So Trump has it easily within his power to make his prediction dream come true. Wyrick could even go 50 years! How strange to think that we could know today who should be making who knows what decisions half a century from now!
Did that graphic help you contemplate the issue of a President's taking extreme advantage the concept of lifetime terms for Supreme Court Justices? Do you remember when USA Today was new, and its use of graphics was key to its branding?
The design was unique in its incorporation of colorized graphics and photographs... The paper's overall content style and elevated use of graphics – the result of the concept developed by Neuharth, in contribution with staff graphics designers George Rorick, Sam Ward, Suzy Parker, John Sherlock and Web Bryant – was derided by critics, who referred to it as "McPaper" or "television you can wrap fish in," because it opted to incorporate more concise, shorter-form nuggets of information akin to the style of television news rather than in-depth stories in many of its sections like traditional newspapers, which many in the newspaper industry considered to be a dumbing down of the news.Gary Trudeau's 1988 book "We're Eating More Beets" was part of the derision:
पोस्ट्स
२१२ टिप्पण्या:
212 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Might as well enjoy Trump rubbing it in, since the good times won't last forever.
But I am opposed to lifetime appointments and to oracular deciders like Kennedy.
Ginsburg could have retired during Obama's presidency.
We all should be thankful that she was so selfish and stubborn.
While I'm very happy about all this... for the record, I'm a big fan of hard term limits on Supreme Court Justices. Maybe 10 years? We're already living in a gerontocracy as it is.
Not that I expect it will ever happen.
It could happen.
Would require an Constitutional Amendment though. I ain't gonna hold my breath. These days we can't get 70% of people to agree on anything.
Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
Ginsberg and Breyer will not live long enough.
Too bad for the Democrats.
I was a huge Trudeau fan as a youngster - I couldn't imagine how anyone could be the PM of Canada and be a talented cartoonist. Shut up, it was before the internet.
Anyway, when we last moved I looked through some of the books (including the one pictured) and was really disappointed. The NatLamp and Addams books held up, as did Pogo and others.
-XC
Thomas was appointed at age 43, so could easily see 40 years himself.
As long as the Democrats refuse to enforce any immigration laws, no Democrat will be elected President.
Meanwhile, Republican Presidents will continue to nominate all the Supreme Court justices.
Ginsburg could have retired during Obama's presidency.
And Kennedy should have retired when he was dying. It was the special election of Brown that caused ObamaCare to be such a disasterous piece of legislation. The main goal of the Democrats for 50 years was ruined because one man refused to retire for his own selfish reasons.
Hillary should have stepped aside when she was the target of an FBI investigation of her mishandling classified information. The Dems dreams of solidifying Obama's gains down the drain.
Now RBG's death could tilt the court in a conservative direction for a generation.
Nonapod suggests: I'm a big fan of hard term limits on Supreme Court Justices.
Or at least be required to take a battery of cognitive tests. RBG isn't the first Justice to have questionable capacities.
I'm certain Seth Rich was murdered by the corruption machine that exists in the deep state (Strozk/Clinton)
I'm somewhat curious about the death of Scalia. His death was a little too convenient for an upcoming Hillary Hitler Dictatorship.
Nonapod said...
While I'm very happy about all this... for the record, I'm a big fan of hard term limits on Supreme Court Justices. Maybe 10 years? We're already living in a gerontocracy as it is.
I'd go with 18 year terms, with terms ending staggered across odd years. That way each President gets to pick two during any presidential term. And change the confirmation process such that it takes 2/3 of the Senate to reject, only 1/3 to confirm.
While we are at it, let each Justice name their own replacement (in advance) to finish out their term in case they die, or to take their place in cases where they must recuse themselves. They get to pick from any existing or retired Circuit Court judge.
Double the size of the Court and most of the problems go away. A single president unlikely to make a major change to ideology of Court.
"We're eating more BEATS?" Speak for yourself!
Except for the president who gets to do the doubling. Won’t happen soon.
Must we conclude from Scalia pal RBG’s non-retirement that she acted aout of selfishness and stubbornness? Isn’t there evidence she regarded a Trump win as simply unthinkable, and isn’t there evidence she had a lot of company?
Sort of rules out Brett Kavanaugh, who had been thought to be the front runner but who is already 53.
Term limits for USSC should be coupled to term limits for Congress and Senate
Most important than either, though, is term limits for working in the bureaucracy. Without that, the whole exercise is pointless.
There's a crazy old coot, petty as they come, who lives in Searchlight, Nevada, who should be receiving my thank you card any day now. (I guess the book "Nice Names to Give to Your Town" wasn't in the library when Nevada was a mere territory.)
Just remember if we had listened to Chuck, Groerge Will and the rest of the Never Trumpers we would never have any "conservatives" as judges.
Typical politician - they think the club they are in will last 40 years.
I don't think the United States, in its current form, will exist after 2025. Luckily I will be long dead by then.
You can see the writing on the wall, as both the CIA, and DOJ have taken a Y in the road, and no longer serve the three branches. They are their own branch.
With everyone having a smart phone, you don't need a national identity card to track and control people. That fear of having a government ID is so quaint now.
The Biden rule is a good rule.
Ginsberg would have had to retire before the last year of the Obama presidency.
The Biden rule makes it harder for justices to game the system.
Mocturtle said re: justices be required to take a battery of cognitive tests.
I can't agree with this MORE. Having several family members currently in the mid and late 80's who are showing signs of dementia and are in full blown dementia, the idea of any of them being in such a position of power is more than just frightening. I don't want that person to drive a car much less make permanent and complicated decisions that affect everyone else!!!!
The decline doesn't happen to everyone. However, when it does happen the decline is often slow but insidious. At first we just make excuses for the sufferer. "He is just forgetful. Always had been"
When the personality begins to change and the mental filter that tells you how to act is eroded you pretend it isn't happening. It creeps up on you until one day you HAVE to face the reality.
It is incredibly sad to see your Father, Mother, Aunt, Uncle decay and diminish. Especially when it is someone who had always had such a bright mind and to see that bright intellect being erased. To see that person lost in the fog and unable to cope with daily living is heartbreaking.
