I was so sure there would be no retirement announcement today. I think the Justices cling to the bench until Death calls for a vacancy. But no. Kennedy retires, and he retires in time for Trump to nominate someone who can be confirmed before the next election works its will on the Senate.
I was away from the blog — driving 100+ miles — but that did give me the opportunity to listen to the cable news channels (via satellite radio) far more than I'd ever put up with them if I were home and in a position to read and write. TV news is such as waste of time. Kennedy was the swing vote, and lawyers fine-tuned their arguments for him. I heard that over and over, with virtually no critical opinion about whether it was bad to have years of key Supreme Court decisions determined by the quirks of one human mind.
But that wasn't the main topic. The main topic — over and over again — was whether the Democratic Senators had any chance to delay the vote on the nominee until after the 2018 elections, which might give Democrats a majority in the Senate. I didn't hear anyone talking about whether a post-election vote on the nominee would help the Democratic Party win the Senate majority.
I think it would not. Voters tend to agree with the GOP's idea of what makes a good Justice — basically, judicial restraint. I don't think it will help Democrats in the elections to be saying give us the majority so we can block Trump's nominee (who will be a specific person, with great credentials, and an originalist, nonactivist judicial philosophy). They'll be better off if the vote has already happened and they can forefront other issues.
Some people may think it's so important to prevent Trump from nailing down a strong conservative majority on the Court, but Democrats would need to win the Senate majority to gain the power to thwart Trump's plan, and this issue hurts them. Anyway, that's something they can soothe themselves with if they fail to delay the confirmation vote, which they almost certainly will.
But maybe you're distracted by the question why did Althouse drive 100+ miles? I'm doing something that will disgust some of you! Actually, I'm doing 3 things, and nearly everyone will be disgusted by at least one of them.
June 27, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
264 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 264 of 264It is interesting that Kavanaugh wasn't on Trump's original list and now he is supposedly the front-runner?
They have to have RBG wrapped in bubble wrap with an emergency doc standing by at this point.
I kept pointing out to my left-leaning friends that the ONLY surprise about this entire story is that it's not RGB. At least one retirement was wholly predictable.
@PJ: Let us hope that this reward-lapse is long enough to discourage the rat from continuing to push the lever.
Elections matter!
"I'm a little suspicious of seafood in Tucson.
I have been here for two weeks. From a culinary perpective, the Mexican food is terrific, as good as Ashland Avenue in Chicago. The pizza is good, but not quite to Chicago (thin crust) standards. (NYC is still the leader). Indian restaurants have not disappointed. Some of the New Age type restaurants are OK, but nothing special. I will endeavor to learn more.
I have yet to see any restaurants emphasizing fish, outside if Red Lobster which is awful. Once I get the Weber going, I will likely grill my own. Outside of the two coasts, most fish is frozen. That is not a problem if you know how to cook it. I don't think Tucson chefs have a lot of experience there.
You bought Meade a $149 mountain bike. The 100 miles came in because there isn't a Walmart within 100 miles of Madison. On the way back you stopped at Culvers and ate a triple burger and large cheese curds. Meade was wearing shorts the whole time.
"Some of the New Age type restaurants are OK, but nothing special. I will endeavor to learn more."
We go to Wildflower on Oracle, south of Ina, all the time. Let me know and we could have lunch.
So you are driving 100 miles to see "Inside Llewyn Davis" to determine: "Why the cat(s)? and you really hate felines.
"We go to Wildflower on Oracle, south of Ina, all the time. Let me know and we could have lunch.
Sounds good. We close on Friday and finally get out of the B&B.
Hi Althouse,
I don't believe you appreciate how thoroughly Kennedy screwed the Democrats with this
Let's consider Tester, Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill and Donnelly
All five are up for re-election in November. All five are in States where 55% - 70% of voters will be supporting Trump's nominee
If they vote against the nominee, they've told the voters of their State "I don't represent you, i represent the Democrat Party."
Result? They lose
If they vote FOR the nominee, they've told the Democrat Party base to FOAD. The base will return the favor, they'll lose 10%+ of their voters, and that's just too much to lose when you're in races as tight as they'll be in.
