retiring from SCOTUS in 2018

[henster]

Hopefully he doesn’t retire until after 2020, maybe he wants someone like Biden picking his successor. If the nominee is someone like Warren or Harris he may step down earlier it all depends. Also a Dem Senate makes him way more likely to retire before 2020.

[Virginiá]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

No way. Garland was the olive branch and we see how that went. I’m not onboard with, say, a Goodwin Lou on the court but draw a line and demand a Neal Katyal or Paul Watford. The GOP had their chance and chose to go scorched Earth

Garland's age bothers me the most - I believe he's 65 now, I wouldn't mind Democrats demanding a younger moderate, but the reason I mentioned Garland was that it would be the easiest way to justify blocking any future Trump picks without resorting to "you started this" arguments (which ftr, is fine by me, but preferable to avoid it). Regardless what conservatives like to tell themselves, they flat out stole a Supreme Court from Obama and thus Merrick Garland, and by demanding Trump put Garland on the bench, it would be a more justifiable way to either get a favorable pick from him or keep the seat open until 2021. It was pretty humiliating for Garland, and I think Democrats could sell the decision to the public pretty easily.

Also lol @ Reaganfan. It's pretty clear he's just going to move back when it's "acceptable" to nominate SCOTUS replacements to whenever a Republican Senate deems it appropriate. If they said 2nd term Democratic presidents have no right to appoint justices, he'd tow that line too.

We already had a precedent, and it was no confirmations in the fall of a presidential election year iirc. Going all the way to spring is patently absurd. Why can't conservatives just admit they stole a SCOTUS seat because they crave power at any costs? At least be honest about it, because it's not like anyone believes the flimsy excuses used to justify the Obama era judicial blockade.

[gerritcole]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

No way. Garland was the olive branch and we see how that went. I’m not onboard with, say, a Goodwin Lou on the court but draw a line and demand a Neal Katyal or Paul Watford. The GOP had their chance and chose to go scorched Earth

Garland's age bothers me the most - I believe he's 65 now, I wouldn't mind Democrats demanding a younger moderate, but the reason I mentioned Garland was that it would be the easiest way to justify blocking any future Trump picks without resorting to "you started this" arguments (which ftr, is fine by me, but preferable to avoid it). Regardless what conservatives like to tell themselves, they flat out stole a Supreme Court from Obama and thus Merrick Garland, and by demanding Trump put Garland on the bench, it would be a more justifiable way to either get a favorable pick from him or keep the seat open until 2021. It was pretty humiliating for Garland, and I think Democrats could sell the decision to the public pretty easily.

Also lol @ Reaganfan. It's pretty clear he's just going to move back when it's "acceptable" to nominate SCOTUS replacements to whenever a Republican Senate deems it appropriate. If they said 2nd term Democratic presidents have no right to appoint justices, he'd tow that line too.

We already had a precedent, and it was no confirmations in the fall of a presidential election year iirc. Going all the way to spring is patently absurd. Why can't conservatives just admit they stole a SCOTUS seat because they crave power at any costs? At least be honest about it, because it's not like anyone believes the flimsy excuses used to justify the Obama era judicial blockade.

there's no 'stealing a seat', no party is entitled to fill a seat. the senate refused to provide advice and consent and so we moved on. if the dems do it after 2018 so be it, no seat was ever stolen though. keep reading huff post and blaming boomers to blame others for your issues though

[gerritcole]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

Which, to be honest, will only further compromise the judiciary when it's already been politicized to death.  Mitch set a really bad precedent, but unless Gorsuch resigns honorably and Trump has a sudden change of heart and appoints Garland in his place (i.e. what should have happened), the future of the integrity of the Court looks bleak.

Soon there will be a new tradition that the president can only appoint SCOTUS judges in the first two years of his term...

Honestly, I wish the parties would just stop this foolishness and agree that the party that wins the White House gets to pick the judges - within reason (so no incompetent candidates, perverts nor fringe ideological crusaders, and so on). This means going home and telling their voters that yes, it sucks they didn't win the White House and have to see liberal/conservative judges get appointed, but that's the way it is.