What would be even MORE heartbreaking is to allow that person to continue to make decisions, not just for themselves but for the entire COUNTRY.
Cognitive tests should be mandatory. For everyone's safety including the person suffering from diminished capacity.
Ginsburg could have retired during Obama's presidency.
We all should be thankful that she was so selfish and stubborn.
instead a term limits, here's my solution: Mandatory Retirement Age
In the military, it doesn't matter how good you are; once you're old: you're OUT
exception; Congressional waiver, which gives you a few more years.
Our country is being ran by people Older Than My Mother !!
That's Not Good! If your job (Senator? Judge?) is So Stressless that someone in their 80's can do it; Your job isn't really your job: it's your assistant's job
Not sure Why Senators should be treated different from Generals
Roy Jacobsen said...Most important than either, though, is term limits for working in the bureaucracy. Without that, the whole exercise is pointless.
Sure, if we're living in our wildest dreams, I'd be all for term limits on Congress, the Senate, and (non military) federal employees too. And abolishing public sector unions.
But ain't none of that gonna happen.
Thomas has been a stellar judge. And, he must have a thick skin, taking all that abuse from the Left. I guess he derives his joy from going on RV trips with his wife, and Dallas Cowboy football games.
It'd be great to find a young judicial heir to Thomas.
I think Kavanaugh (age 53) is it. He has a written track record, suggesting he won't stray like Souter did.
No matter who Trump nominates, he or she will be attacked as the devil incarnate.
Remember the USAToday commercials featuring Chicago mayor Jane Byrne singing, "I read it every day?" She got dumped because she couldn't get the roads plowed. Now they use the plows to clear the drifts of spent brass on the south side.
I can't remember the last time I looked at Doonesbury. I don't think I looked once during the Obama years.
”Blogger steve uhr said...”Double the size of the Court and most of the problems go away. A single president unlikely to make a major change to ideology of Court.”
Yeah, I’ve been reading that the current Dem strategy is to pack the court first chance they get.
It's another weird statement by Trump. Yes, we do understand that a Supreme Court justice, nominated when she or he is about 40, could serve another 40 years. Middle school civics students understand that.
Does it help a President, and his nominee, to actually say that? At a moment of particularly high attention; the day of a justice's retirement announcement?
It is what the Left is saying; that this nominee will be around long after Trump is gone. It is the kind of thing I expect Democrats to be saying this campaign season; Trump is nominating people who will serve for 40 years; he must be stopped. And so it is terribly important to elect Democrats.
I get the impression that Trump likes saying things that he feels make him sound smart and well informed (no matter how banally obvious), and he likes talking about how much power he has.
btw, since this subject has come up this way, in the context of longevity, I'll make this prediction. Brett Kavanaugh (age 53) gets the pick for Kennedy's seat. Not because he will serve 45 years -- he wouldn't -- but because the President's competent advisors at the Federalist Society will make it clear the Kavanaugh is the best pick.
And that Trump will nominate a woman -- Joan Larsen looks good to me as someone who is confirmable, attractively photogenic (always a big deal for Trump), Midwestern, is 49 and does not have the history of ideological abrasiveness as others on Trump's list -- if Ginsburg dies or is incapacitated. (She'll never resign as long as Trump is President.)
I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru. Amy Coney Barrett.
"She is the youngest of the five top choices, which is a mark in her favor given that the nominee will have life tenure and Trump will want one who will leave a lasting mark on the law.
Her educational history — she went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School — would add a little welcome diversity to a Supreme Court full of Yale and Harvard alumni. It’s not the most important consideration, but a little less insularity would be a good thing.
Barrett has also recently been through Senate confirmation to a federal appeals court. She won the support of all the Republicans and three Democrats (Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia). Some of those senators might rationalize a vote against her for the Supreme Court on the ground that her decisions on the appeals court have disappointed them, or that the high court has more power than the one they voted to put her on. But they will be hard-pressed to argue that she is an extremist given their own recent support."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-28/amy-coney-barrett-should-replace-kennedy-on-supreme-court
I don't think it will be Amy Coney Barrett, because she just was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals last year and was a law professor, not a judge, beforehand.
Your post immediately brought SC term limits to mind. But I have been predisposed to that idea for decades. More so than term limits for Congress which has its ups and downs. But an even better way than time limited appointments would be to keep judicial activism corraled. Not that I have a viable method to do that other than if a SC member shows signs of political partisanship or any other bias than strict interpretation of the constitution, take them out back and shoot them. They'd get the idea after a few missing justices. Oh yeah, and sacrifice 100 lawyers to accompany them on their journey to the afterlife. (No virgins though).
"I don't think it will be Amy Coney Barrett, because she just was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals last year and was a law professor, not a judge, beforehand."
Maybe, but it seems to me that Trump would find her appealing and he did add her to the list.
Yeah, I’ve been reading that the current Dem strategy is to pack the court first chance they get.
How did that work out for FDR ?
"it seems to me that Trump would find her appealing"
Trump slipped up the other day and referred to her as Stormy Barrett. Draw your own conclusions.
"She got dumped because she couldn't get the roads plowed. "
She was elected because Bilandic could not get the roads plowed.
She got dumped because the local MSM decided to go after her like crazy, 24/7. They thought she was a liberal.
Actually, she was a drunk.
Nonapod said:
Sure, if we're living in our wildest dreams, I'd be all for term limits on Congress, the Senate, and (non military) federal employees too. And abolishing public sector unions.
But ain't none of that gonna happen.
Well, I never expected the Berlin Wall to get knocked down with sledgehammers wielded by a bunch of ordinary people. I never expected that the USSR and it's satellite states to collapse.
Just because I can't see a path to accomplishing something doesn't mean it's impossible. YMMV.
pacwest at 10:43 AM
... if a SC member shows signs of political partisanship or any other bias than strict interpretation of the constitution, take them out back and shoot them. They'd get the idea after a few missing justices. Oh yeah, and sacrifice 100 lawyers to accompany them on their journey to the afterlife.
I know you were being sarcastic, but that really is not a bad idea.
It won't be a woman. There will be a woman after the Ginsburg croaks.
