SCOTUS: Kennedy Announces Retirement

[angelatc]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/


Kennedy announced his retirement in a letter to President Trump addressed, "My dear Mr. President." Within minutes, Trump told reporters he would move quickly to nominate someone from a list of 25 potential replacements -- someone "as outstanding" as Kennedy.

"It will be somebody from that list," Trump said.

[Swordsmyth]

https://qanon.pub/data/images/1696ef215efc8d1a476fb950f3f7fcf7a9ac224155f035c126 c2b4bf827cdca7.png

Q
!CbboFOtcZs
ID: 8dbebc
No.1927025 (https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1926578.html#1927025) 📁
(https://archive.today/newest/https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1926578.html#1927025)
Jun 27 2018 13:20:18 (EST)
(https://qanon.pub/?#t1530123618)
Anonymous
ID: 520e50
No.1926855 (https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1926578.html#1926855) 📁
(https://archive.today/newest/https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1926578.html#1926855)
Jun 27 2018 13:11:58 (EST)

(https://qanon.pub/?#t1530123118) ClipboardImage.png ⬇ (https://qanon.pub/data/images/1696ef215efc8d1a476fb950f3f7fcf7a9ac224155f035c126 c2b4bf827cdca7.png) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/data/images/1696ef215efc8d1a476fb950f3f7fcf7a9ac224155f035c126 c2b4bf827cdca7.png (https://qanon.pub/data/images/1696ef215efc8d1a476fb950f3f7fcf7a9ac224155f035c126 c2b4bf827cdca7.png) LETTER FROM JUSTICE KENNEDY TO POTUS
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...source=Twitter (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4562902-Letter-to-the-President-June-27-Docx.html?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter)📁 (https://archive.today/newest/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4562902-Letter-to-the-President-June-27-Docx.html?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter)




>>1926855
His choice?
Remember, Kennedy was the swing vote.
No more.
Locked & Loaded.
RBG next.
Q

[angelatc]

bump

[specsaregood]

LOL at the pussyhats gushing over this news. the world is gonna end! oh noes.

[thoughtomator]

This plus disempowerment of the public unions makes for the worst week for the Left in a long time.

[aGameOfThrones]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHCXGmOUiz8Jd7esxqVaef4ShCzoXiu 1nyFXtoETwWy2s8QARyTw

[phill4paul]

Just another clown in gown gone and another to replace for a lifetime.

Until, I see...

"By a 9-0 decision we find that the case in question is out of the purview of the Federal Government. We, hereby, rule that the Federal governments involvement is hereby declared null and void, and the case is remanded to the states, and to the people, respectively. This decision has no dissent."

I'll just consider them a bunch of windbags who are liked or disliked, by whichever side of the political spectrum, depending on which way the wind blows.

[Danke]

LOL at the pussyhats gushing over this news. the world is gonna end! oh noes.


"gushing"?

I guess, that is usually just the opposite.

[Danke]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523635-SCOTUS-Kennedy-Announces-Retirement

[jkr]

GIVE
ME
ANDREW
NAPOLITANO
OR GIVE ME
a break

[Swordsmyth]

GIVE
ME
ANDREW
NAPOLITANO
OR GIVE ME
a break

Judge Swamp is a bad choice.

[William Tell]

From the names on the old list of 25 I like Don Willett and Mike Lee.


Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida

Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator

Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa

Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)

Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas

Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

[AuH20]

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/74879357/now-i-am-become-death-the-destroyer-of-worlds.jpg

[AuH20]

If he picks someone radical, we may get our gun rights restored.

[William Tell]

Judge Swamp is a bad choice.

Besides his odd logic on the cake ruling, what has he actually said or done that has done anything to change the fact that overall throughout his career he has been a more consistent defender of the Constitution as written than anyone on the court in recent memory? I'm interested in actual defense or opposition to the Constitution, not an administration.

[Danke]

Judge Swamp is a bad choice.



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

[Swordsmyth]

Besides his odd logic on the cake ruling, what has he actually said or done that has done anything to change the fact that overall throughout his career he has been a more consistent defender of the Constitution as written than anyone on the court in recent memory? I'm interested in actual defense or opposition to the Constitution, not an administration.

He has taken the anti-Constitution/anti-Law side on almost every aspect of Russiagate, including reversing his stance from what he said when he thought Hitlery was going to win , he had said she would be master and commander of the DOJ and would have the right to pardon herself.

See this thread:

Judge Swamp strikes again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523218-Judge-Swamp-strikes-again)

[Swordsmyth]

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

There Judge Swamp goes again:

Judge Swamp strikes again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523218-Judge-Swamp-strikes-again)

[AuH20]

I'm laughing too hard!!! Constitution dismantled?!?!?! It's practically unrecognizable from it's original intent.

1012041182451400704

[AuH20]

Karma for killing Scalia. 40 years of darkness. :)

[enhanced_deficit]

This could be potentially bad news for gay wedding cakes.


The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy’s Gay Marriage Ruling

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/supreme_court_legalizes_gay_marriage_here_is_the_b eautiful_last_paragraph.html


Other important question is will Trump pick a pro gun control judge or pro NRA, pro Police State or pro Constitutional liberties?

[William Tell]

He has taken the anti-Constitution/anti-Law side on almost every aspect of Russiagate, including reversing his stance from what he said when he thought Hitlery was going to win , he had said she would be master and commander of the DOJ and would have the right to pardon herself.

See this thread:

Judge Swamp strikes again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523218-Judge-Swamp-strikes-again) OK, so I read his opinion piece you linked where he lays out his view of checks and balances and how it relates to a president when under investigation. So? I'm not even saying I agree with it all but what part do you take issue with?

Maybe he did take an anti- Constitution position, can you point out specifically how? Also where has he flip flopped on pardons? Making sweeping seemingly hyperbolic statements about how he's a Deep State Hitlery supporter doesn't tell me anything.

[phill4paul]

Mike Lee open to being nominated to Supreme Court

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) said in an interview Wednesday that he "would not say no" if he was asked by President Trump to serve on the Supreme Court as Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement.

"I started watching Supreme Court arguments for fun when I was 10 years old. So if somebody asked me if I would consider that, I would not say no," he told reporters on what he would say if Trump asked him to serve.

"But the president’s got a decision to make and I trust his ability to make it and make it well," he added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394467-lee-would-not-say-no-if-trump-asked-him-to-serve-on-scotus

[AuH20]

Kennedy was a major stumbling block on State AWB challenges being heard. Now with him gone, the possibilities are intriguing.

[Swordsmyth]

OK, so I read his opinion piece you linked where he lays out his view of checks and balances and how it relates to a president when under investigation. So? I'm not even saying I agree with it all but what part do you take issue with?

Maybe he did take an anti- Constitution position, can you point out specifically how? Also where has he flip flopped on pardons? Making sweeping seemingly hyperbolic statements about how he's a Deep State Hitlery supporter doesn't tell me anything.


Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement's active files? In a word: No.
Congress can and must be able to in order to exercise oversight on the DOJ, there is nothing in the Constitution to limit it from doing so, but Judge Swamp doesn't want the full truth brought to light.


Fox New’s Judge Andrew Napolitano warned Monday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions (http://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions)'s firing on Friday of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe (http://thehill.com/people/andrew-mccabe) could be seen as “obstruction of justice.”
Napolitano said on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Monday that he viewed McCabe’s firing as “vindictive” and “reckless.”
“Andrew McCabe is more likely than not to be a witness against the Attorney General’s boss, the president of the United States,” Napolitano said. “I think that firing him in that environment could very well be determined to diminish his effectiveness as a witness. What’s that called, obstruction of justice.”



“I don’t know if Bob Mueller wants to go there, but that’s the argument,” he added.

More at: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...ion-of-justice (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/379160-fox-news-napolitano-mccabe-firing-could-be-seen-as-obstruction-of-justice)
This is absolute garbage, McCabe richly deserved to be fired and neither Sessions nor Trump could be obstructing justice by doing it.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/1...-against-trump (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/13/judge-napolitano-claims-robert-muellers-russia-probe-biased-against-trump)

Some Republican lawmakers have seized on a trove of damning text messages as evidence that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation is biased against President Trump.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano doesn't think so.