However, it's become clear that Republicans are prepared to steamroll over virtually any tradition or rule they can change in order to get what they want and consolidate power, so my opinion for now is that Democrats should just fight them ruthlessly over everything until America is hit with a realignment, which judging by Millennial voting habits, will not be favorable to the GOP. At that point, I'm hoping the country will depolarize some and we can stop bickering over every little scrap of power and influence. But until then, I'm not content to have my party roll over for a bunch of crusty old men who seem to not even recognize the legitimacy of the opposition's ability to govern.

The country won't depoloraize until Boomers are thrown out of office. Polarization in American society began with Boomers and accelerated when Boomers became the majority in Congress with Gingrich in 1994. As older generations died off....it only kept getting worse.

Now....the good news is that this will happen real soon. According to demographer Neil Howe, Generation X is the slowest ascending generation in America's entire history. They should of been the majority awhile ago but Boomers have clung on for artificially too long. My guess is 2018 and 2020 will be cause a gigantic exodus of Boomer trash from Congress due to Trump and the sweltering disgust that the public holds of the Republican clown show

politics have always been this polarized, the country simply didn't have social media and varied news outlets to express their own opinions. no one held hands and sang kumbaya before the boomers arrived to the scene.  half the public approves of trump so there is no sweltering disgust, just on the huff post and the coasts

[junior chįmp]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

Which, to be honest, will only further compromise the judiciary when it's already been politicized to death.  Mitch set a really bad precedent, but unless Gorsuch resigns honorably and Trump has a sudden change of heart and appoints Garland in his place (i.e. what should have happened), the future of the integrity of the Court looks bleak.

Soon there will be a new tradition that the president can only appoint SCOTUS judges in the first two years of his term...

Honestly, I wish the parties would just stop this foolishness and agree that the party that wins the White House gets to pick the judges - within reason (so no incompetent candidates, perverts nor fringe ideological crusaders, and so on). This means going home and telling their voters that yes, it sucks they didn't win the White House and have to see liberal/conservative judges get appointed, but that's the way it is.

However, it's become clear that Republicans are prepared to steamroll over virtually any tradition or rule they can change in order to get what they want and consolidate power, so my opinion for now is that Democrats should just fight them ruthlessly over everything until America is hit with a realignment, which judging by Millennial voting habits, will not be favorable to the GOP. At that point, I'm hoping the country will depolarize some and we can stop bickering over every little scrap of power and influence. But until then, I'm not content to have my party roll over for a bunch of crusty old men who seem to not even recognize the legitimacy of the opposition's ability to govern.

The country won't depoloraize until Boomers are thrown out of office. Polarization in American society began with Boomers and accelerated when Boomers became the majority in Congress with Gingrich in 1994. As older generations died off....it only kept getting worse.

Now....the good news is that this will happen real soon. According to demographer Neil Howe, Generation X is the slowest ascending generation in America's entire history. They should of been the majority awhile ago but Boomers have clung on for artificially too long. My guess is 2018 and 2020 will be cause a gigantic exodus of Boomer trash from Congress due to Trump and the sweltering disgust that the public holds of the Republican clown show

politics have always been this polarized, the country simply didn't have social media and varied news outlets to express their own opinions. no one held hands and sang kumbaya before the boomers arrived to the scene.  half the public approves of trump so there is no sweltering disgust, just on the huff post and the coasts

Nope:



...And who's fault is it?



Face it...your party is a cancer on American civic institutions

[Virginiá]

there's no 'stealing a seat', no party is entitled to fill a seat. the senate refused to provide advice and consent and so we moved on. if the dems do it after 2018 so be it, no seat was ever stolen though. keep reading huff post and blaming boomers to blame others for your issues though

'Stolen' isn't meant to be the same kind of theft under various statutes. It's just hyperbole meant to illustrate that they took something from Obama that the constitution says is the president's prerogative, and historically has been regarded as such in the Senate. Opposition party Senators have squabbled with the president in the past over SCOTUS picks, but they have never flat out denied them the opportunity to fill the seat so far from the date they leave office. I actually don't have a problem with leaving the pick to the next president if it's 3-4 months from when they leave office, but almost a full year out is just plain wrong.