I now believe all five will lose in November (Janus doesn't help, them), no matter what they do,
If Kennedy had retired last year, the base might have had time to get over the betrayal. OTOH, Masterpiece Cakeshop would have handed down a "no, you can't force Christians to make cakes for a same sex marriage" ruling, and all the other conservative wins would have stayed, and the Left would have been really pissed about that, and screamed it was all the Dem Senators fault, so maybe not.
But there's no way they'll get over it in two - three months. And with a few grants on some gun rights cases, and a bunch of universal injunctions quashed, the pain will be rubbing the base raw right up to the election.
It's going to be glorious
GregP, you nailed it. Kennedy also showed the Republican world it’s time to become Neo-Trumpers. The worm has turned.
Death calls for a vacancy
would be a great title for a mystery.
Willett would be a hoot just to watch the left lose their collective shiznit.
Trump must balance gaining a conservative Supreme Court justice and losing one on a key circuit. The DC circuit, which is the second most important court in the country after the Supreme Court has sent more Justices to the Supreme Court than any other; John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Can we afford to lose Kavanaugh or does it matter as the court is currently stacked with a 7-4 progressive advantage with Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
So Kavanaugh may indeed be on the short list. Utah Supreme Justice Thomas Lee is another solid pick...but Trump being Trump, he will take the opportunity to bring it to the left, maybe with Federico Moreno?
Forcing the Dems to trash a Hispanic judge before the mid-terms would be a Trumpian move, and we will need more popcorn, much more popcorn.
Looks like the lefties dont like the New Rules.
They're not going to like the new Crazy Maxine rules on decorum, either. Not when they're applied evenhandedly.
So Kavanaugh may indeed be on the short list. Utah Supreme Justice Thomas Lee is another solid pick...but Trump being Trump, he will take the opportunity to bring it to the left, maybe with Federico Moreno?
It depends. The nastier and more abusive Democratic politicians and late night comedians get, the closer the nominee will be to Gorsuch or Thomas. Which is great, from where I'm sitting, since they can't help themselves.
Great analysis, Greg P! Yep, they're screwed and it's wonderful.
BJM said...
I was assured that there would be no math.
Open seat or not, the one guaranteed thing is that the NUMBER ONE issue for the Dems for the election (or any election) is ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION. If the Dems had a 9-0 majority on the Court, they would run on how "choice" is hanging by a thread.
D2 said "- did you get a chance to drive Bob Dylan to Iowa, but Bob said you have to make up some lie to Meade, cause this was supposed to be the day you were going to the new coffeeshop, and Bob wanted to hear what lie you were going to use, so he could incorporate it into some 14 minute song, and that was just too good a chance to pass up.
Thread winner.
Today was auspicous but...
Great, kid. Don't get cocky.
—George Lucas
annnd...
Noli pati a scelestis opprimi.
No one seems to be asking 'why', at least on this post.
Perhaps it is a bit of projection, but it is very possible that this is outrage over the negative votes on the travel ban.
I can only imagine it:
Kennedy holds the relevant statute o presidential power. He looks askance at Sotomayor reading her daily ESL lessons and instead proffers it to Ruth (Bathory) Ginsberg. "Could you read this out loud please.
RBG hisses from her Postrapedic throne. "No...We need the wonderful virginal Mexican Children blood. Do you know how hard it is to find virgins in D.C.? I might need to bath in a tub of Republican Swill."
Kennedy looks askance at Breyer, bathing, filing and kissing the talons of Her Lichdom. "The Mistress gets what the Mistress wants."
He looks to Kagan, hoping for a bit of professionalism, shame and basic reading ability. She looks a bit chagrined and waves her 'Decision Score Card' "Hey, don't look at me! It's 'Liberal decision, Conservative Decision, Liberal Decision.' Them's the rules! Besides, do you know how few cocktail parties I'd be invited to if I ruled against Muslims for Trump? You think they have cocktail parties in Poughkeepsie?"
Forced by Circumstances, he looks at 'Salamanca' Sotomayor. She sneers at him and says in a gravelly voice, "La Familia es Toda! No to La Migre!"
But this is just mildly speculative...
I think that Conservative SC justices should be on the look out for wildly swerving cars, food that tastes funny and Thomas in particular will be set up for 'The Cosby Treatment'.
"My dear Mr. President" Oh God I hope he falls down the stairs. You don't suck up to a loathsome figure like Trump.
Were you out picketing against men who wear shorts again, Professor Althouse?