The text messages were exchanged between two FBI officials who worked on Mueller’s Russia probe, and they reveal the agents expressing a steady stream of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton sentiments.

"The issue is not: do FBI agents have political opinions and can they express them? The answer to that is yes and yes," Napolitano said on "Outnumbered Overtime." "The issue is: do those political opinions in any way influence the outcome of their investigation?"

He pointed out that the FBI has procedures in place to prevent that from happening.

"FBI agents operate in pairs, whatever the two discover has to be reviewed by five others, whatever the five have reviewed and decided is credible has to be reviewed by Justice Department lawyers," Napolitano explained.

He noted that the only final decisions that have been made in Mueller's investigation are to indict former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his aide Rick Gates and to accept two guilty pleas from former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Napolitano said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein painted a "very credible" picture in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee when he said it's too early to determine if any individual's political opinion affected the outcome of the investigation, because the outcome hasn't been reached yet.

In the meantime, Napolitano said he's not worried about the text messages.

"FBI agents are not choirboys or choirgirls. They are strong-willed people with strong opinions like the rest of us," he said. "None of this surprises me."
More absolute garbage, the texts were clear proof of overwhelming bias.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/0...ustice-charges (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/judge-napolitano-president-trump-possibly-facing-obstruction-justice-charges)

Judge Nap: Feinstein Is 'Correct' on Potential Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump

On "Fox & Friends" this morning, Alan Dershowitz disputed claims from some Democrats that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could build an obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump.

Dershowitz said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she argued that Trump obstructed the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia by asking former FBI Director James Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn and also by later firing Comey.

Dershowitz said a president cannot be charged with obstruction for merely exercising his constitutional authority.

On "America's Newsroom," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came down on the side of Feinstein.

"I respect Professor Dershowitz greatly. I do not know Sen. Feinstein, but she, in my view, is correct here," he told Bill Hemmer.

He said that if Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Flynn for a non-corrupt purpose - such as if he felt sympathy for his former national security adviser or he wanted the bureau to use its resources on more important matters - it's not obstruction.

However, if Trump did it for a corrupt purpose - such as trying to protect himself or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from what Flynn might say - then it is obstruction and there is no presidential immunity, Napolitano said.

"Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who commits it, if done for a corrupt purpose. It's also an impeachable offense," he said, adding that the charge is "intentionally not easy to prove" for a prosecutor.

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on "Meet the Press" that she believes an obstruction of justice case is forming.

"The Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well and it involves obstruction of justice and I think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice,” she said.

"I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice."
More garbage, when he thought Hitlery was going to win he said POTUS is the head of the DOJ and can tell them to do whatever POTUS wants, furthermore trumps words were clearly not a command but a wish, somehow he doesn't give Trump anywhere near the leeway he wanted to give to the biased FBI agents.


Napolitano: Mueller did not wrongly obtain Trump team emails

https://www.yahoo.com/news/napolitan...143230179.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/napolitano-mueller-did-not-wrongly-143230179.html)
There was no legal basis for the subpoena.



Fox News’ Judge Napolitano Says Trump Jr-Russia Meeting Merits Criminal Investigation (Video)

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-ju...202307669.html (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-judge-napolitano-says-trump-jr-russia-202307669.html)



http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572...been-dishonest (http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572/fox-news-judge-napolitano-argues-comeys-testimony-illustrates-credible-compelling-argument-that-trump-been-dishonest)

Fox News' Judge Napolitano argues Comey's testimony illustrates a 'credible and compelling argument' that Trump has been dishonest (http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572/fox-news-judge-napolitano-argues-comeys-testimony-illustrates-credible-compelling-argument-that-trump-been-dishonest)



Nothing that was ever alleged about the meeting was criminal, it is not illegal to get dirt on your opponent from foreigners.

[AuH20]

I would augment Trump's security detail by 10 fold. He's a more tempting target right now.

[acptulsa]

OK, so I read his opinion piece you linked where he lays out his view of checks and balances and how it relates to a president when under investigation. So? I'm not even saying I agree with it all but what part do you take issue with?

Maybe he did take an anti- Constitution position, can you point out specifically how? Also where has he flip flopped on pardons? Making sweeping seemingly hyperbolic statements about how he's a Deep State Hitlery supporter doesn't tell me anything.

Swordsmythe isn't impressed with principled conservatives. If you ain't a partisan GOP hack he has no use for you.

"Constitutional" and "lawful" may mean specific things to the rest of us. But when Swordsmythe uses them, they're just dog-whistle code for "Republican Team Player".

[AuH20]

1012077381262217216

[TER]

What a wonderful day!

WWG1WGA!

[spudea]

A special thanks to Joe Biden for the Biden rule in 1992.

[Anti Globalist]

So finally after years of saying he's going to retire he finally does it. Wonder who's going to replace him.

[William Tell]

Found this prediction poll. https://fantasyjustice.lexpredict.com/stats

Top 5 right now Barrett, Kavanaugh, Willett, Thapar, Lee.

[dannno]

LIBERAL MELTDOWN OVER JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIREMENT
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/)

[oyarde]

Which supreme court candidate owns a machine gun ? That is my choice .

[phill4paul]

Found this prediction poll. https://fantasyjustice.lexpredict.com/stats

Top 5 right now Barrett, Kavanaugh, Willett, Thapar, Lee.

It needs to be Mike Lee's brother, Thomas Rex Lee who currently sits on the Utah Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee#Similarities_to_Justices_Scalia_and _Thomas

[dannno]

Which supreme court candidate owns a machine gun ? That is my choice .



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCRmg9eKGs

[William Tell]

It needs to be Mike Lee's brother, Thomas Rex Lee who currently sits on the Utah Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee#Similarities_to_Justices_Scalia_and _Thomas
Willett is good as well, Ron Paul has endorsed him for office in the past.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478204-Is-This-the-Most-Libertarian-Legal-Opinion-Ever-Written&highlight=don+willett

[ProBlue33]

Seems like Mike Lee from Utah is a good pick, Rand thinks he is great and would hate to lose him, but Utah is a lock for another GOP senator anyways.
He has been defined as a a libertarian-leaning member of the Republican Party.

I was going to say Judge Nap. but I really didn't like his cake opinion, which really surprised me.

[euphemia]

This is exactly why Donald Trump was elected. Voters like the list.

[dannno]

Seems like Mike Lee from Utah is a good pick, Rand thinks he is great and would hate to lose him, but Utah is a lock for another GOP senator anyways.
He has been defined as a a libertarian-leaning member of the Republican Party.

I was going to say Judge Nap. but I really didn't like his cake opinion, which really surprised me.

Judge Nap and Trump were practically butt buddies when Trump first got into office, Trump had him help out with the first Supreme Court nomination. Then the Judge almost got fired from Fox News because he claimed Trump was being wiretapped (turned it Trump was being wiretapped, and they also had informants in his campaign..)

So Trump had a conversation with him and told him to tone it down, be more neutral and not defend him at every turn so he could pick him some time down the road and the Democrats wouldn't have a meltdown. You have to realize Democrats have to support the new nominee..the best way is for the Judge to do exactly what he has been. Swordsmyth says he has gone too far, I completely disagree.

[Anti Globalist]

Lets remember that the Judge is nearly in his 70s. If you're going to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, you want to make sure that they'll be on there for at least 25-30 years. I don't know if the Judge will even be alive for another 20 years.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394467-lee-would-not-say-no-if-trump-asked-him-to-serve-on-scotus

We need Mike Lee in the Senate. Should be plenty of other good choices out there.

[dannno]

Lets remember that the Judge is nearly in his 70s. If you're going to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, you want to make sure that they'll be on there for at least 25-30 years. I don't know if the Judge will even be alive for another 20 years.

In that case, I nominate Swordsmyth.

[phill4paul]

We need Mike Lee in the Senate. Should be plenty of other good choices out there.

Agree. Just the first thought I had because I had just read the article. His brother is a sitting state supreme justice and on Trump's "list." I'd rather him.

[ProBlue33]

Here is the question too all RPF members then, is Mike Lee more valuable in the Senate or the Supreme Court?