But, I guess kudos to at least not trying to invent new precedents like Reaganfan did. Although that excuse is still pretty weak. If the Senate was intended to pick justices, the president would have been cut out of the process entirely. Abdicating their duty to hold hearings and confirm a justice when a seat becomes vacant is tantamount to saying that the president is not allowed to fill that seat and has no part in the process.

Quite frankly, it's that kind of logic that puts the deterioration of America's institutions on full display. Literally nothing is above ruthless fighting for power. Garland is the kind of pick that should have been acceptable to a Republican Senate, even if only due to the fact that he'd likely have only been a justice for 15 - 17 years (as opposed to Gorsuch, who will be there for at least 30).

Anyhow, if Democrats flip the Senate next year and conservatives wake up to see none of their judicial picks moving forward at all, you will at least know why that's happening. The Senate is simply exercising it's power to confirm or not to confirm

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

I see no reason the Democrats should be so petty. They can and should honor the GOP's wishes and not approve any Trump nominations until after the 2020 elections.

Well now, let's remember something. Republicans who opposed Garland's confirmation were often saying it was because Americans were already in the process of voting in the elections. Had Scalia passed away a year earlier, I don't think a case would have been made to wait. It was the fact that primaries for Obama's successor were taking place which gave incentive to wait.

Unless it's spring 2020, the Democrats shouldn't block any replacement judges.

Frankly my dear Reaganfan, I don't give a damn.  The Democrats should refuse to confirm any Republican judicial nominees indefinitely regardless of qualifications until voters in 2020 have had a chance to have their say if they pick up the Senate in 2018.  If Trump is re-elected, then they should wait until folks who couldn't vote in 2020 have had their say in 2024.  No Democrat should vote to confirm any Republican judicial nominee for any vacancy until we have appointed a net of at least 12 new Democratic federal judges and have a majority on the Supreme Court (certainly a Supreme Court majority at the least).  Until then, I've got your bipartisanship; it's right in between my ring and index fingers.

[gerritcole]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

I see no reason the Democrats should be so petty. They can and should honor the GOP's wishes and not approve any Trump nominations until after the 2020 elections.

Well now, let's remember something. Republicans who opposed Garland's confirmation were often saying it was because Americans were already in the process of voting in the elections. Had Scalia passed away a year earlier, I don't think a case would have been made to wait. It was the fact that primaries for Obama's successor were taking place which gave incentive to wait.

Unless it's spring 2020, the Democrats shouldn't block any replacement judges.

Frankly my dear Reaganfan, I don't give a damn.  The Democrats should refuse to confirm any Republican judicial nominees indefinitely regardless of qualifications until voters in 2020 have had a chance to have their say if they pick up the Senate in 2018.  If Trump is re-elected, then they should wait until folks who couldn't vote in 2020 have had their say in 2024.  No Democrat should vote to confirm any Republican judicial nominee for any vacancy until we have appointed a net of at least 12 new Democratic federal judges and have a majority on the Supreme Court (certainly a Supreme Court majority at the least).  Until then, I've got your bipartisanship; it's right in between my ring and index fingers.

I agree with these ideas, this is why mcconnell and trump should pack the courts by 2018, literally every open seat. its a ruthless game, the other side would do it as wel

[gerritcole]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

Which, to be honest, will only further compromise the judiciary when it's already been politicized to death.  Mitch set a really bad precedent, but unless Gorsuch resigns honorably and Trump has a sudden change of heart and appoints Garland in his place (i.e. what should have happened), the future of the integrity of the Court looks bleak.

Soon there will be a new tradition that the president can only appoint SCOTUS judges in the first two years of his term...

Honestly, I wish the parties would just stop this foolishness and agree that the party that wins the White House gets to pick the judges - within reason (so no incompetent candidates, perverts nor fringe ideological crusaders, and so on). This means going home and telling their voters that yes, it sucks they didn't win the White House and have to see liberal/conservative judges get appointed, but that's the way it is.