I'd prefer high court appointees to be salty constitutionalists, which is a coded way of saying older and wiser than the age group represented on that list. Lawn!
Not mentioned on this blog previously, the Senate race in Minnesota may be in play, with Dem Lt. Gov. Tina Smith recently appointed to fill the Franken vacancy having a primary race with Richard Painter (Bush ethics official), and a general election contest against a bright and attractive Republican State Senator Karin Housley.
Trump barely lost Minnesota by 1.5%, and the turnout will be much less in 2018.
Tina Smith may have a problem voting either way on the Supreme Court nominee. If Smith votes against, then she will alienate rural whites; if she votes for, then she will alienate her own extremists. Smith would have a greater problem if Trump nominates a woman.
Ben Bradlee said of USA Today, “If that’s a newspaper, then I’m in the wrong business.”
"Trump slipped up the other day and referred to her as Stormy Barrett. Draw your own conclusions."
Yeah, unlike our last president trump is a virile man.
If Trump's idea is that the justice will serve into his mid 80s, then my money is on Stras- he was just confirmed as an appeals court judge in the last couple of months, I think.
”How did that work out for FDR ?”
Those were more mature times.
Hell, the democrats just did it a few years ago.
"It won't be a woman. There will be a woman after the Ginsburg croaks."
We already have 3 liberal women justices, conservatives need their woman.
I guess the real question is whether the future Justices will continue to want to serve for decades after normal retirement age for the rest of us. Some of them may decide they want to stop and smell the roses, rather than work until ill health or death removes them from the bench.
I only want a judge who will protect us from the Hispanic mutants who kill each other by slashing with knives and machetes like the recent run of the mill murder in the Bronx by immigrants from shithole countries.
These are the people that the fresh faced Latina from Queens wants to import to change the demographics so the whites will die off and leave the US to the new "inclusive" majority.
This only makes the papers because it is particularly egregious but something more or less like this happens every day. I bet the Professor doesn't take one step outside of the heavily protected areas of Chicago that mostly has white people in it.
Nonapod said...
While I'm very happy about all this... for the record, I'm a big fan of hard term limits on Supreme Court Justices. Maybe 10 years? We're already living in a gerontocracy as it is.
Not that I expect it will ever happen.
One 18-year term. Rotate out the senior-most every two years. Each president could look forward to appointing two of them during a four-year term, barring a vacancy occurring due to incapacity or death.
Ginsburg likely would have retired had the Democrats held onto the Senate in 2014. She is probably kicking herself for not doing so in 2013, though. The same probably goes for Breyer.
I think there is a very good chance Thomas retires next year if the Republicans hold onto the Senate. Ginsburg's staff, no doubt, is looking into the very best taxidermists available.
And yes, that would make the Supreme Court an even bigger issue in every presidential election. Do you really want to re-elect that person and give them four in a row?
I think it would be a good thing if Trump made a point of not replacing justices with the same race and gender, as if there were 'women's seats' on the court and Thomas were occupying the 'black seat'. Replace Kennedy with a woman or a non-white or both, then Ginsburg with (e.g.) an Asian man, Thomas with whoever looks most qualified. Putting in a woman for a man and a black judge for someone who retires before Thomas will make it much easier (a) to get them confirmed, and (b) to put in a man for whichever woman retires next and a non-black for Thomas when he retires. Gender and race quotas for seats are disgusting even when merely implicit.
We're Eating More Beats is either an Althouse typo or a sly reference to Ginsberg and Kerouac via cannibalism that sailed loftily over my head. (Cannibals are universally disgusting, aren't they?)
Chuck said...Does it help a President, and his nominee, to actually say that? At a moment of particularly high attention; the day of a justice's retirement announcement?
It is what the Left is saying; that this nominee will be around long after Trump is gone. It is the kind of thing I expect Democrats to be saying this campaign season; Trump is nominating people who will serve for 40 years; he must be stopped. And so it is terribly important to elect Democrats.
--
Yeah..and if he didn't say it, Dems would be saying it anyway, framing it as a sneaky plot. Some of the communication style is controlling the narrative(s).
I listened to the Beetles when I was young...
There are precious few checks and balances on the power of the Supreme Court, and their role in our country has grown far beyond what the founders intended, or even what was considered possible a generation or two ago.
Congress and the states can amend the Constitution. That seems an awfully burdensome requirement to counter the will of a single judge in a 5-4 decision.
I'd propose that by a 2/3rds majority, The House of Representatives can set aside a verdict of the Court. That drastically reduces the power of a single "swing" justice, and insures that the Court cannot drastically change the law if they are completely out of touch with those the laws govern.
Of course, the California Supremes (who else?) found a way to declare a passed and ratifed constitutional amendment unconstitutional....
It's funny how the Dems have pigeon-holed themselves into Roe v Wade as the sine qua non for confirming any Justice.
You must affirm your allegiance to upholding Roe v. Wade, or we will vote against you.
Sure, there's other issues we like and don't like, but that one is the big enchilada.
Anything short of an a priori commitment, and you do not pass go.
I actually think repealing Roe v Wade, would greatly help the Democrat party. They would campaign in every state to legalize abortion and probably win in most of them (probably not the solid south, though).
The point is, that's democracy in action, and how the issue should have played out -- in the political trenches, not the courts.
Ginsburg likely would have retired had the Democrats held onto the Senate in 2014.
I don't think so. She's entirely ideological but she accepts the left's belief that left wing ideology isn't ideology. She also thinks she alone is holding back the dark night.
I think it will be a woman with a strong record. He will force the #MeToo Democrats and their masters in the DNC-Media complex to trash a woman 24/7 from the say she's announced until election day. It will be #waronwomen2 and last until we pick up 10 more seats in the midterms.
Are we going to hear a comparison to the 1,000-year Reich Dream of Herr Hitler?
Reich Dream: the new milk substitute for Fascist Vegans
If the machinations of people like Maxine Waters and Michael Moore do not kick us back into a new Dark Age life expectancy should increase, ergo why not Althouse for Associate Justice?