[Anti Globalist]

Trump chose a pretty good time to become president. By the time his presidency is over, he'll probably nominate 2 more judges.

[ProBlue33]

Trump chose a pretty good time to become president. By the time his presidency is over, he'll probably nominate 2 more judges.

On that merit alone he would become one of the most influential Presidents of the early 21st century.

The liberal salt will continue to flow for some time because of this:D

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmythe isn't impressed with principled conservatives. If you ain't a partisan GOP hack he has no use for you.

"Constitutional" and "lawful" may mean specific things to the rest of us. But when Swordsmythe uses them, they're just dog-whistle code for "Republican Team Player".
What a lie, my objections to Judge swamp are all because of Constitutional and rule of law issues where he has gone liberal.

I have figured out why you add an "e" to my moniker, you are talking about an imaginary version of me that you have made up in your head.

[Swordsmyth]

In that case, I nominate Swordsmyth.
I'll take it, if Trump wants to nominate me you can PM me for my real identity.:D

[Swordsmyth]

Lets remember that the Judge is nearly in his 70s. If you're going to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, you want to make sure that they'll be on there for at least 25-30 years. I don't know if the Judge will even be alive for another 20 years.

^^^THIS^^^
We want to lock up the court for the foreseeable future, not only will it safeguard our rights but it may drive liberals to actually leave the country or secede.

[Swordsmyth]

What a wonderful day!

WWG1WGA!

RBG next.

[Anti Globalist]

Ginsburg looking at this situation like "Must remain alive for Trumps entire presidency. Can't allow him to replace me."

[nikcers]

^^^THIS^^^
We want to lock up the court for the foreseeable future, not only will it safeguard our rights but it may drive liberals to actually leave the country or secede.

There won't be no lock up majority if we are lucky we will get enough dissent to unlock their majority so they don't undo the second amendment like they want to

[TER]

RBG next.

;)

[dannno]

Ginsburg looking at this situation like "Must remain alive for Trumps entire presidency. Can't allow him to replace me."

It's going to be like trying to stay awake in history class :D

[phill4paul]

Here is the question too all RPF members then, is Mike Lee more valuable in the Senate or the Supreme Court?

It's a toss up. On one hand we lose a Senator that aligns, mostly, with the sites values. At this time he is a junior Senator and he doesn't have some of the committee positions like Rand has finagled. His position can always be challenged. On the other hand if he were nominated then it's a lifetime appointment as one of 9 as opposed to one of 100.

[Anti Globalist]

Only way Ginsburg's gonna leave is if she dies.

[angelatc]

Here is the question too all RPF members then, is Mike Lee more valuable in the Senate or the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court.

[angelatc]

Only way Ginsburg's gonna leave is if she dies.

From your lips to God's ears....

[Anti Federalist]

I was going to say Judge Nap. but I really didn't like his cake opinion, which really surprised me.

I think he let his "lifestyle choices" influence him.

[Jan2017]

LIBERAL MELTDOWN OVER JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIREMENT


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/)

This is the second BIGLY reason that it is swell that the 45th President is not Hillary.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch was the first.

[aGameOfThrones]

The amount of calls to kill Trump on Twitter by the liberals in full meltdown mode.

[AuH20]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvT1g1U8AAq4YL.jpg:large

[Champ]

Ok so based off today's response to this and essentially the response every single time there is a chance to implement some measure of constitutionality back to the country after it had been torn away incrementally over the decades/centuries, when is the left going to secede from this idea of liberty that they hate with such passion, when are they going to secede from the country to create a perfect socialist utopia (dystopian orwellian nightmare)? This situation and behavior is nothing new, but it still begs the question.

They hate the constitution, they hate every tiny gain that is made towards trying to restore some minor part of it, they want nothing to do with any of the ideas from the founding fathers, nothing to do with what they implemented in the attempt to prevent tyrannical rulers from occupying this country. They are only interested in tearing the entire thing down and replacing it with a late 19th century idea that was proven to be a colossal failure after attempts to implement it in many different countries throughout the 20th century.

I wish the Calexit idea would come to fruition with terrible haste because it could give them the spark in order to do this, but instead it is permanent destruction/tear down mode 24/7.

[AuH20]

I really wish that was the case, but we'll take your righteous fury as a consolation prize.

1012042853135126530

[AuH20]

1012063934021435392

[specsaregood]

Ginsburg looking at this situation like "Must remain alive for Trumps entire presidency. Can't allow him to replace me."

The main reason she didn't retire during Obamas reign is she wanted the first woman president to pick her replacement. HAving trump pick it instead serves her right for playing such a petty game with such an important position.

[Swordsmyth]

1012063934021435392

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.

[Anti Federalist]

Ok so based off today's response to this and essentially the response every single time there is a chance to implement some measure of constitutionality back to the country after it had been torn away incrementally over the decades/centuries, when is the left going to secede from this idea of liberty that they hate with such passion, when are they going to secede from the country to create a perfect socialist utopia (dystopian orwellian nightmare)? This situation and behavior is nothing new, but it still begs the question.

They hate the constitution, they hate every tiny gain that is made towards trying to restore some minor part of it, they want nothing to do with any of the ideas from the founding fathers, nothing to do with what they implemented in the attempt to prevent tyrannical rulers from occupying this country. They are only interested in tearing the entire thing down and replacing it with a late 19th century idea that was proven to be a colossal failure after attempts to implement it in many different countries throughout the 20th century.

I wish the Calexit idea would come to fruition with terrible haste because it could give them the spark in order to do this, but instead it is permanent destruction/tear down mode 24/7.

For crying out loud THIS!!!

Secede already.

We won't even pull a Lincoln and wage unrestrained warfare against civilian populations and raze your cities.

Just GO for fuck's sake.

[specsaregood]

For crying out loud THIS!!!

Secede already.

We won't even pull a Lincoln and wage unrestrained warfare against civilian populations and raze your cities.

Just GO for fuck's sake.

They won't because that misses the real purpose of the position, they dont' want to be separate, they want to control everybody else. Pete_00 was right all along.

[Swordsmyth]

For crying out loud THIS!!!

Secede already.

We won't even pull a Lincoln and wage unrestrained warfare against civilian populations and raze your cities.

Just GO for $#@!'s sake.

It's time for a secession/expulsion amendment.

[AuH20]

1012078415447576580

[Krugminator2]

1012063934021435392



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln9yywA5Cjs

[euphemia]

I think Trump starts calling candidates right away and his question is: “How strong is your backbone?” Then he calls in Republican leadership and tells them there will be no rule changes. Confirmation hearings begin day 1 and the new judge should be sworn in before the new session of the court begins.

[AuH20]

We're close. Demoralization is setting in.

[Cleaner44]

Feels like winning to me.

[devil21]

GIVE
ME
ANDREW
NAPOLITANO
OR GIVE ME
a break

It'll be yet another Jesuit Skull and Bones Ivy Leaguer.

[specsaregood]

GIVE
ME
ANDREW
NAPOLITANO
OR GIVE ME
a break

As much as I generally like Napolitano, no more Catholics or Jews on the SC until there are more protestants. The numbers are way out of whack compared with the people of this country.

[Zippyjuan]

As much as I generally like Napolitano, no more Catholics or Jews on the SC until there are more protestants. The numbers are way out of whack compared with the people of this country.

We need a Muslim for diversity.

[brushfire]

1012078415447576580


HA HA! So funny. He's grabbin em by the SCOTUS...

Imagine if Rand was in office, and 3 libertarian judges?

[specsaregood]

We need a Muslim for diversity.

I wouldn't be opposed; but there needs to be more protestants on the bench first.

[eleganz]

Lee has voted most consistently with Rand out of every senator and is only 44, youngest on the official list, probably the best choice by far right now. Join the Mike Lee for SCOTUS movement, let's make it happen!

[eleganz]

1012078415447576580

Would be perfect if Ginsburg retired, the reasoning is sound. I wonder if Dershowitz has the inside line on that.

[openfire]

If I were to place a bet on the pick, it would be on Amy Coney Barrett. My preference would obviously be Mike Lee.

[Schifference]

Trump should troll and leak rumors that Obama and Hillary on his list.