However, it's become clear that Republicans are prepared to steamroll over virtually any tradition or rule they can change in order to get what they want and consolidate power, so my opinion for now is that Democrats should just fight them ruthlessly over everything until America is hit with a realignment, which judging by Millennial voting habits, will not be favorable to the GOP. At that point, I'm hoping the country will depolarize some and we can stop bickering over every little scrap of power and influence. But until then, I'm not content to have my party roll over for a bunch of crusty old men who seem to not even recognize the legitimacy of the opposition's ability to govern.

The country won't depoloraize until Boomers are thrown out of office. Polarization in American society began with Boomers and accelerated when Boomers became the majority in Congress with Gingrich in 1994. As older generations died off....it only kept getting worse.

Now....the good news is that this will happen real soon. According to demographer Neil Howe, Generation X is the slowest ascending generation in America's entire history. They should of been the majority awhile ago but Boomers have clung on for artificially too long. My guess is 2018 and 2020 will be cause a gigantic exodus of Boomer trash from Congress due to Trump and the sweltering disgust that the public holds of the Republican clown show

politics have always been this polarized, the country simply didn't have social media and varied news outlets to express their own opinions. no one held hands and sang kumbaya before the boomers arrived to the scene.  half the public approves of trump so there is no sweltering disgust, just on the huff post and the coasts

Nope:



...And who's fault is it?



Face it...your party is a cancer on American civic institutions

such a cancer that the public entrusts with control over the WH, Congress, and the vast majority of states? dems are masters of faux outrage, no tangible results for all their anger and vitriol

[ProudModerate2]

If the Dem's take control of the Senate in November 2018, this is what Kennedy and Co should do :

1.) Sometime in early 2019, Kennedy should make a public announcement that he plans to retire sometime in the near future, but is yet not sure on the exact date (this way Rep can burn, bitch, and pull their hair-out for a while).

2.) In late 2019, Kennedy makes a further announcement that he plans to officially retire on February 13 of 2020 (Scalia died on this exact date, Feb 13).

3.) The Orange-Haired Clown, being the assh**e that he is, of course announces that he plans to name a replacement.

4.) Chuck Schumer and the Dem Senators (with a Yuge smile on their face) give trump and McConnell the middle finger.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

I see no reason the Democrats should be so petty. They can and should honor the GOP's wishes and not approve any Trump nominations until after the 2020 elections.

Well now, let's remember something. Republicans who opposed Garland's confirmation were often saying it was because Americans were already in the process of voting in the elections. Had Scalia passed away a year earlier, I don't think a case would have been made to wait. It was the fact that primaries for Obama's successor were taking place which gave incentive to wait.

Unless it's spring 2020, the Democrats shouldn't block any replacement judges.

Frankly my dear Reaganfan, I don't give a damn.  The Democrats should refuse to confirm any Republican judicial nominees indefinitely regardless of qualifications until voters in 2020 have had a chance to have their say if they pick up the Senate in 2018.  If Trump is re-elected, then they should wait until folks who couldn't vote in 2020 have had their say in 2024.  No Democrat should vote to confirm any Republican judicial nominee for any vacancy until we have appointed a net of at least 12 new Democratic federal judges and have a majority on the Supreme Court (certainly a Supreme Court majority at the least).  Until then, I've got your bipartisanship; it's right in between my ring and index fingers.

I agree with these ideas, this is why mcconnell and trump should pack the courts by 2018, literally every open seat. its a ruthless game, the other side would do it as wel

Not enough open seats to pack them the way you mean and good luck finding too many Democratic judges who are going to leave office under Trump.

[junior chįmp]

If the Dem's take control of the Senate in November 2018, this is what Kennedy and Co should do :

1.) Sometime in early 2019, Kennedy should make a public announcement that he plans to retire sometime in the near future, but is yet not sure on the exact date (this way Rep can burn, bitch, and pull their hair-out for a while).

2.) In late 2019, Kennedy makes a further announcement that he plans to officially retire on February 13 of 2020 (Scalia died on this exact date, Feb 13).

3.) The Orange-Haired Clown, being the assh**e that he is, of course announces that he plans to name a replacement.

4.) Chuck Schumer and the Dem Senators (with a Yuge smile on their face) give trump and McConnell the middle finger.

