Justice Kennedy retires!!!!

Clicker wrote:Perhaps this is what is needed to get Ginsburg to fade into the night too!!

Dr. Evil wrote:I would be incredibly surprised if, given the fact that Trump will be found guilty of collusion, and what happened with Merrick Garland, we don't see at least Neil Gorsuch impeached once democrats are firmly in control again. Probably Kennedy's replacement as well. Just a small pittance for Trump committing treason...

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Perhaps this is what is needed to get Ginsburg to fade into the night too!!

My top replacement pick...Mike Lee

Liberalism is dead watch for the Fascism to rise.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I would be incredibly surprised if, given the fact that Trump will be found guilty of collusion, and what happened with Merrick Garland, we don't see at least Neil Gorsuch impeached once democrats are firmly in control again. Probably Kennedy's replacement as well. Just a small pittance for Trump committing treason...

On what grounds?  

Dr. Evil wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I would be incredibly surprised if, given the fact that Trump will be found guilty of collusion, and what happened with Merrick Garland, we don't see at least Neil Gorsuch impeached once democrats are firmly in control again. Probably Kennedy's replacement as well. Just a small pittance for Trump committing treason...

On what grounds?  

Oh...gee.... I don't know?? The fact that he colluded with a foreign government to help him get elected!?! He's not a legitimate president. Treason has consequences. Not to mention the stolen supreme court pick. If I were Gorsuch, I  would be keeping my employment options open at this time.

If not, I believe this creates an interesting situation. The citizens of this country have been voting more liberal on initiated measures, while voting more conservative on filling spots. It's an interesting conundrum I've been seeing for a while. I think people have gotten into a spot where they feel comfortable voting republican, because there have been safety nets in place like im's and a fairly balanced SCOTUS. We've started seeing the effects of this though. Here in our own state we've seen legislators toss im's aside like rag dolls. And now this. What will happen when there's no safety net anymore? With a conservative court in place, what will voters think when all sorts of basic rights are taken away? You're going to see a real gut check among voters to decide who they really support.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I would be incredibly surprised if, given the fact that Trump will be found guilty of collusion, and what happened with Merrick Garland, we don't see at least Neil Gorsuch impeached once democrats are firmly in control again. Probably Kennedy's replacement as well. Just a small pittance for Trump committing treason...

On what grounds?  

Oh...gee.... I don't know?? The fact that he colluded with a foreign government to help him get elected!?! He's not a legitimate president. Treason has consequences. Not to mention the stolen supreme court pick. If I were Gorsuch, I  would be keeping my employment options open at this time.

If not, I believe this creates an interesting situation. The citizens of this country have been voting more liberal on initiated measures, while voting more conservative on filling spots. It's an interesting conundrum I've been seeing for a while. I think people have gotten into a spot where they feel comfortable voting republican, because there have been safety nets in place like im's and a fairly balanced SCOTUS. We've started seeing the effects of this though. Here in our own state we've seen legislators toss im's aside like rag dolls. And now this. What will happen when there's no safety net anymore? With a conservative court in place, what will voters think when all sorts of basic rights are taken away? You're going to see a real gut check among voters to decide who they really support.

You need proof, not simply hatred to actually try a Prez.  When you come with the proof, that'll hold up in court, then you might see a serious interest in doing something.  How is being appointed by Trump an impeachable offense?  What crime did the appointee do? Grasping at straws to gin up a faux reason to be upset is becoming a cottage industry in the loon camp these days.  As the onion is peeled less and less evidence is emerging that can impeach anyone and more is coming out that can sink the Dems chances of ever getting in power again till mid century.  Yo should be careful what you wish for.

Clicker wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Perhaps this is what is needed to get Ginsburg to fade into the night too!!

My top replacement pick...Mike Lee

Liberalism is dead watch for the Fascism to rise.

Lee is OK by me. We need to put judges on the court who will serve for 30+ ears like the Dems do.   I'm not so sure the Reps will all go for a Libertarian.  The list of candidates is log and impressive.   The buggaboo will be the possibility of the Senate not getting a quorum.  There seems to be question about the ability of the VPs presence to constitute a quorum.  The rules can be read and interpreted both ways.

Dr. Evil wrote:I'm also guessing that Putin has some pretty good dirt on Trump. Probably something to do with underage prostitutes. I bet Putin worked that idiot over good...  
     

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Perhaps this is what is needed to get Ginsburg to fade into the night too!!

My top replacement pick...Mike Lee

Liberalism is dead watch for the Fascism to rise.

Lee is OK by me. We need to put judges on the court who will serve for 30+ ears like the Dems do.   I'm not so sure the Reps will all go for a Libertarian.  The list of candidates is log and impressive.   The buggaboo will be the possibility of the Senate not getting a quorum.  There seems to be question about the ability of the VPs presence to constitute a quorum.  The rules can be read and interpreted both ways.

Hey Clicker, watch the video in this link and tell me what you think about Lee's comment regarding "precedent".  It is near the end in response to the question asked by Brian Kilmeade.  Does that give you any reason for concern?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/28/sen-mike-lee-and-brother-thomas-lee-both-being-considered-to-replace-kennedy-on-supreme-court.html

Clicker wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Perhaps this is what is needed to get Ginsburg to fade into the night too!!

My top replacement pick...Mike Lee

Liberalism is dead watch for the Fascism to rise.

Lee is OK by me. We need to put judges on the court who will serve for 30+ ears like the Dems do.   I'm not so sure the Reps will all go for a Libertarian.  The list of candidates is log and impressive.   The buggaboo will be the possibility of the Senate not getting a quorum.  There seems to be question about the ability of the VPs presence to constitute a quorum.  The rules can be read and interpreted both ways.

Hey Clicker, watch the video in this link and tell me what you think about Lee's comment regarding "precedent".  It is near the end in response to the question asked by Brian Kilmeade.  Does that give you any reason for concern?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/28/sen-mike-lee-and-brother-thomas-lee-both-being-considered-to-replace-kennedy-on-supreme-court.html

Looks as tho he'll follow precedent but leaves the door open to not do so in unspecified cases
I should restate the position that getting a Libertarian thru the process could get rougher than a simple constitutionalist or originalist.  My beef with Roe isn't over the subject matter, it's about the way it was reached.  The ruling is sitting on sand and should have never been done and should have been repealed years ago.  It was the first time I became aware of the libs intent to reshape the country using, IMO, misinterpretations of the constitution.  The same thing is in the process for the second amendment.   Surrounding it with state laws that hidebind the second amendment to the  point where it becomes moot.

Jammer wrote:
I'm not sure how to take the comment.  I believe the US Constitution is a contract with the states and citizens on how our federal government will restrain itself and not become tyrannical.  If either side of the ideological spectrum does not issue opinions based on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, in my opinion have not only violated their oath but also wrought an unjust outcome on Americans.  And in my opinion once again, the only thing worse than that is somebody who would let an illegitimate ruling stand based on "precedent" of a wrongful interpretation of the the Constitution.

Clicker wrote:Looks like many of the Conservative pundits are skeptical about either Lees chances of being confirmed. As one whose objection to Roe is on the premise that it was made using false grounds in the beginning, I'd like to see it reversed.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/29/mike-lee-probably-cant-get-confirmed-scotus/