[jkr]

ok
Lee is younger than the judge

MIKE LEE IT IS!

[euphemia]

We need a Muslim for diversity.

Unfortunately Islam is not compatible with the Constitution. I don't think a qualified judge could be found.

[EBounding]

I'm very excited to see a new set of Kings up on the SCOTUS.

[AuH20]

We can get the NY SAFE Act overturned if Trump delivers. There is no constitutional basis for an entire class of firearms to be prohibited.

https://buffalonews.com/2016/06/20/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-new-yorks-safe-act/


The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association also filed a separate court challenge to the SAFE Act and lost its case at the appeals court last October. But the gun group withdrew its appeal to the high court after the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia, said Tom King, the organization’s president.

He said his organization feared that a 4-4 tie in that case at the Supreme Court would, in effect, give the high court’s final approval for the SAFE Act provisions. Withholding the gun group’s case, though, would give it another chance to appeal to the Supreme Court at a later point in time.

[Influenza]

Unfortunately Islam is not compatible with the Constitution. I don't think a qualified judge could be found.
libertarianism is incompatible with chrisitianity, yet many of you "libertarian christians" exist for some reason

[Swordsmyth]

libertarianism is incompatible with chrisitianity, yet many of you "libertarian christians" exist for some reason

:rolleyes:

[kona]

Jones/Stone say Napolitano is Trump's first choice. Was Trump serious about having a judge serve 40-45 years? Napolitano is 68.

[phill4paul]

Trump Weighing Senator Mike Lee for Supreme Court Vacancy, Sources Say

President Donald Trump has asked advisers their opinions about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to three people familiar with the matter.

It remains early in the selection process for a nomination that will be a crucial part of Trump’s legacy, choosing a justice who is likely to serve on the court for decades and cement its ideological balance to the most conservative in generations.

Trump hasn’t settled on a favorite yet for the nomination, two of the people said. And even as the president mulls the 47-year-old Lee as a potential choice, the search for Kennedy’s successor remains wide open.

Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but the president has expressed concern about keeping his Senate seat in Republican hands, one person said. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.

He has been assured the seat will remain safely Republican, the person said. Trump complained that he was told the same about the Alabama Senate seat held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who wound up replaced by Democrat Doug Jones.

Trump is actively considering other candidates. Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is said to be another top contender.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-28/trump-is-said-to-weigh-senator-mike-lee-for-high-court-vacancy

[timosman]

From nice and sane people on DU

1012038875311738881

[Anti Globalist]

If we can get Mike Lee on the SCOTUS, it's most likely he'll be there for 40 years.

[ProBlue33]

Here the the thing about the Utah seat, are Mormons going to vote for a democrat in this political climate with Romney coming online as well ?

I hardly think so.

[Anti Federalist]

As much as I generally like Napolitano, no more Catholics or Jews on the SC until there are more protestants. The numbers are way out of whack compared with the people of this country.

Agreed.

If the communists in NYC can vote in somebody with a campaign slogan of vote for "One of Us", then by god so can the rest of us.

[francisco]

Agreed.

If the communists in NYC can vote in somebody with a campaign slogan of vote for "One of Us", then by god so can the rest of us.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1q2F_18cjg

[Swordsmyth]

Democrats' best hope of blocking President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court nomination just fizzled out.
On Thursday, Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona said he would not try to block Trump's nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who on Wednesday announced his retirement from the high court, in exchange for a vote on curtailing Trump's tariff powers.
The retiring senator and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told The Arizona Republic (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/06/28/jeff-flake-says-he-wont-stall-supreme-court-pick-over-tariff-dispute/740424002/) that he would evaluate Trump's eventual pick to replace Kennedy separately from his threat to block Trump's judicial nominees for district and circuit courts from moving out of the committee. Flake has already stalled some nominations by withholding his support on the committee so as to pressure Republicans to vote on Trump's controversial tariffs, which Flake and many other Republicans staunchly oppose.
"My goal here is not to block judges," Flake said. "My goal is to get a vote on tariffs, and I have all the leverage I need with circuit court nominees."


He added: "I certainly wasn't anticipating a Supreme Court vacancy, but it's unaffected."
Flake could unilaterally block any judicial nominee from advancing beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee by voting with the Democrats in opposition. If Flake joined the Democrats, and the Democrats were unanimously opposed to Trump's nominee, the vote would be 10 to 11, assuming all other Republicans voted in favor of Trump's choice. The Judiciary Committee does not have any Democrats who look as if they may jump ship and vote with Republicans on Trump's nominee.
With Flake now seeming to take that option off the table, Republicans would hold an 11 to 10 advantage. Flake told The Arizona Republic he would make a determination on voting for Trump's nominee after reviewing the pick.

Democrats had focused on Flake as their best hope to stall Trump's Supreme Court pick. As they're in the minority party, Democrats do not have any tools to unilaterally block a Trump nominee, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last year eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court picks.

More at: http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-flake-wont-hold-up-trump-supreme-court-justice-kennedy-2018-6

[Weston White]

Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS and FTW!!! W00t W00t W00t! lolchopperz! ROFLOMG!

[Weston White]

On the real, hows about Napolitano or Gowdy?

[Swordsmyth]

On the real, hows about Napolitano or Gowdy?

Mike Lee and his brother Thomas are on the official list, they would be better.

[spudea]

how are these people incapable of rational thought?


https://youtu.be/FKiD5Zd3FxU

[nikcers]

Mike Lee and his brother Thomas are on the official list, they would be better.

They would be better than the nutters the establishment is probably wanting to nominate but not better- Judge Napolitano has more understanding of the bill of rights, he is a voice for people who have none.

[William Tell]

Don Willett's speech on the Constitution, starts 11:50. Seems pretty solid on states rights, liberty, and checks and balances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4X4DgVTik&t=710s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4X4DgVTik

[Swordsmyth]

They would be better than the nutters the establishment is probably wanting to nominate but not better- Judge Napolitano has more understanding of the bill of rights, he is a voice for people who have none.
He is corrupt whether you believe it or not and he is too old, he would be replaced with someone much worse than the Lee brothers too soon.

[timosman]

how are these people incapable of rational thought?

Not a job requirement for a long time.

[nikcers]

He is corrupt whether you believe it or not and he is too old, he would be replaced with someone much worse than the Lee brothers too soon.
Don't get me wrong, I think they would be awesome, I just hope if they do get picked that whoever takes over for their old job is half as good as they are. You don't even know that he would be replaced by someone theoretically worse, he could be replaced by someone even better, you don't know what is going to happen in the future so that is a scarecrow argument.

[dannno]

a scarecrow argument.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2NtsrUWEHnSnu/giphy.gif

[Swordsmyth]

Don't get me wrong, I think they would be awesome, I just hope if they do get picked that whoever takes over for their old job is half as good as they are. You don't even know that he would be replaced by someone theoretically worse, he could be replaced by someone even better, you don't know what is going to happen in the future so that is a scarecrow argument.
It is a fluke that Trump won, it is a fluke that he picked Gorsuch and is considering the Lees, the odds that we will keep getting presidents who will keep selecting such good judges are extremely bad, we need to lock up the seats for as long as possible.

[nikcers]

It is a fluke that Trump won, it is a fluke that he picked Gorsuch and is considering the Lees, the odds that we will keep getting presidents who will keep selecting such good judges are extremely bad, we need to lock up the seats for as long as possible.

That's some deep state sounding shit, be careful when looking at the abyss it might look back at you.

[Swordsmyth]

That's some deep state sounding $#@!, be careful when looking at the abyss it might look back at you.

:confused:
The longer we can lock up the seats with Constitutionalists the better, the deepstate wants to put in bad judges and keep them for as long as possible, constantly switching between good and bad judges isn't a good idea, especially since most of them will be bad.

[nikcers]

:confused:
The longer we can lock up the seats with Constitutionalists the better, the deepstate wants to put in bad judges and keep them for as long as possible, constantly switching between good and bad judges isn't a good idea, especially since most of them will be bad.