To Gordon Scott: absolutely wrong on Jane Byrne in Chicago. She got elected because the sitting Mayor could not remove snow Bilandic was his name...
Coming on the heels of the dining experiences of members of this administration, I would suggest conservative SCOTUS justices limit their dining choices. Or employ food tasters.
Interesting thought that Thomas, 70, might decide to retire next year to give Donald a chance to lengthen the years of DJT's influence. That would make great sense. Ruth Buzzy's kicking herself for not having done that in 2013; she was done in by typical Democrat arrogance that the Senate and the WH would be D-controlled for years.
Especially if the GOP picks up Senate seats come November. The new appointee would face a Gorsuch process as the Thomas seat wouldn't upset the balance. The Kennedy replacement will be a battle, but the real battle will be when Buzzy leaves.
What I always liked about the USA Today was that front-page stories were never continued onto page 22 or some such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beat_Farmers
Amy Coney Barrett
Mike Sylwester: Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
Ginsberg and Breyer will not live long enough.
Too bad for the Democrats.
Did you see Dennis Miller's tweet the other day? Something about how Ginsberg will still be going strong at the end of Trump's 1st term, and most likely his 2nd. Possibly even by the end of Pence's 1st term. Not sure about the end of Pence's 2nd term/beginning of Ivanka's 1st term.
Mike Sylwester said...
Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
Ginsberg and Breyer will not live long enough.
Too bad for the Democrats.
Republican voters wont make the same mistake we made electing Bush after Reagan.
Mike S,
Why do you think Mike Pence, or any sitting or former vp, would ever be a viable candidate?
Or even a satisfactory prez if he did get in somehow?
200 years of history shows that serving as vp is, or should be, a disqualification for the presidency.
Or perhaps you have some evidence to counter this?
John Henry
...and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
Very doubtful.
Speaking of Pence, he is president of the Senate. A lot of people think this post has no power.
Nobody thought senate party/majority leader had any power either. Lbj got it more or less as a booby prize in 1950 or so.
In a couple of years he had made it as powerful as the presidency.
Sarah Palin had some interesting ideas about being an activist senate president had she won in 08.
Most people dont realize that the vp is, constitutionally part of the legislative not the executive branch.
John Henry
They probably will start injecting RBG with whatever was keeping Hillary going.
200 years of history shows that serving as vp is, or should be, a disqualification for the presidency.
With possible exceptions for John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.
langford peel said...
I only want a judge who will protect us from the Hispanic mutants who kill each other by slashing with knives and machetes like the recent run of the mill murder in the Bronx by immigrants from shithole countries.
These are the people that the fresh faced Latina from Queens wants to import to change the demographics so the whites will die off and leave the US to the new "inclusive" majority.
This only makes the papers because it is particularly egregious but something more or less like this happens every day. I bet the Professor doesn't take one step outside of the heavily protected areas of Chicago that mostly has white people in it.
See how easy that was?
Also point out it is illegal immigrants doing this shit. They are animals and democrats and cuck republicans are solely responsible for them.
Legal immigrants have very low crime rates.
"They probably will start injecting RBG with whatever was keeping Hillary going."
Formaldehyde?
With possible exceptions for John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon
and George H. W. Bush
"Ginsburg could have retired during Obama's presidency.
"We all should be thankful that she was so selfish and stubborn."
Why? It wouldn't have changed anything. Just as they did when Scalia died, the Republicans refused to participate in confirming a replacement. That would have left two empty places unfilled for a year, rather than just one.
average life expectancy for a man in the US: 78.74 years. you can rule out the young guy. Trump's an optimist. that gives you a 20% better chance. how optimistic is Trump? I'd go with the old guy. Newsom it is.
"Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
"Ginsberg and Breyer will not live long enough.
"Too bad for the Democrats."
Unlikely. After eight years of one party in the White House, most Americans usually want to try the other guys for awhile.
>> It wouldn't have changed anything
Cookie, I think the point was that RBG could have retired when O won his second term. Not wait until 8 months before the election.
That would have extended O's impact on the court for 20 years at the expense of a few years of her own.
"As long as the Democrats refuse to enforce any immigration laws...."
Who says they haven't?
Comparatively, Trump has been a pussy on immigration.
"They probably will start injecting RBG with whatever was keeping Hillary going."
Formaldehyde?
Gin.
"Or at least be required to take a battery of cognitive tests. RBG isn't the first Justice to have questionable capacities."
mockturtle,
Great idea! At a minimum, they should pass the standard test used to assess the difference between assisted living and nursing home candidates. Anyone who went through the process with their parents knows what I mean. And I'm not sure RBG could pass.
It is a marvelous Constitution, except for the provision for a Vice-President.
And the 17th Amendment is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It should be repealed.
Just as they did when Scalia died, the Republicans refused to participate in confirming a replacement. That would have left two empty places unfilled for a year, rather than just one.
Sotomayor was confirmed in 2009, Kagan in 2010. RBG could have retired then, but noooo.
"Cookie, I think the point was that RBG could have retired when O won his second term. Not wait until 8 months before the election."
And my point is there is no guarantee the Republicans would have confirmed any nominee put forth by Obama. They didn't when Scalia died; they could very well have been just as obstructionist if Ginsburg had retired. They might have held out for however long it took...years!
Blogger Nonapod said...
Would require an Constitutional Amendment though. I ain't gonna hold my breath. These days we can't get 70% of people to agree on anything.
70% believe this:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/06/majority-now-believe-media-reports-news-they-know-is-fake-false-or-purposely-misleading/
Robert Cook said...
Unlikely. After eight years of one party in the White House, most Americans usually want to try the other guys for awhile.
The other "guys" are deranged animals.
The National German Socialist Workers Party ran with the same tactics the democrat party and it's left wing are using now.
They never actually won an election by the way.
>> They might have held out for however long it took...years!
No, I don't think that's at all likely. R's confirmed her as part of a 96-3 vote.
And 65-35 for both of O's other appointments.
Adams is outside the 200 years I mentioned
Tr got in via death, got elected once, did not run for reelection. Might, or might not, have lost in 08. I like tr but have doubts about his presidency. Probably satisfactory not much more.
