Anthony Kennedy Retires

[The Parkus Empire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOOZDO5KDv4

Glory is upon us, my lads! Conservatism is ascendant!

Well, not by any apparent measure. We do have control of government at the moment, and this retirement will cement our control of the Supreme Court for the near future.

God save the Union!

We have the greatest control of the House since 1930, when we were rekt by the Great Depression. And November will see a further consolidation of our power.

[Vassenor]

Well, not by any apparent measure. We do have control of government at the moment, and this retirement will cement our control of the Supreme Court for the near future.

God save the Union!

We have the greatest control of the House since 1930, when we were rekt by the Great Depression. And November will see a further consolidation of our power.

And yet the party has been unable to actually get anything done with that.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well, not by any apparent measure. We do have control of government at the moment, and this retirement will cement our control of the Supreme Court for the near future.

God save the Union!

I've facepalmed so hard my skull will develop a dent. The law will be conservative, regardless of what the people want. That's why I say we elect Supreme Court Justices.

oh god I'm gonna be killed for this

I see no reason why a popular election should be able to change the law. The Constitution is an agreement between the various states, each ratified it as a state. What the majority wants here is irrelevant unless it's the majority of states, but in this case changing the Constitution has a process for that, and requires 3/4 of the states to ratify.

[Arlenton]

True, though I don't think anyone can say for certain who would have won. I could totally see Sanders doing better in the rust belt areas, but worse than Clinton in suburban areas, but like I said there's no way of being sure.

He would've won according to the polls, and according to simulations of the polls. Also, if the Democrats don't think he would've won, doesn't the entire "Russian Collusion" story line fall flat on its face? Bernie's honest, nobody had anything on him.

According to the Polls Hillary would have won as well. And there was plenty of nasty shit that would have been thrown at him, given his history.

[The South Falls]

I've facepalmed so hard my skull will develop a dent. The law will be conservative, regardless of what the people want. That's why I say we elect Supreme Court Justices.

oh god I'm gonna be killed for this

Since when does a popular election, if this is what you’re referring to, result in anything good for everyone

We elect our senators on a popular model. They decide. So, how else should we elect them judges?

[The Parkus Empire]

We have the greatest control of the House since 1930, when we were rekt by the Great Depression. And November will see a further consolidation of our power.

And yet the party has been unable to actually get anything done with that.

Most certainly, because Democrats are still making things tough for us. That is why, for example, Trump told the Republicans to forget about pushing through immigration bills until after November, because then we won't have to deal with the Democrats really.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics ... index.html

For example, we tried to pass a bill earlier restricting abortion, but it didn't get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eab7d4714d

After November, we will have the power we need to do what we want.

[Vassenor]

And yet the party has been unable to actually get anything done with that.

Most certainly, because Democrats are still making things tough for us. That is why, for example, Trump told the Republicans to forget about pushing through immigration bills until after November, because then we won't have to deal with the Democrats really.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics ... index.html

For example, we tried to pass a bill earlier restricting abortion, but it didn't get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eab7d4714d

After November, we will have the power we need to do what we want.

So despite having almost total control of the government the Republicans are still facing too much opposition to get things done?

[The Black Forrest]

Most certainly, because Democrats are still making things tough for us. That is why, for example, Trump told the Republicans to forget about pushing through immigration bills until after November, because then we won't have to deal with the Democrats really.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics ... index.html

For example, we tried to pass a bill earlier restricting abortion, but it didn't get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eab7d4714d

After November, we will have the power we need to do what we want.

So despite having almost total control of the government the Republicans are still facing too much opposition to get things done?

I can't figure that one out either. It's the demos fault I guess....

[Hakons]

You are are forgetting that there are two pro-life Democratic senators.

Sen. Joe Donnelly, my senator of Indiana

And Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Both of which pretty much have to vote for the President' s choice for SCOTUS already due to the politics of their states. I also doubt Murkowski and Collins would buck the party on something as massively important as a SCOTUS confirmation. Red state dems like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Tester will also be under tremendous pressure to vote for the nomination.

However, Republicans don't need to vote on this right away. The open Supreme Court seat could be used as a way to get voters out for the party, like in 2016. Republicans are likely to retain their majority, and this tactic would make it even more likely. In the unlikely chance Republicans lose the majority, the nominee could simply be confirmed in the lame duck period after the election and before Senate confirmations in January.

[The Parkus Empire]

Most certainly, because Democrats are still making things tough for us. That is why, for example, Trump told the Republicans to forget about pushing through immigration bills until after November, because then we won't have to deal with the Democrats really.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics ... index.html

For example, we tried to pass a bill earlier restricting abortion, but it didn't get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eab7d4714d

After November, we will have the power we need to do what we want.

So despite having almost total control of the government the Republicans are still facing too much opposition to get things done?

Oh, not "total", just the greatest we've had since the Great Depression hammered our party into oblivion. Currently we have the upper hand to the greatest extent since then. But after November we'll have serious control, the ability to push through things without consent from the Democrats.

[Vassenor]

So despite having almost total control of the government the Republicans are still facing too much opposition to get things done?

Oh, not "total", just the greatest we've had since the Great Depression hammered our party into oblivion. Currently we have the upper hand to the greatest extent since then. But after November we'll have serious control, the ability to push through things without consent from the Democrats.

You assume much.

[Hakons]

Well, not by any apparent measure. We do have control of government at the moment, and this retirement will cement our control of the Supreme Court for the near future.