I agree the left wants to put people into positions of power in the government and have them there forever. I think people would be better off living under the laws they make us live under.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree the left wants to put people into positions of power in the government and have them there forever. I think people would be better off living under the laws they make us live under.
I think the people are better off with Constitutionalists who will make us live under less laws, too many freaks are willing to live under horrible laws that they want to impose on the rest of us.

[specsaregood]

:confused:
The longer we can lock up the seats with Constitutionalists the better, the deepstate wants to put in bad judges and keep them for as long as possible, constantly switching between good and bad judges isn't a good idea, especially since most of them will be bad.

One must always remember when dealing with anarchists, that they actually want this country to collapse. There really is no point in arguing with them how to make govt better, because they want it to get worse until it dies.

[Swordsmyth]

One must always remember when dealing with anarchists, that they actually want this country to collapse. There really is no point in arguing with them how to make govt better, because they want it to get worse until it dies.
Sometimes I like to annoy the pig.

[devil21]

:confused:
The longer we can lock up the seats with Constitutionalists the better, the deepstate wants to put in bad judges and keep them for as long as possible, constantly switching between good and bad judges isn't a good idea, especially since most of them will be bad.

Let me know when Trump actually appoints a Constitutionalist. So far he's 0 for 1.

[Swordsmyth]

Let me know when Trump actually appoints a Constitutionalist. So far he's 0 for 1.

Gorsuch.
1 for 1.

[dannno]

Let me know when Trump actually appoints a Constitutionalist. So far he's 0 for 1.

I don't know if you saw the other day, when the Supreme Court knocked down the public sector union's right to forcibly take money from public sector employees like teachers which then gets used to fund the Democratic Party, but that is a really big deal.. and it wouldn't have happened if Hillary had won.

[Swordsmyth]

Don Willett's speech on the Constitution, starts 11:50. Seems pretty solid on states rights, liberty, and checks and balances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4X4DgVTik&t=710s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4X4DgVTik

He sounds like a great pick.

[nikcers]

I think the people are better off with Constitutionalists who will make us live under less laws, too many freaks are willing to live under horrible laws that they want to impose on the rest of us.
Sometimes fucked up shit is constitutional though, even the founded fathers that wrote the constitution did some fucked up shit, so they didn't think any one person should be given that much power. You're right, more years does equal more power. That also locks down a larger amount of theoretically corruptible power.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know if you saw the other day, when the Supreme Court knocked down the public sector union's right to forcibly take money from public sector employees like teachers which then gets used to fund the Democratic Party, but that is a really big deal.. and it wouldn't have happened if Hillary had won.
And his dissent on the 4th amendment ruling was because he wanted to go farther in protecting our rights and his vote wasn't needed for a majority.

[Swordsmyth]

Sometimes $#@!ed up $#@! is constitutional though, even the founded fathers that wrote the constitution did some $#@!ed up $#@!, so they didn't think any one person should be given that much power. You're right, more years does equal more power. That also locks down a larger amount of theoretically corruptible power.
Anything Constitutional and bad needs an amendment to fix, right now the Constitution is the best thing available and unimaginably better than where we are.

[nikcers]

Anything Constitutional and bad needs an amendment to fix, right now the Constitution is the best thing available and unimaginably better than where we are.

This is what you don't understand, you can't write a better set of laws to fix the problem. This ideological problem is systemic and has nothing to do with words on paper, it has everything to do with zero accountability. They blame these decisions on the political parties and the presidents party that nominates the judge and we can't have any real political discussions because of the hyper partisanship and fake news.

[Swordsmyth]

This is what you don't understand, you can't write a better set of laws to fix the problem. This ideological problem is systemic and has nothing to do with words on paper, it has everything to do with zero accountability. They blame these decisions on the political parties and the presidents party that nominates the judge and we can't have any real political discussions because of the hyper partisanship and fake news.
The only way to fix it is to put Constitutionalists on the bench who will hold people accountable.

[ProBlue33]

Here is a very interesting leading top 5 Trump is considering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She has seven kids, a mother and a woman, lets see the Dems try and stop that politically.

[Swordsmyth]

Here is a very interesting leading top 5 Trump is considering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She has seven kids, a mother and a woman, lets see the Dems try and stop that politically.

It is kind of hard to find information on her but she is said to be an originalist and she is an advocate for reducing deference to precedent. (which is good since there is so much bad precedent.)

[euphemia]

Barrett is a southern girl all the way.

Allison Eid is married to an Egyptian American whose parents immigrated here in 1957. Among his credentials he is able to practice Navajo Nation law. Power couple for sure.

Amul Thapar was born in Michigan but was on the bench in Kentucky before his latest appointment to the Sixh Circuit.

Whoever Trump nominates is going to be hard to fight. I like that he is is moving outside Ivy Leaguers. The connections of this list are very interesting.

[RJB]

Here is a very interesting leading top 5 Trump is considering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She has seven kids, a mother and a woman, lets see the Dems try and stop that politically.

Progressivs like firsts. In this case she would be the first attractive woman on the Supreme Court! Do you think we can sell them on that?

[Swordsmyth]

Trump also said he won't ask his nominees beforehand how they might vote on overturning Roe v. Wade. "They're all saying don't do that...but I'm putting conservative people on." He added that he's proud of his pick of Neil Gorsuch, and he'll be "putting someone like that on."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-29/trump-says-he-working-phase-2-tax-plan

:D

[euphemia]

Progressivs like firsts.

No kidding. Announcement set for July 9. Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth to follow.

[Jan2017]

I really wish that was the case, but we'll take your righteous fury as a consolation prize.

1012042853135126530

LOL . . . Bette Midler weighs in on politics again - after calling for more attacks on GOP Sen. Rand Paul this spring

https://s26.postimg.cc/rw5kqmcix/bettethewitch.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[devil21]

Gorsuch.
1 for 1.


I don't know if you saw the other day, when the Supreme Court knocked down the public sector union's right to forcibly take money from public sector employees like teachers which then gets used to fund the Democratic Party, but that is a really big deal.. and it wouldn't have happened if Hillary had won.

Yeah, he's all Constitutionalist, including his support for Gitmo, torture, the Military Commissions Act as part of Bush's DOJ, prepping Gonzalez for testimony about NSA spying, helping Lindsay Graham draft legislation that supported indefinite detention outside of federal court due process, among other obviously Constitutionalist positions.

In reality, he's a Jesuit trained globalist that does what he's told.

eta: good article that sums up what Gorsuch is really about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-bush-era.html


The Bush administration, which was running a torture program for terrorism suspects in overseas C.I.A. “black site” prisons, opposed Mr. McCain’s efforts. At the same time, Judge Gorsuch was working with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, to include an amendment cutting off Guantánamo detainees’ access to the courts, which the administration supported. Both the torture ban and the court-stripping components made it into the final bill, setting up the internal debate about whether to have Mr. Bush issue a signing statement, an official document laying out a president’s understanding of a bill as he signs it into law.

Judge Gorsuch argued for a signing statement for several reasons, including that such a statement would help advance the view that the court-stripping measure applied to existing lawsuits and not just to future ones — a view the Supreme Court later rejected — and that it could set the stage for interpreting the torture ban in a limited way.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, he's all Constitutionalist, including his support for Gitmo, torture, the Military Commissions Act as part of Bush's DOJ, prepping Gonzalez for testimony about NSA spying, helping Lindsay Graham draft legislation that supported indefinite detention outside of federal court due process, among other obviously Constitutionalist positions.

In reality, he's a Jesuit trained globalist that does what he's told.

eta: good article that sums up what Gorsuch is really about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-bush-era.html

We won't be able to turn things around all at once and few individuals are perfect.
He may also have been cooperating with those in power until he could turn on them, that appears to be what Trump did.

[devil21]

We won't be able to turn things around all at once and few individuals are perfect.
He may also have been cooperating with those in power until he could turn on them, that appears to be what Trump did.

I sure you're being paid well for your 12 hour posting shifts.

[Swordsmyth]

I sure you're being paid well for your 12 hour posting shifts.

I wish, but alas it is a hobby I squeeze in between other things.

[Jan2017]

Here is a very interesting leading top 5 Trump is considering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She has seven kids, a mother and a woman, lets see the Dems try and stop that politically.