Truman barely won in 48, would have lost badly in 52. Terrible president.
Nixon lost once, won twice got run out of town.
I would say Coolidge is an exception and he was smart enough to serve a single term.
John Henry
I would say Coolidge is an exception and he was smart enough to serve a single term.
So none of these was a True Scotsman.
We should go to fixed 18-year terms, one expiring every 2 years, so each Presidential term would get two nominations. The details, like getting from here to there, I'll leave to y'all.
"What I always liked about the USA Today was that front-page stories were never continued onto page 22 or some such."
So you liked that they turned the daily news into Reader's Digest Headline Services, and left out all the information necessary to give a news story deeper context and more information?!
Of course, with the big corporate owners demanding their news divisions turn a profit--which had never been the case when the news we were getting was actually sort-of informative and serious--all news today is dumbed down garbage, under-reported or simply taken from the wire services--given how many reporters have been downsized out of jobs, including international press corps--and is slanted toward the empire's point of view. (Which it largely always has been.)
@DBQ, I assumed Chardonnay. Isn’t that what Hillary’s been telling us she uses to keep going and going and going? (Yet she’s never quite gone, is she?)
And my point is there is no guarantee the Republicans would have confirmed any nominee put forth by Obama. They didn't when Scalia died; they could very well have been just as obstructionist if Ginsburg had retired. They might have held out for however long it took...years!
We get the point, it's just demonstrably wrong as Kagan and Sotomayor prove. McConnell was motivated on Scalia because an Obama appointment would change the court. A Ginsberg replacement would not.
I realize your habit of avoiding reality is necessary for you to maintain your economic fantasies but try to pay at least a little attention on other subjects.
There's an old saying that the only cure for Presidential Ambitions is embalming fluid, so that eliminates formaldehyde.
Trump, though, is unpredictable. best bet is a guy or gal not on the list. maybe his sister, if he's in a bad mood. hopefully the press will stop hassling him and/or it will stop upsetting him, and we'll get a nice, boring, conservative, originalist pick.
Ok tcrosse, I'll bite,
Do you think tr, truman, nixon, were good or effective presidents?
Do you think they were viewed as good or effective presidents at the time?
John Henry
Do you think tr, truman, nixon, were good or effective presidents?
By your standards, were any presidents good or effective ?
"We get the point, it's just demonstrably wrong as Kagan and Sotomayor prove. McConnell was motivated on Scalia because an Obama appointment would change the court. A Ginsberg replacement would not."
How do you know? Perhaps when Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed, the Republicans had not become as intractably insane and obstructionist as they had become by the time Scalia died. After all, it was early in Obama's first term, within the first two years. It's hard to pinpoint exactly when they turned. They might have decided--if Ginsburg had retired--"we've already confirmed two for Obama, we're not going for a third!"
And...are you suggesting the Republicans were willing to confirm Obama appointees to the Court only if it wouldn't change the court? Do you suggest they would have confirmed an Obama appointee to the court only if he or she were as conservative as Scalia?
BAG: "No matter who Trump nominates, he or she will be attacked as the devil incarnate."
It will be interesting to see how far LLR Chuck will be willing to contort himself in order to provide justification for the inevitable lunatic lefty attacks sure to be launched at any candidate on Trumps list.
Given the quality of these candidates Chuckie is going to need to work overtime to cover for Li'l Dickie Durbin and the other dem mental midgets.
Still, I am quite certain LLR Chuck is up to the task.
Perhaps he can even work some helpful content in to support Stabenow.
That would be a real LLR and "true conservative" "win-win"....
Robert Cook at 12:08 PM
Why? It wouldn't have changed anything. Just as they did when Scalia died, the Republicans refused to participate in confirming a replacement. That would have left two empty places unfilled for a year, rather than just one.
The Scalia vacancy could not be filled before the 2016 Presidential election because of the Biden Rule.
If Ginsberg had retired before the last year of Obama's presidency, then her vacancy could have been filled before the 2016 Presidential election.
The Biden Rule was an essential consideration in this situation.
When will Trump name his nominee?
"Reuters reports that President Trump may nominate a replacement for Justice Kennedy before July 10. That’s when Trump is scheduled to leave the U.S. for his trip to Europe. Reuters cites, “a White House official” as its source.
I think there’s a good chance that Trump will, indeed, select his nominee before he departs for Europe.
The goal should be to get a Justice confirmed by the beginning of October when the Supreme Court reconvenes. If Trump picks a nominee by July 10, the Senate should be able to confirm him or her by then, assuming no unexpected problems arise."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/a-supreme-court-nominee-by-july-10.php
The Collapse of the Never-Trump Conservatives
Maybe, Bill Krystol will run against Trump to pick his own judges.......
If we manage to upload a Supreme Court Justice's consciousness to a computer... how long is their term?
Make the SCOTUS have 25 year terms, and they have to write their own opinions.
"Do you suggest they would have confirmed an Obama appointee to the court only if he or she were as conservative as Scalia?"
-- Probably they would have been willing to ignore the Biden rule for such a gift.
"And my point is there is no guarantee the Republicans would have confirmed any nominee put forth by Obama."
-- Except for the times they did.
Perhaps when Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed, the Republicans had not become as intractably insane and obstructionist as they had become by the time Scalia died
According to you and even sane leftists they've always been intractably insane obstructionists. Can't you keep your own ideas straight?
It's a lot easier to remember the truth. Maybe if every word out of your mouth wasn't a lie you'd be able to remember what you said last week and not contradict yourself.
And...are you suggesting the Republicans were willing to confirm Obama appointees to the Court only if it wouldn't change the court?
They went to extraordinary measures because of the impact Obama appointing Scalia's replacement would have had. Reps wouldn't have voted to confirm an Obama appointment like Scalia because unicorns don't exist.
@Cook,
"And my point is there is no guarantee the Republicans would have confirmed any nominee put forth by Obama"
You err. The Dems controlled the Senate for the first 6 years of the Obama presidency, and the GOP did not filibuster Kagan or Sotomayor. Obama appointed over 300 federal judges, a record.