Kennedy is still a mostly partisan Republican...I doubt he we would coordinate with Democrats on some kind of strategy to troll Trump

[ProudModerate2]

If the Dem's take control of the Senate in November 2018, this is what Kennedy and Co should do :

1.) Sometime in early 2019, Kennedy should make a public announcement that he plans to retire sometime in the near future, but is yet not sure on the exact date (this way Rep can burn, bitch, and pull their hair-out for a while).

2.) In late 2019, Kennedy makes a further announcement that he plans to officially retire on February 13 of 2020 (Scalia died on this exact date, Feb 13).

3.) The Orange-Haired Clown, being the assh**e that he is, of course announces that he plans to name a replacement.

4.) Chuck Schumer and the Dem Senators (with a Yuge smile on their face) give trump and McConnell the middle finger.

Kennedy is still a mostly partisan Republican...I doubt he we would coordinate with Democrats on some kind of strategy to troll Trump

Very true. I was thinking about that as I was typing my comment.
But he is an intelligent individual, and I would bet my home that he despises the Orange Slug.
You do have to admit though .... that if it did happen like this, it would be good.

[junior chįmp]

such a cancer that the public entrusts with control over the WH, Congress, and the vast majority of states? dems are masters of faux outrage, no tangible results for all their anger and vitriol

Read it and weep....GOP is done!

What Time Is It? Here’s What the 2016 Election Tells Us About Obama, Trump, and What Comes Next

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

All of this squabbling is simply the result of the court system deciding hot-button issues off of debatable interpretations of the constitution when such matters could have been reserved for the legislative branch. If judges are going to make ideological rulings rather than act like dispassionate referees then the incentive is to make their nominations an all-out war. If we want that to change, we need to rethink the role of the judicial branch.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All of this squabbling is simply the result of the court system deciding hot-button issues off of debatable interpretations of the constitution when such matters could have been reserved for the legislative branch. If judges are going to make ideological rulings rather than act like dispassionate referees then the incentive is to make their nominations an all-out war. If we want that to change, we need to rethink the role of the judicial branch.

Yup, exactly.

[Orser67]

And now that Democratic Senate prospects are looking up, assuming they flip the chamber, Republicans may have to settle with "Garland or get bent" on any vacancies that arise post-2018. Aside from him, the Democratic base is never going to accept a Dem Senate confirming a Trump pick, and we may just have to stick with the Big Mitch precedent of 2016 - let the next president decide.

I see no reason the Democrats should be so petty. They can and should honor the GOP's wishes and not approve any Trump nominations until after the 2020 elections.

Well now, let's remember something. Republicans who opposed Garland's confirmation were often saying it was because Americans were already in the process of voting in the elections. Had Scalia passed away a year earlier, I don't think a case would have been made to wait. It was the fact that primaries for Obama's successor were taking place which gave incentive to wait.

Unless it's spring 2020, the Democrats shouldn't block any replacement judges.

Frankly my dear Reaganfan, I don't give a damn.  The Democrats should refuse to confirm any Republican judicial nominees indefinitely regardless of qualifications until voters in 2020 have had a chance to have their say if they pick up the Senate in 2018.  If Trump is re-elected, then they should wait until folks who couldn't vote in 2020 have had their say in 2024.  No Democrat should vote to confirm any Republican judicial nominee for any vacancy until we have appointed a net of at least 12 new Democratic federal judges and have a majority on the Supreme Court (certainly a Supreme Court majority at the least).  Until then, I've got your bipartisanship; it's right in between my ring and index fingers.

I agree with these ideas, this is why mcconnell and trump should pack the courts by 2018, literally every open seat. its a ruthless game, the other side would do it as wel

Not enough open seats to pack them the way you mean...

Unless of course Republicans pass a court-packing plan.

[KingSweden]

All of this squabbling is simply the result of the court system deciding hot-button issues off of debatable interpretations of the constitution when such matters could have been reserved for the legislative branch. If judges are going to make ideological rulings rather than act like dispassionate referees then the incentive is to make their nominations an all-out war. If we want that to change, we need to rethink the role of the judicial branch.

I agree. RW judges are just as “activist,” of course. We need judicial term limits.