Note however, that Senator DiFi had already voted against her Circuit Court appointment, though expect the lib Senators
like her to block anyone. So, Trump may as well just go full throttle fiscal conservative constitutionalist for this appointment, imho.

Oh, and all the better too if also a Catholic.
LOL to see Sen. DiFi squirm some more while looking really like a total arse of a US Senator.

https://s26.postimg.cc/dlxuwmnrt/idiot03a.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


On May 8, 2017, President Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

During Barrett's Senate confirmation hearing on September 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Cathoilic faith would influence her decision-making on the court.

Feinstein stated "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's a concern".

Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins, who said, "It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this [Catholic faith] might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom 'dogma lives loudly'–which is a condition we call faith."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

[devil21]

I wish, but alas it is a hobby I squeeze in between other things.

Weird hobby you have. Posting MSM drivel non stop for 10-12 a day.

[ProBlue33]

Somebody else in the running.....

https://www.myajc.com/rf/image_medium/Pub/p9/MyAJC/2018/04/10/Images/newsEngin.21731135_britt-grant.jpg

Her name is Britt Grant, she is the youngest at just 40 and arguable the prettiest, she has 3 kids and her husband is in the CIA.

Her age and looks could sway Trump.

[RJB]

Somebody else in the running.....

https://www.myajc.com/rf/image_medium/Pub/p9/MyAJC/2018/04/10/Images/newsEngin.21731135_britt-grant.jpg

Her name is Britt Grant, she is the youngest at just 40 and arguable the prettiest, she has 3 kids and her husband is in the CIA.

Her age and looks could sway Trump.

4chan should start a movement to nominate the first pretty woman for SCOTUS, with that being the only qualification. You know, diversity and shit.

[angelatc]

Her age and looks could sway Trump.

What a shitty thing to say. Oh, that's right - you're a liberal. Carry on.

[ProBlue33]

What a $#@!ty thing to say. Oh, that's right - you're a liberal. Carry on.

We should just do an even trade Judge Britt for Gingsburg, and then put one of the Lee's in, that works for me, how about you?

:p:D

[Jan2017]

Her name is Britt Grant, she is the youngest at just 40 and arguable the prettiest, she has 3 kids and her husband is in the CIA.

Her age and looks could sway Trump.

btw, yes, I also am going to second the notion that age should be a criteria for this life long appointment.
Justice Neil Gorsuch is 50.

Dems are going to reject anyone so Trump really should find the hardest of hardline conservative libertarians - man or woman -
who writes clear good opinions - and if young - can be a voice on the nation's highest Court for a long, long time.

Rosemary Collyer, now Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, has written some good stuff - electronic surveillance related.
War may be more cyberwarfare than bullets, and she has been on the frontlines so to speak.

https://s26.postimg.cc/mac9vgsll/Rosemary_Mayers_Collyer.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Her age (72) and looks probably won't go far with that player President we got. Carry on.

[Ender]

I sure you're being paid well for your 12 hour posting shifts.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again. ;)

[Jan2017]

Susan Collins, Pivotal Moderate, Says ‘Hostility’ to Roe Would Sway Her Vote

July 1, 2018
WASHINGTON — Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican whose vote could prove decisive in filling the Supreme Court’s vacant seat,
said on Sunday that she would not vote for a nominee who showed “hostility” toward Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision
establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

“A candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate
an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have,” Ms. Collins said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In another interview on Sunday, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the senator said such a decision “would mean to me their judicial philosophy
did not include a respect for established decisions, established law.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court-nominee-abortion.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

[Swordsmyth]

Somebody else in the running.....

https://www.myajc.com/rf/image_medium/Pub/p9/MyAJC/2018/04/10/Images/newsEngin.21731135_britt-grant.jpg

Her name is Britt Grant, she is the youngest at just 40 and arguable the prettiest, she has 3 kids and her husband is in the CIA.

Her age and looks could sway Trump.

I don't like the CIA connection but this lefty site's opposition makes a pretty good case for her:

https://civilrights.org/oppose-confirmation-britt-grant-u-s-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit/

[Jan2017]

I don't like the CIA connection but this lefty site's opposition makes a pretty good case for her:

https://civilrights.org/oppose-confirmation-britt-grant-u-s-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit/

"After the Supreme Court granted certiorari, Ms. Grant worked on another brief that attacked the DAPA/DACA program.
Her brief argued that “DAPA will impose significant education, healthcare, and law-enforcement costs on plaintiffs because
it will cause additional aliens to remain in the country and consume these costly services.”

[EBounding]

1013912703943864320

[Swordsmyth]

1013912703943864320

RBG next
Q

[Anti-Neocon]

We won't be able to turn things around all at once and few individuals are perfect.
He may also have been cooperating with those in power until he could turn on them, that appears to be what Trump did.
Did your account get hacked by dannno/Russians?

[Swordsmyth]

Did your account get hacked by dannno/Russians?
:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again. ;)

covered it for ya. ;) :cool:

[euphemia]

expect the lib Senators like her to block anyone

Senator Dinosaur might have forgotten that's how we got Kennedy. Remember Robert Bork?

[Jan2017]

Senator Dinosaur might have forgotten that's how we got Kennedy. Remember Robert Bork?

Robert Bork was a constitutional genius - appointed by Reagan. The Court would have gone in a different direction had he been confirmed.
Stupid partisan politics.

[Jan2017]

Stupid partisan politics . . .

. . . are definitely upon us for this SCOTUS confirmation - without even knowing who the choice is. Very sad for Dems.

Full Cardin: ‘We’ll use every tool in our disposal’ to fight Supreme Court pick

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) says the Democrats must use "every opportunity they can" to block a possible Trump SCOTUS pick.

[VIDEO] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-cardin-we-ll-use-every-tool-in-our-disposal-to-fight-supreme-court-pick-1268814403521

[CCTelander]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again. ;)


Covered.

[Swordsmyth]

Both the White House and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have confirmed the Republican lawmaker was one of four candidates interviewed by President Trump on Monday to fill the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court vacated by retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Shortly after Kennedy announced last Wednesday that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, Trump said he would be choosing the Reagan appointee’s replacement from a list of 25 candidates the White House released last November. Trump said he would announce his decision on his nominee next Monday.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and his brother, Utah Supreme Court Justice Thomas Lee, both have made Trump’s list to replace Kennedy in Washington.


As senator, Lee could ostensibly vote for himself during the confirmation hearing if Trump nominates him – something he has not ruled out.
“My understanding is that that is what the Senate rules allow and you’re still a senator until you’re no longer a senator,” Lee told Fox News last week. “You’re still a senator at the moment you’re being considered for something like that.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee has an 11-10 breakdown between Republicans and Democrats. Thus, if all Democrats stuck together, Lee would have to vote for himself for his potential nomination to be referred “favorably” to the floor by the committee.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/03/sen-mike-lee-confirms-trump-interviewed-him-for-supreme-court-post.html

[Anti Globalist]

T-minus 6 days till Trump announces his nominee.

[Swordsmyth]

When the White House interviewed Judge Raymond Kethledge as a potential successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, Vice President Mike Pence asked him “If not you, who?” Rather than demur or give faint praise of a lesser candidate to improve his own chances, Kethledge responded: “Mr. Vice President, that’s the easiest question you’ve asked me all day. The answer is Neil Gorsuch.” Kethledge then explained why—uninterrupted—for four minutes.

Now the search is on to find a new justice in the mold of Gorsuch, and Scalia before him. Among the many outstanding candidates, one stands out: the one who so highly recommended Gorsuch the last time around. With Kethledge, the president has the chance to nominate Gorsuch’s ideological twin, his intellectual peer, his real-life fishing buddy, and his close personal friend. In short, President Trump has the chance to nominate “Gorsuch 2.0,” as prominent conservatives have referred to Kethledge in recent days.

In judicial philosophy, the two men are on the same page. Kethledge—like Gorsuch—is a committed originalist who interprets the Constitution according to what its words meant when We the People ratified them. As a result of their shared philosophies, they are both staunch defenders of religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the separation of powers in light of concerns related to the administrative state.