Harry Reid wanted even more judges, and employed the "nuclear" option to get rid of the filibuster for lower court judges. But, faceplant, in 2014, the Senate flipped to the GOP; so now McConnell was in charge, and basically slow-walked everything, including, most notably, Garland for Scotus.
Double faceplant - Hillary loses, and the rest is history.......
Tough titties, as my kids use to say.
"How did that work out for FDR ?"
-- He generally is in Top 10 best president lists, so... pretty well, all things told.
"Did that graphic help you contemplate the issue of a President's taking extreme advantage the concept of lifetime terms for Supreme Court Justices?"
Yes, and I can't help but consider how if Trump was a bit less hyperbolic, he'd get a lot farther and maybe a little less flack?
Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
If we manage to upload a Supreme Court Justice's consciousness to a computer... how long is their term?
(Opening Narration) In the year 2019, in order to keep a leftist presence on the Supreme Court, project Ruth Bader Ginsbot 2000 was established by the DNC and George Soros. RBG has her brain placed into a robot body. But.... something... went wrong... horribly wrong!
Roe vs. Wade only has symbolic value for bruised egos.
If it were to be "overturned," the issue would revert to the states, and the country has moved on. In practice, abortion will remain, but not necessarily on demand and at taxpayers expense and required by any medical facility to perform regardless of religious beliefs, etc.
But then, that is really what it is all about, isn't it? The power to impose your imperial will on other people.
"How did that work out for FDR ?"
-- He generally is in Top 10 best president lists, so... pretty well, all things told.
But his court-packing attempt failed in 1937.
But his court-packing attempt failed in 1937.
He wasn't trying to pack the court, he was trying to get the court to rule that the New Deal programs in front of it were constitutional.
He was successful and since the SC caved to his pressure there was no need to pack the court.
Of course, with the big corporate owners demanding their news divisions turn a profit--which had never been the case when the news we were getting was actually sort-of informative and serious
Really? When was this golden age of news published and delivered for free* in long-format form that you refer to?
*Or by mythical non-profits?
Dan the Man, I appreciate where you're coming from, but setting aside Supreme Court decisions with a 2/3 vote of the House is an awful idea. It would basically mean that, if you had 2/3 of the House, our carefully crafted Constitution is just a suggestion.
The selection process was much more interesting before they removed the swimsuit competition.
The Notorious RBG can really twirl a baton! It helped her pick up several republican votes, I'm told.
Roy Jacobsen notes: Well, I never expected the Berlin Wall to get knocked down with sledgehammers wielded by a bunch of ordinary people. I never expected that the USSR and it's satellite states to collapse.
Just because I can't see a path to accomplishing something doesn't mean it's impossible. YMMV.
Interesting how many important changes occur suddenly, rather than incrementally.
I'll make a prediction here:
Trump nominates Merrick Garland.
Just to watch heads explode on both sides of the aisle.
What a delight it has been to watch the Left come to the sudden realization (after fifty years) that it might not have been the smartest strategy to put our most important political decisions in the hands of an unelected priestly caste.
Gary Trudeau used to always mock George Will. Not because, he disliked him personally, but because Will was "Mr. Conservative" back in the late 80s and early 90s. Of course, Will's fame was based on being on a Sunday Talk show that everyone watched.
Any hoo, even though I knew he attacking Will SOLELY because of his politics, I still couldn't help laughing at this mockery of Will's pompous, snobby elitism and bow-tie goofiness. Not to mention, Will's penchant for stuffing his column's with references to Burke and Montesquieu.
Did you know Will is an Atheist? Not a agnostic, but a "I know there is no God" absolutist.
Do you realize what assholes the Never Trumpers like Romney, Will, Kristol, etc. were?
They just didn't despise Trump, they actively tried to elect Hillary in 2016.
In which case, we'd be looking at every 5-4 SCOTUS Decision that went our way, going the Ginsberg/Sotomayor way. And we'd be getting another Sotomayor to replace Kennedy. Not to mention a brand new Lefty to replace Breyer and Ginsberg.
A Left-wing court for the next 15 years. That's what Romney, Will, and Kristol, wanted to give us.
Never forget.
Apparently no one has noticed - or no one cares - that Patrick Wyrick is not a Georgia Supreme Court Justice. His court is in Oklahoma. Careless mistake by USA Today.
It's not guaranteed that someone will stay on the courtr for 30, 40 or even 50 years even if that is plausible.
Trump might also not like all originalist decisions.
>> It would basically mean that, if you had 2/3 of the House, our carefully crafted Constitution is just a suggestion.
You have correctly identified the issue. The Supremes treat the Constitution as a "suggestion". See Roe v Wade for the most obvious examples. Or Federal judges deciding that gay marriage, long illegal, became legal without changing a single word of the law.
It would mean that 2/3rds of the people, speaking through their closest elected representative, do not consent to be governed by a new interpretation of existing law.
In our republic, the consent of the governed is bedrock.
Did you know Will is an Atheist? Not a agnostic, but a "I know there is no God" absolutist.
I knew that because I once saw him mockingly berate another guest on the panel for his profession of faith--it might have been Pat Buchanan but I'm not sure. Anyway, Will has always been a prick.
>>it might not have been the smartest strategy to put our most important political decisions in the hands of an unelected priestly caste.
Conservatives were sporting "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers on their cars, back when cars had bumpers.
So our friends on the left had plenty of notice that some thought this was a bad idea.
Etienne - your comment at 1024h. It's only 7 years to 2025 CE but you'll be "...long dead by then." I pray you're mistaken. Best wishes.
rcocean said...
Did you know Will is an Atheist?
OMG!
Not a agnostic, but a "I know there is no God" absolutist.
Not really. "I'm an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure. I'm pretty sure. I see no evidence of God."
@Drago,
It will be interesting to see how far LLR Chuck will be willing to contort himself in order to provide justification for the inevitable lunatic lefty attacks sure to be launched at any candidate on Trumps list.
Why can't we, in the spirit of comity, accept Chuck back into the fold! Maybe, on "double-secret" probation. He has:
1. Supported the Janus decision
2. Supported the Gorsuch appointment
3. Supported Trump's tax cut (I believe).
If Trump picks a Fed Society type of judge, I bet you a pepperoni pizza that Chuck supports the choice.