There is no way that Trump can be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. He is under suspicion of colluding with a foreign power to steal his election. Nothing can happen until we learn the results of the Mueller investigation. It may well be that the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to nullify the results of the 2016 election because of illegal foreign influence, and there is an obvious conflict of interest if two of the judges who rule on that issue owe their positions to the results of that election.
It may well be that the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to nullify the results of the 2016 election
Where the fuck did anyone get the idea that the Supreme Court could over turn a presidential election for any reason?
I mean seriously..where did anyone get that idea? And if you did believe that someone had the power to over turn an election...would you really it want that power held by nine unelected judges serving for life?
I mean seriously..where did anyone get that idea? And if you did believe that someone had the power to over turn an election
They’re the people who believe that George Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of five members of the Supreme Court.
Whoever Trump nominates for SCOTUS will be subjected to enormous scrutiny. Background, especially sexual history, any warts at all will be searched out. So Trump needs to be sure his nominee is fully vetted to survive this. Who will Trump get to do the vetting, the FBI? The same FBI who did the Clinton investigation?
I never saw Kennedy as the swing vote others did. He was too predictable once you understood his constitutional reasoning, as opposed to evaluating his opinions through the lens of politics or policy. Kennedy’s implicit embrace of substantive due process, especially in his privacy related decisions (where he played the role of Platonic Guardian), was wrong-headed to be sure, but it was a function of his reliably excessive devotion to the Bill of Rights generally (which was no doubt better than being reliably dismissive). He viewed the constitution as embodying a skepticism toward government so pronounced that it accommodates vague unarticulated penumbral type liberties at the expense of plainly legitimate state police and regulatory powers, which is exactly where he failed the test of judicial restraint. I disagreed with his jurisprudence, but respected his apolitical consistency.
Ann doesn’t share intimacies with us (other than Meade rogering her in the bike tunnel recently). Expect her “three disgusting things” to be somehow political.
YoungHegelian said...
Actually, I'm doing 3 things, and nearly everyone will be disgusted by at least one of them.
You're having colonoscopy done while listening to "Dreams From My Father" read by Kathy Griffin?
6/27/18, 5:01 PM
I spit out my coffee!! THIS wins the thread!! haha!!
@FIDO said...
"No one seems to be asking 'why', at least on this post."
He turns 82 this summer.
It's been reported that he's been privately saying for years that he was just waiting for a Republican President and Senate to retire.
What's the mystery?
@GregP...
+1.
Quite an indictment for the Left. He seems a squishy Republican so Republicans win by not being as horrifying as the Left.
Ol Giddy must be seething!
"- did you get a chance to drive Bob Dylan to Iowa, but Bob said you have to make up some lie to Meade, cause this was supposed to be the day you were going to the new coffeeshop, and Bob wanted to hear what lie you were going to use, so he could incorporate it into some 14 minute song, and that was just too good a chance to pass up.
Thread winner.
I agree. I don’t see how this is not the thread winner.
Something I would be disgusted by but perhaps our host would not: spectating a Hillary event.
I don’t read enough of your readers comments to speculate what might disgust them. But here goes:
1. Going to Canada for cheap prescription drugs
2. Recording a podcast with Dahlia Lithwick
3. Fundraising performance of The Vagina Monologues- proceeds to sex ed for people who misuse the word vagina.
Trumpit said...
"My dear Mr. President" Oh God I hope he falls down the stairs. "
Like your mother did when you were a baby and she dropped you on your head?
I think she did three different things and believes that each of them would disgust some segment of the audience, kind of a three-legged stool of cruel neutrality.
Trumpit said...
"My dear Mr. President" "Oh God I hope he falls down the stairs. You don't suck up to a loathsome figure like Trump."
Racist and violent.
What the hell is it with you people and violence?
You should thank god every day that people to the right of you have so much forbearance.
It isn't going to go on for ever.
The list judges is absent origins of the corridors of self identified power. NY, DC, Boston, California. Is that by design? Speaks loudly to me.
Giant Peach offers a new tack.
If Mueller starts leaking and issuing indictments, speeding up his process. It would be evidence that his probe is nothing but political. He was waiting for close to the election, do as much damage at the voting polls as possible. But if a nominee is presented by Monday and Grassley schedules committee hearings for a Senate vote by...mid September, Mueller would be forced to attempt his take down of the President. Not by indictment,but by pure public opinion. Forcing is polling down into the low thirties and giving the Dems political cover for their opposition. Opposition they have already laid out, absent an actual judge to object to. Proof the Dems have no standards of any kind. But President Trump has always been right, Mueller has never been anything but a political hatchet job.