Like Gorsuch, Kethledge is a committed textualist, consistently using linguistic tools such as dictionaries, syntax, and common usage to determine the plain meaning of statutes. Also like Gorsuch, Kethledge rejects the use of legislative history to countermand the plain meaning of a statute.

More at: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/05/nominated-supreme-court-ray-kethledge-twin-neil-gorsuch/


Does anyone here know much about him?

[Root]

The potential for humorous liberal outrage if Lee votes himself SCOTUS is Y-U-G-E :toady:

[Swordsmyth]

Sen. Ted Cruz was in the middle of a campaign stop on Thursday afternoon, walking through a local factory here where workers build custom truck trailers and parts, when an aide suddenly approached with his iPhone.
Vice President Mike Pence (https://www.yahoo.com/news/topics/mike-pence) was on the line, and for about 15 minutes, Cruz, the outspoken tea party conservative and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ducked into a partially shaded alcove seeking shelter from the oppressive Texas heat. And Pence talked to Cruz about an issue that may ultimately consume every bit of political oxygen in coming months: President Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/topics/president-trump)’s looming decision on a nominee to be the next Supreme Court justice (https://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-war-trumps-next-supreme-court-nominee-194527327.html).

Cruz, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Texas, said he had spoken to the president several times on the issue of the Supreme Court — most recently in a 30-minute conversation over the weekend. The junior senator from Texas has thrown his endorsement to Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a fellow conservative and close friend who was confirmed last week to be on Trump’s shortlist and has been interviewed for the job.


But on Thursday, NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-narrows-supreme-court-short-list-top-3-contenders-emerge-n888981?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np) reported that Trump had narrowed his choices down to three: federal appeals court Judges Brett Kavanaugh (https://www.yahoo.com/news/appellate-judge-d-c-circuit-seen-early-favorite-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist-203121934.html), Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.yahoo.com/news/appellate-judge-d-c-circuit-seen-early-favorite-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist-203121934.html).

Pence’s call to Cruz came a couple of hours after the report, and while the Texas senator would not divulge their exact conversation, he indicated in an interview that he had again urged Trump to pick Lee, who once clerked for Justice Samuel Alito and served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Utah before running for Senate.


He pointed to former Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun — “the author of Roe v. Wade,” he said — as GOP picks who were later perceived as disasters by conservatives.
“In modern times, Republicans have messed up Supreme Court nominations over and over again. And inevitably when we mess up, when we go with a nominee that doesn’t have a proven record, that hasn’t been tested and hasn’t been through the fire — virtually 100 percent of the time when Republican presidents do that, the result is not good,” Cruz told Yahoo News.
While he said Trump had “good choices” on his list, he argued that Lee is better positioned because he has a paper trail and core views that aren’t a mystery to his Senate colleagues or the White House.
“He has proven for many years to be a strong, principled constitutionalist who won’t crumple under the pressure. And President Trump promised to nominate judges in the mold of [the late Justice Antonin] Scalia and [Justice Clarence] Thomas,” Cruz said. “Mike Lee is someone who, I am certain, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will look back and see a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas who hasn’t abandoned their fidelity to the Constitution.”

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-called-ted-cruz-talk-trumps-supreme-court-options-185107165.html

[William Tell]

Well said Ted Cruz, someone like Lee could mean actually overturning tyranny, hopefully Trump doesn't fall for the argument that a moderate record is needed for confirmation.

[William Tell]

Does anyone here know much about him?Nope looking him up. For what it's worth Wiki says
In July 2018, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post) endorsing Kethledge for the seat left vacant by the Justice Anthony Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy)'s retirement, declaring that "Kethledge has been faithful for more than a decade to the originalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalist) approach."[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kethledge#cite_note-14) However, an academic study published online earlier in the year that attempted to measure the "Scalia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia)-ness" of Trump's potential nominees could not find a single opinion where Kethledge had performed or even promoted originalism, and ranked Kethledge tied for last on the study's originalism metric, and ranked 14th of 20 overall in Scalia-ness.

[Jan2017]

Mike Pence called Ted Cruz to talk about Trump's Supreme Court options

uild custom truck trailers and parts, when an aide suddenly approached with his iPhone.
Pence talked to Cruz about an issue that may ultimately consume every bit of political oxygen in coming months: President Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/topics/president-trump)’s looming decision on a nominee to be the next Supreme Court justice (https://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-war-trumps-next-supreme-court-nominee-194527327.html).

Cruz, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Texas, said he had spoken to the president several times on the issue of the Supreme Court — most recently in a 30-minute conversation over the weekend. The junior senator from Texas has thrown his endorsement to Sen. Mike Lee of Utah,

Lyin' Ted consulted . . . another bad move by VP Dan Quayle Pence.

[jllundqu]

I've heard the Dark Horse that no one is talking about is Don Willett.... Texas Supreme Court Judge

[spudea]

I've heard the Dark Horse that no one is talking about is Don Willett.... Texas Supreme Court Judge

Was he part of the recent interviews? I don't think he was. The announcement is Monday, surely the decision has already been made.

[jllundqu]

I would like to see Lee up there.... I just don't want Kavanaugh..... fuck that guy

[Swordsmyth]

In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.
Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.


“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393345831/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0393345831&linkId=b75f67e8bcfbd8da10a92eced67b8dab) He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”
Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.
Hardiman, 52, joined the federal bench after being nominated by George W. Bush in 2003. Three years later, he was confirmed to the appeals court. In 2017, he was one of two finalists to fill the seat that had belonged to Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump ultimately chose Neil M. Gorsuch.
But now Hardiman — who, according to Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-pick-234202), has been endorsed by his colleague on the 3rd Circuit — and the president’s sister — Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is said to again be among a handful of judges who have made Trump’s short*list, a possibility that has alarmed gun-control advocates.


While others on Trump’s shortlist probably also have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, Hardiman has had the opportunity to express his in two key opinions over the past seven years.
In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”
Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.
Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”
Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, Drake v. Filko (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca3-12-01150/pdf/USCOURTS-ca3-12-01150-0.pdf). “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”
In 2016, the 3rd Circuit decided a case involving two men challenging a federal law that prevented them from owning guns, because of their criminal convictions. One was a 41-year-old man convicted of misdemeanor “corruption of a minor” for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee, and the other had pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license, also a misdemeanor.
The court, in an 8-to-7 decision, said that the two men should be allowed to possess a gun, because their offenses “were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights.” Hardiman wrote a concurring opinion (http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144549p.pdf) putting forth an even more expansive view of gun rights. He wrote that in cases involving people convicted of nonviolent crimes, the burden should not fall on citizens to prove that they deserve their Second Amendment rights but on the government to prove they do not, said Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Neily, one of the attorneys who represented Dick Heller in his namesake Supreme Court case, said that Hardiman has been more inclined to protect the Second Amendment than most of his colleagues on the federal bench.
“He does not see it as a second-class right,” Neily said. “His track record suggests a greater willingness than most judges to be involved in what some people see as part of the culture wars.”

More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-candidate-thomas-hardiman-an-extremist-on-gun-rights/2018/07/05/22726b70-8057-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.03e3a9a556ff


Do we know anything else about him?

[Swordsmyth]

In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.
Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.


“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393345831/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0393345831&linkId=b75f67e8bcfbd8da10a92eced67b8dab) He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”
Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.
Hardiman, 52, joined the federal bench after being nominated by George W. Bush in 2003. Three years later, he was confirmed to the appeals court. In 2017, he was one of two finalists to fill the seat that had belonged to Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump ultimately chose Neil M. Gorsuch.
But now Hardiman — who, according to Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-pick-234202), has been endorsed by his colleague on the 3rd Circuit — and the president’s sister — Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is said to again be among a handful of judges who have made Trump’s short*list, a possibility that has alarmed gun-control advocates.