I propose a formal Armistice with Chuck! There's has been too much winning this past week to indulge in acrimony.
-"With malice toward none, with charity for all...." - A. Lincoln
Fernandistein, Trump is in the WH and Hillary is signing books at Costco.
There's your evidence!
Z said...
Yes, and I can't help but consider how if Trump was a bit less hyperbolic, he'd get a lot farther and maybe a little less flack?
Trump ran against a pack of less hyperbolic Republicans. How much farther did they get?
I agree that Trump would be taking far less flack, since he would be a private citizen, rather than President.
>>Hillary is signing books at Costco.
I would buy her book and stand in line just to personally thank her for running a horrible campaign.
Blogger Achilles said...
Robert Cook said...
Unlikely. After eight years of one party in the White House, most Americans usually want to try the other guys for awhile.
The other "guys" are deranged animals.
This is the kind of cowardly cuck talk from a Hitlerist wannabe. The first step is to dehumanize your political opponents before implimenting genocide.
After my quip about RBG I searched for her confirmation vote -- 96-3.
"This is the kind of cowardly cuck talk from a Hitlerist wannabe. The first step is to dehumanize your political opponents before implimenting [sic] genocide."
Howie is projecting again. Have a sad trombone -- on the house!
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
@Drago,
It will be interesting to see how far LLR Chuck will be willing to contort himself in order to provide justification for the inevitable lunatic lefty attacks sure to be launched at any candidate on Trumps list.
Why can't we, in the spirit of comity, accept Chuck back into the fold! Maybe, on "double-secret" probation.
Don't give Drago any ideas if you care about Chuck. He'll see this and agree to "be nice" for a while letting Chuck get comfortable warm and squishy bonding with his fellow conservatives. Then, at just the right moment, Drago will wax his ass sending him into a flat spin of depression and panic. Althouse will then have to field numerous emails from him bleating about how the bullies keep picking on him.
You have correctly identified the issue. The Supremes treat the Constitution as a "suggestion". See Roe v Wade for the most obvious examples. Or Federal judges deciding that gay marriage, long illegal, became legal without changing a single word of the law.
It's worse than that...the judges overruled recent changes to the law that explicitly outlawing gay marriage. In the case of California not only did the judges over turn the law, they overturned a state constitutional amendment voted on by the people. And the best rationale they can come up with is the 14th Amendment and semi-mystical claptrap?
Fabi: Ouch, that really hurts. Especially when you use the diminutive form of my name, which I am very touchy about. Thanks for confirming that you think Achilles is a cuck as well because you think he needs you to quickly jump to his defense.
That response is as lame as your spelling, Howie. How about a dictionary to go with your new instrument?
exiledonmainstreet said...
Trump is in the WH and Hillary is signing books at Costco.
There's your evidence!
It'd be evidence if Billary were signing books in ... HELL!
When Drago and Chuck appear, it's usually time to kill the tab. With PPT, it always is.
Howard's on to me!
Best to go "to the mattresses" until it all blows over.
Of course, as the famous philosopher Pete Clemenza told us: this sort of thing needs to happen every 10 years or so to get rid of the bad blood.
Will: I'm a low voltage atheist.
Well, George is a low-voltage EVERYTHING.
He's "Low Energy" as Trump would put it.
Ralph L: "When Drago and Chuck appear, it's usually time to kill the tab"
I appreciate you keeping a glimmer of hope open.
"Maybe we can have, like, a nuclear war and then get a real course correction."
A recent quote by Tom Steyer, proud democrat billionaire. It's a good thing he didn't mention genocide or anything crazy like that or our soy boy Howie would be upset.
I for one feel compelled to rise in defense of Goerge Will re: energy level.
This strong and "true conservative" is demonstrating incredible energy advocating for massive and unstoppable dem/leftist victories and majorities.
Thats how you can tell he is a "true conservative" with tons of "muh principles"....
Maybe someday it will dawn on some that if the Supreme Court can issue an "opinion" that will cause an immediate detriment to your every life--they have too much power.
And, how did they get all that power?
via,an opinion??
"Ok tcrosse, I'll bite,
Do you think tr, truman, nixon, were good or effective presidents?
Do you think they were viewed as good or effective presidents at the time?
John Henry"
Good or effective? Nixon was effective. I might not have agreed with his domestic policy choices but in the pre-Reagan era, price controls, wage freezes, and expanding the federal bureaucracy were pretty standard issue items.
This much is certain --
Appoint a pro-Roe justice, or even a go-along to get-along on Roe justice -- or anyone that has anything nice to say about that crazy "sweet mystery of life" nonsense in Casey -- so that we get another 30-40 years of Roe, then the Trump presidency is dead and so is the Republican Party, which was already near death from the potential of pro-lifers finally giving up on it, but for Trump.
Screw the pro-life community again, and they will never again vote Republican -- and sure as hell would never vote Dem. They will stay home. Fool them once, shame on you. Fool them a hundred times, then they finally wise up that the Republicans are doing them up the a** and they simply will decide not to take it anymore.
This week was not just the biggest political success in the short history of President Trump's presidency.
This week rivals the greatest political week ever (weekend July 18, 1969) when President Nixon received word that Neil Armstrong successfully touched down on the moon; while back on earth, Sen. Ted "U-Boat Commander" Kennedy drove off Dyke Bridge -- thus eliminating himself from the 1972 Presidential race, setting the stage for Nixon's 49-state re-election landslide.
In my opinion, anyone that is talking about Roe is getting way, way, waaaay ahead of themselves.
Talk of Roe is being used to set hair on fire, nothing more.
Talking about Roe is way ahead of ourselves.
The pro-life community has been waiting only 45 effing years. We are way behind on it - the Dred Scott decision of our time. How much more blood does this nation need to be swimming in?
No, we don't need to talk about it. We just need to get a justice that will not lead to another two generations of injustice and death. If not, then a vast proportion of the electorate that Trump and the Republicans need will disappear in an instant.
Re: USA Today: I can remember when Herschel Walker named it as his "hometown newspaper".