Not all of the boroughs of NYC are represented on the Court, especially since Scalia died, so there's that to consider.
Racist and violent.
What the hell is it with you people and violence?
It's just trumpit. He's crazy.
Not by indictment,but by pure public opinion.
But this WAS the plan from the outset. (see def. Watergate, v.)
If only for trolling value, it would be worth expanding the short list in order to make room for Miguel Estrada.
I would say you've driven to Chicago to see Hamilton, and you're staying at a Trump Hotel.
Greg P
...sweet delicious schadenfreude
Why would anyone get oysters (and any other shellfish) in Tuscon or Texas or Ohio or Michigan? The farther they had to travel to get to you, the more risky the consumption. I love oysters, pick my own in the waters off Cape Cod. Served raw is best. Cherrystones too.
-sw
I'm laughing at the left's "Hillary lost so now we are going to flood the zone with chicks" hyper-narrative.
Whatever. We know any female on the "right" is not really female, and they should be destroyed and told to leave the restaurant.
Forbidden!
Blogger Unknown said...
Why would anyone get oysters (and any other shellfish) in Tuscon or Texas or Ohio or Michigan?
Ask the Wright Brothers.
I don't order raw oysters in Tucson (I don't know the other place).
The best I ever had were in a little oyster shack at the end of a long pier in Biloxi MS. With beer.
Nominee doesn’t have to be a judge, so why isn’t Althouse on the list? The Dylan references alone would be worth it.
"Actually, I'm doing 3 things, and nearly everyone will be disgusted by at least one of them."
My guesses:
1) Talking to President Trump at his invitation-only (mostly for donors) "Roundtable" in Milwaukee.
2) Wearing a jacket reading, "I really don't care, do u?"
3) Campaigning for Judge Sykes to be Trump's nominee.
There's no law that a SCOTUS Justice even has to have a law degree.
Unknown said...
Why would anyone get oysters (and any other shellfish) in Tuscon or Texas or Ohio or Michigan?
Uh,because it's a bit expensive to fly to a coast every time you want to eat oysters? It's easier to have the oysters flown to you.
I can get pretty good oysters here in Wisconsin. No, not quite as good as on the coasts, but well, that's rather a first world problem, isn't it.
Mac McConnell said...There's no law that a SCOTUS Justice even has to have a law degree.
It's a government thing. When I flew in the air force, I didn't have to have a pilots licence.
As a matter of fact, the only licence I had was a civilian single engine airplane, with instrument. But I was flying multi-engine heavy jets.
After I retired I was going to get an Airline Transport Pilots license, but I was too burned-out by then, and decided to dust off my Electrical Engineering degree.
No license there either. They hired you based solely on an interview.
Maybe someone already made this point. I have a VBS to go to, so I didn't have time to read all the comments, but the early ones seem to confuse Disgusting with being disgusted. Althouse uses words carefully most of the time. When she says something that would disgust you, I read it to mean you would be disgusted, as in "you disgust me" as oppose to "eww, that's disgusting." I wonder if Althouse as attending a gay marriage ceremony rather than, say going to consume a poop shake to improve gut microbes.
I have to ask:
Are Trumpit and TheGiantPeach parody accounts?
Because they just scream "no one can be that insane, these are bad right wing troll parody accounts" to me
If you want a clue at Trump's short list, see which of the 25 is scheduled for a FULL doctor's examination and a genetic search for longevity.
I expect (a) Kennedy to get confirmed, and that (b) there may be another vacancy or even two before 2020. Therefore, it would still be very important to me that the Republicans keep the Senate, especially because their map is much worse in 2020 and 2022.
There is no way that Trump can be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.
In case you missed it, he already did. Neil Gorsuch.
Now, watch. He's going to do it again.
Are Trumpit and TheGiantPeach parody accounts?
Some people think Trumpit is. I don't. I think she's really batshit crazy as the posts are consistently themed.
GiantPeach is one of Inga's sockpuppets. Think about it. A giant peach = pink pussy hat
Michael Kay Effective end of July I think.
Can non-citizen be on scotus?
Thanks Jim
Post a Comment