While others on Trump’s shortlist probably also have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, Hardiman has had the opportunity to express his in two key opinions over the past seven years.
In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”
Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.
Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”
Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, Drake v. Filko (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca3-12-01150/pdf/USCOURTS-ca3-12-01150-0.pdf). “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”
In 2016, the 3rd Circuit decided a case involving two men challenging a federal law that prevented them from owning guns, because of their criminal convictions. One was a 41-year-old man convicted of misdemeanor “corruption of a minor” for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee, and the other had pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license, also a misdemeanor.
The court, in an 8-to-7 decision, said that the two men should be allowed to possess a gun, because their offenses “were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights.” Hardiman wrote a concurring opinion (http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144549p.pdf) putting forth an even more expansive view of gun rights. He wrote that in cases involving people convicted of nonviolent crimes, the burden should not fall on citizens to prove that they deserve their Second Amendment rights but on the government to prove they do not, said Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Neily, one of the attorneys who represented Dick Heller in his namesake Supreme Court case, said that Hardiman has been more inclined to protect the Second Amendment than most of his colleagues on the federal bench.
“He does not see it as a second-class right,” Neily said. “His track record suggests a greater willingness than most judges to be involved in what some people see as part of the culture wars.”

More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-candidate-thomas-hardiman-an-extremist-on-gun-rights/2018/07/05/22726b70-8057-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.03e3a9a556ff


Do we know anything else about him?

Further research indicates he is mediocre at best on other issues like the 1st Amendment.

[phill4paul]

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

I suppose that is a good start. However, I am of the belief that either a person is ready to enter society as a reformed criminal that should be granted all the rights of an citizen or should remain incarcerated.

[Anti-Neocon]

It's hard to find someone "swampier" than Kavanaugh but none of these three seem like liberty lovers. Mike Lee would be a far superior choice.

[Anti Globalist]

Watch Trump announce Mike Lee on Monday.

[charrob]

Yeah, he [Gorsuch] is all Constitutionalist, including his support for Gitmo, torture, the Military Commissions Act as part of Bush's DOJ, prepping Gonzalez for testimony about NSA spying, helping Lindsay Graham draft legislation that supported indefinite detention outside of federal court due process, among other obviously Constitutionalist positions.

In reality, he's a Jesuit trained globalist that does what he's told.

eta: good article that sums up what Gorsuch is really about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-bush-era.html

Thanks for sharing this. +rep.

I also question this whole idea that Gorsuch would have voted for the 4th Amendment with the liberals on the recent cellphone data case against unwarranted police searches and seizures, had Roberts not voted with the liberals.

Yes I understand the argument that he wants to join property rights with privacy rights in 4th Amendment cases. But in the end, he voted against the 4th Amendment in this particular case.

This was an extremely important case for our digital privacy rights in the future:



In general, though, the authorities must now seek a warrant for cell tower location information and, the logic of the decision suggests, other kinds of digital data that provide a detailed look at a person’s private life.

The decision thus has implications for all kinds of personal information held by third parties, including email and text messages, internet searches, and bank and credit card records.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html


I think it's highly probable that if Roberts had not sided with the liberals for the 4th Amendment in this case, our digital privacy rights against unwarranted searches and seizures would be destroyed: and we could thank Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy for this.

[charrob]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again. ;)

Covered. :)

[charrob]

When the White House interviewed Judge Raymond Kethledge as a potential successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, Vice President Mike Pence asked him “If not you, who?” Rather than demur or give faint praise of a lesser candidate to improve his own chances, Kethledge responded: “Mr. Vice President, that’s the easiest question you’ve asked me all day. The answer is Neil Gorsuch.” Kethledge then explained why—uninterrupted—for four minutes.

Now the search is on to find a new justice in the mold of Gorsuch, and Scalia before him. Among the many outstanding candidates, one stands out: the one who so highly recommended Gorsuch the last time around. With Kethledge, the president has the chance to nominate Gorsuch’s ideological twin, his intellectual peer, his real-life fishing buddy, and his close personal friend. In short, President Trump has the chance to nominate “Gorsuch 2.0,” as prominent conservatives have referred to Kethledge in recent days.

In judicial philosophy, the two men are on the same page. Kethledge—like Gorsuch—is a committed originalist who interprets the Constitution according to what its words meant when We the People ratified them. As a result of their shared philosophies, they are both staunch defenders of religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the separation of powers in light of concerns related to the administrative state.

Like Gorsuch, Kethledge is a committed textualist, consistently using linguistic tools such as dictionaries, syntax, and common usage to determine the plain meaning of statutes. Also like Gorsuch, Kethledge rejects the use of legislative history to countermand the plain meaning of a statute.

More at: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/05/nominated-supreme-court-ray-kethledge-twin-neil-gorsuch/


Does anyone here know much about him?


Apparently he agrees with the other so-called "Conservatives" on the Court who repeatedly vote against the 4th Amendment:



A top finalist to the fill the Kennedy seat has taken that to heart. Judge Raymond Kethledge co-authored a book last year called "Lead Yourself First: Inspiring Leadership Through Solitude."

In it the 51-year-old said, "A leader who silences the din not only around her mind, but inside it, can then hear the delicate voice of intuition, which may have already made connections that her conscious mind has not. And a leader who is aware of his weaknesses can guard against them."

Kethlege says he enjoys working in his northern Michigan cabin -- by himself and without an Internet connection.

Nevertheless, Kethledge has maintained strong ties to the conservative legal movement. He was a Kennedy law clerk in 1997 and later worked as chief counsel for then Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich.

After starting his own small law firm, President Bush tapped him a for a seat on the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where-- unlike other high-profile nominees-- Kethledge faced little attention, and little opposition.

On the bench, his conservative record has been solid, but absent any big blockbuster cases. He has ruled to restrict unions collecting dues from its public sector members; ruled in favor of the Tea Party, which claimed political bias by the IRS; and ruled the police do not need a warrant to search a suspect's cell phone history records. The Supreme Court overturned that decision two weeks ago.

Off the bench, Kethledge enjoys hunting and fishing. His supporters compare him favorably to Justice Neil Gorsuch, also an avid outdoorsman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/06/trumps-supreme-court-candidates-meet-potential-nominees.html

[devil21]

Thanks for sharing this. +rep.

I also question this whole idea that Gorsuch would have voted for the 4th Amendment with the liberals on the recent cellphone data case against unwarranted police searches and seizures, had Roberts not voted with the liberals.

Yes I understand the argument that he wants to join property rights with privacy rights in 4th Amendment cases. But in the end, he voted against the 4th Amendment in this particular case.

This was an extremely important case for our digital privacy rights in the future:



I think it's highly probable that if Roberts had not sided with the liberals for the 4th Amendment in this case, our digital privacy rights against unwarranted searches and seizures would be destroyed: and we could thank Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy for this.

Gorsuch' strings are pulled primarily by a Colorado billionaire named Philip Anschutz. Anschutz has, for all intents and purposes, placed Gorsuch into his current role by personally lobbying ($$$$) for Gorsuch' ascension through the federal court system.

[H_H]

a Colorado billionaire named Philip Anschutz. Anschutz has, for all intents and purposes, placed Gorsuch into his current role
... and he is a great and good man. Philip Anschutz is a good man. I support Philip Anschutz. Oh, and: Moar movies, Phil!


https://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/amazing-grace-movie-poster.jpg

[devil21]

... and he is a great and good man. Philip Anschutz is a good man. I support Philip Anschutz. Oh, and: Moar movies, Phil!


https://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/amazing-grace-movie-poster.jpg

I think we're pretty well full up on Jesuit "crusaders". They're a huge reason why we've been wrecking the middle east for 50 years.

[dannno]

... and he is a great and good man. Philip Anschutz is a good man. I support Philip Anschutz. Oh, and: Moar movies, Phil!


https://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/amazing-grace-movie-poster.jpg


I prefer Saving Grace


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGnmVAD2fQ

[Anti Globalist]

I'll be surprised if Trumps presidency ends and Ginsburg still hasn't been replaced.

[Danke]

I'll be surprised if Trumps presidency ends and Ginsburg still hasn't been replaced.


6038

[Brian4Liberty]

Found this prediction poll. https://fantasyjustice.lexpredict.com/stats

Top 5 right now Barrett, Kavanaugh, Willett, Thapar, Lee.

Who pushed Kavanaugh?

[Pauls' Revere]

From the names on the old list of 25 I like Don Willett and Mike Lee.

Should make this a poll and we see who wins! :)

[Anti Globalist]

I'll be surprised if Trumps presidency ends and Ginsburg still hasn't been replaced.
This aged very well now didn't it?