I also still have Trudeau's book, which provided endless entertainment for my teenagers growing up, along with Calvin and Hobbes and Dilbert.
"If not, then a vast proportion of the electorate that Trump and the Republicans need will disappear in an instant."
The Rapture? Where else are they going to go?
LoL. Just a typo.
Mark -- I don't want to dismiss your passion about the issue, but consider this: when the left got a big head they rammed through Obamacare and they've never recovered. Overturning Roe v. Wade will produce the same result. Maybe you could rephrase your goal without making it a threat.
Where else are they going to go?
Ask Romney. Or McCain.
And you can lose the juvenile mockery.
There's nothing wrong with talking about Roe. For SCOTUS appointments, that's the big enchilada (for the left). Once an appointment is made, there will be a lot of talk about Roe.
Myself, I don't need an a priori commitment to overturn Roe -- but I want a judge like Scalia or Thomas or Gorsuch who strictly construes the Constitution based on the text and the traditions.
And then we go from there.......
No threat. Only a statement of reality.
The GOP had 45 years of benefit from the pro-life vote. Time to pay up.
I agree with Bay Area Guy at 235PM.
We need something more than hope and pray, or crossing your fingers.
We all remember Sununu telling us how Souter was a "home run."
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...”I propose a formal Armistice with Chuck!”
He’ll never agree to terms.
We need something more than hope and pray, or crossing your fingers.
We all remember Sununu telling us how Souter was a "home run."
That is correct. But Souter was nearly 30 years ago. That problem has been since been solved, mostly by the rise of the Federalist Society. The last two picks, Alito and Gorsuch, have been home runs. The filibuster has been shelved. The Senate has a slight GOP majority, likely a bigger one after November.
Why the worry?
The only avenue to screw things up is if McCain, Murkowsky and Collins unite with the Dems.
Hmmm. On second thought. There is cause for worry.
We all remember Sununu telling us how Souter was a "home run."
Boy, don't we.
Ralph L: "When Drago and Chuck appear, it's usually time to kill the tab"
I appreciate you keeping a glimmer of hope open.
Notice I said "and", not "or."
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Don't take nothing for granted anymore.
Souter retired immediately after joining the worst 'opinion' in modern times-
Kelo
"No threat. Only a statement of reality."
I would advise against making statements about future reality.
or what?
"And you can lose the juvenile mockery."
You suggest a self-defeating resolution on your issue of interest. The mockery is justified.
Lighten up, Francis.
"Time to pay up."
That's the threat, sweetie.
"A 33-year-old California man who told the FBI he was upset about the repeal of net neutrality regulations has been arrested on charges of threatening to kill the family of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia."
I thought the left cared about separating children from their parents.
Unfortunately, unlike one-child, selective-child has been normalized (i.e. social progress), which can only be resolved through moral reform or civil war a la emancipation. Let the babies live will require women and men to forgo Planned Parenthood, and reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives.
threatening to kill the family... I thought the left cared about separating children from their parents.
Only temporary separation, for example to separate parents and predators identifying as "parents". However, wicked and final separation in the course of social justice and progress are viable Choices.
n.n -- Somehow the tie always goes to advancing their amoral agenda and political power.
“So you liked that they turned the daily news into Reader's Digest Headline Services, and left out all the information necessary to give a news story deeper context and more information?!”
It was just to make you turn the pages and see the ads.
Why else start 4 stories on pg. 1 knowing they won’t all fit?
If the mainstream papers had limited the front page to two stories they would’ve fit completely.
No; instead you have to go to pg. 22 for the last paragraph. Stupid.
I suggest you read up on why we got Souter.
The Buck stops at Bush I.
Bush had been "pro-choice" in 1980. However, he knew he couldn't get nominated in 1988 with that position, so he became "pro-life" just like he was against raising taxes.
When Bush got elected, he told his aides, "no more Bork's" "No more fights over SCOTUS Judges", because Bush didn't give a rats-ass.
So when Sunnunu and Senator Rodman stated Souter was a conservative AND could be easily confirmed, Bush jumped at it. Of course, the reason Souter could be easily confirmed is because all the D's (who were smart) knew he was a liberal.
Sen Rodman in his autobiography laughs about he fooled all the dumbo conservatives and pro-life types into supporting a Liberal justice. Whether Sununu was just stupid or "in on the con" - no one has ever been bothered to look into. Given Sunnunu's IQ was 168, its doubtful he was "fooled".
BTW, has anyone forgotten "Harriet Myers"?
She was supposed to be Bush-II's Souter. Y'know, the obscure Nobody - and former Democrat - who was supposed to be like SUPER Conservative. Except there was no proof. Except George Bush's word.
Fortunately, people like Ann Coulter raised a big stink, and we got Alioto - an actual conservative - instead.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...”I propose a formal Armistice with Chuck!”
He’ll never agree to terms.
Oh I don't know...the GOP Establishment has gotten pretty good at surrendering to the Democrats after all.....
Nah, we haven't forgotten Harriet Myers. That was a huge success story -- a bullet dodged. If GOP presidents stick with the Federalist Society, though, as Trump did with Gorsuch and is doing again, problem averted.
I suspect any nominee will say they believe in precident, clearly implying they will not overturn Roe. Probably meaning it, too. Not enough Senators to fight that fight. What it could allow, however is reigning it in, at least to European levels.
The pro-life community has been waiting only 45 effing years. We are way behind on it - the Dred Scott decision of our time. How much more blood does this nation need to be swimming in?
The problem was that the Court short circuited a possible solution.
Abortion was legal in California in 1969 with a psychiatrist note that the mother's life was endangered.
Had the Court left that alone, it would have become a state issue. State voters could decide.
Getting back to that will be quire a problem. Maybe it could be done. Not easy.
Nobody is going to make the reverse error.
Trump predicts his new Supreme Court justice will serve for 40 (or 45) years. So he is moving from despot to God in the blink of an eye. If we take the time to assess this no-so-brilliant flash of the Trump mind, we get an adolescent imaginary dream nowhere near the septuagenarian maturity we should expect. Reality is nowhere to be found and further aging will not help his condition.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा