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

[junior chįmp]

Seems speculative but if true, then BIG

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Great news!

[TheSaint250]

Great news!

[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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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...

[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.

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.

[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

[i4indyguy]

 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.

Yes Mitch did set a dangerous precedent (not the first senate leader to roll that ball permenantly forward BTW).

But I don't think that Neil Gorsuch HIMSELF personally compromised HIS OWN integrity by accepting a nomination to a vacancy artificially manufactured without his involvement. Almost any judge would have done the same.

Whatever Judge Gorsuch's merits/demerits, integrity or lack thereof come from his own characteristics and actions, without influence by the craven/destructive way the senate has destroyed its own confirmation process.

What would suffer most is the credibility of our elections; that US elections are for American viewpoints and no one elses.

[fluffypanther19]

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.

Perfectly stated. It's sad that our judiciary has become so politicized, but that's modern America for you

[KingSweden]

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

[Reaganfan]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

Highly doubtful.  Any Obama nominee would have almost certainly been blocked at any time after the 2014 midterms.  Mitch's little heist there will have enduring consequences for at least a generation.  You can bet the farm on that.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

And, had we ended up with the situation where Clinton won and the Republicans held the Senate, Garland would still have been blocked.

McConnell: Senate won't confirm Garland if Clinton wins

[President Johnson]

He should have retired in 2014 already along with Thomas and let Obama appoint more liberals. But hope he now stays on until Democrats are in charge again.

[TDAS04]

Hopefully not until 2021, assuming we have a Democrat in the White House by then.  If we don't, it's better he stay put longer.  I have a lot of issues with Kennedy, but a Trump appointee would be far worse, and probably younger.

God I hope Ginsburg can hang on until we have Democrats back in power, so she can be replaced by another sane justice.

[TML]

Trump has already stated that his court picks will be anti-Roe. However, I think the more effective strategy for Democrats, when they have control of the Senate, is not to refuse meetings and/or hearings on nominees (like Republicans did with Garland), but rather hold the hearings but then vote the nominees down (which is now easier to do since the magic number is now 51). If the Republicans had done that with Garland, I think they would probably be stronger in the Senate than they currently are.

[Person Man]

Trump has already stated that his court picks will be anti-Roe. However, I think the more effective strategy for Democrats, when they have control of the Senate, is not to refuse meetings and/or hearings on nominees (like Republicans did with Garland), but rather hold the hearings but then vote the nominees down (which is now easier to do since the magic number is now 51). If the Republicans had done that with Garland, I think they would probably be stronger in the Senate than they currently are.

Or just force Trump to pick a compromise nominee. They could possibly have the votes now to stop a 5th vote against Roe. They have 49, Murkowski, and Collins. I don't think Casey or Donneley will break with the Republicans. Maybe if Kennedy retired this year?

[The Other Castro]

John Delaney and Donald Trump have already announced, therefore the 2020 election has already begun. The Garland Rule can and likely will be used from Jan 2019 - Jan 2021 if Democrats take the Senate and a Justice retires (especially if it's Kennedy or one of the liberals).

[YE]

Dems if they have the senate, should give the Trump nominee a hearing. Now if it's a bad nominee they can vote him down but if it's someone moderate ala a Kennedy he or she should be confirmed.

[Person Man]

Dems if they have the senate, should give the Trump nominee a hearing. Now if it's a bad nominee they can vote him down but if it's someone moderate ala a Kennedy he or she should be confirmed.

Of course...

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

Alabama was in the process of voting for Luther Strange's successor while the tax bill was being passed. Guess Republicans should have blocked passage on that as well.

You people are gross hypocrites.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Good. Hope he can hang on until the 2020 primaries.

Democrats should hold hearings and just vote NO on all of them. There is no hypocrisy in this method.