God save the Union!

I've facepalmed so hard my skull will develop a dent. The law will be conservative, regardless of what the people want. That's why I say we elect Supreme Court Justices.

oh god I'm gonna be killed for this

"God save the Union" is a term I use to express patriotism. I'm not impious enough to say God supports my politics.

[The Parkus Empire]

Oh, not "total", just the greatest we've had since the Great Depression hammered our party into oblivion. Currently we have the upper hand to the greatest extent since then. But after November we'll have serious control, the ability to push through things without consent from the Democrats.

You assume much.

This is probably the only time in the last hundred years that we've had support from unions. So long as Republican representatives hitch their star to Trump and support him in their campaign, they have an unprecedented potential for election now.

[Olerand]

You are are forgetting that there are two pro-life Democratic senators.

Sen. Joe Donnelly, my senator of Indiana

And Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Both of which pretty much have to vote for the President' s choice for SCOTUS already due to the politics of their states. I also doubt Murkowski and Collins would buck the party on something as massively important as a SCOTUS confirmation. Red state dems like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Tester will also be under tremendous pressure to vote for the nomination.

However, Republicans don't need to vote on this right away. The open Supreme Court seat could be used as a way to get voters out for the party, like in 2016. Republicans are likely to retain their majority, and this tactic would make it even more likely. In the unlikely chance Republicans lose the majority, the nominee could simply be confirmed in the lame duck period after the election and before Senate confirmations in January.

This is not a health way to conduct your country's politics, but in modern day America, that really doesn't matter does it?

[Hakons]

McConnell says the vote will be done this fall.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President"
- Addison Mitchell “Mitch” McConnell Jr.

That was the political explanation. The real reason was: the majority party of the Senate will not confirm the President's nominee.

Something can also be said that these are the midterms coming up, and not a presidential election.

[Trumptonium1]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

[Hakons]

Sen. Joe Donnelly, my senator of Indiana

And Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Both of which pretty much have to vote for the President' s choice for SCOTUS already due to the politics of their states. I also doubt Murkowski and Collins would buck the party on something as massively important as a SCOTUS confirmation. Red state dems like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Tester will also be under tremendous pressure to vote for the nomination.

However, Republicans don't need to vote on this right away. The open Supreme Court seat could be used as a way to get voters out for the party, like in 2016. Republicans are likely to retain their majority, and this tactic would make it even more likely. In the unlikely chance Republicans lose the majority, the nominee could simply be confirmed in the lame duck period after the election and before Senate confirmations in January.

This is not a health way to conduct your country's politics, but in modern day America, that really doesn't matter does it?

I'm not aware of our politics ever being healthy. There's a reason why 50% of our citizens don't even participate.

[The South Falls]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

Hopefully in more than 2-6 years. I don't think I can put up with a "no abortion/homophobic" court.

[The Serbian Empire]

You are are forgetting that there are two pro-life Democratic senators.

Sen. Joe Donnelly, my senator of Indiana

And Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Both of which pretty much have to vote for the President' s choice for SCOTUS already due to the politics of their states. I also doubt Murkowski and Collins would buck the party on something as massively important as a SCOTUS confirmation. Red state dems like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Tester will also be under tremendous pressure to vote for the nomination.

However, Republicans don't need to vote on this right away. The open Supreme Court seat could be used as a way to get voters out for the party, like in 2016. Republicans are likely to retain their majority, and this tactic would make it even more likely. In the unlikely chance Republicans lose the majority, the nominee could simply be confirmed in the lame duck period after the election and before Senate confirmations in January.

Even the Democrat senators of Michigan may be threatened into it as Trump won there, too.

[The Serbian Empire]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

Hopefully in more than 2-6 years. I don't think I can put up with a "no abortion/homophobic" court.

I fear that even if Trump loses, this is the point of no return.

[The Black Forrest]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

Not till after the Trump party is gone.

[Trumptonium1]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

Hopefully in more than 2-6 years. I don't think I can put up with a "no abortion/homophobic" court.

Imagine how Republicans felt under Obama and his court makeup.

[The Parkus Empire]

Good stuff. Hopefully Charles Grassley chooses a young conservative with half a century left on the clock.

When's Ginsberg going?

Hopefully in more than 2-6 years. I don't think I can put up with a "no abortion/homophobic" court.

The Supreme Court has never said "no abortion" or been "homophobic", at the most the question is whether states can decide so have same sex marriage or abortion, as opposed to mandated same sex marriage and mandated permission of abortion as we have now.

[The Serbian Empire]

And yet the party has been unable to actually get anything done with that.

Most certainly, because Democrats are still making things tough for us. That is why, for example, Trump told the Republicans to forget about pushing through immigration bills until after November, because then we won't have to deal with the Democrats really.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics ... index.html

For example, we tried to pass a bill earlier restricting abortion, but it didn't get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eab7d4714d

After November, we will have the power we need to do what we want.

Unless the Republicans get 60 Senators, just as unlikely as Democrat control... it's not happening as some will be demanding stuff that Collins/Murkowski would refuse to vote for.

[The South Falls]

Hopefully in more than 2-6 years. I don't think I can put up with a "no abortion/homophobic" court.

I fear that even if Trump loses, this is the point of no return.

Yea. They're fin' live for more than Trump is going to stay in office. All that has to happen is liberal laws be contested, and they will be struck down, unconstitutional or not.