Anthony Kennedy Retiring

 

Winning!

All hail Trump and McConnell! Yes, it’s really happening! Whatever else President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have done for us or to us, they will soon give us a conservative Supreme Court majority that could last for a generation. Kennedy is retiring, and thanks to Trump and McConnell, his replacement will be a Constitutional conservative.

I’ve been saying for a while now, give America 3% growth, and we will win in 2018 and confirm a conservative SCOTUS majority. The 3% growth is here, and so is the SCOTUS majority. I’m not sure we could ask for much more from a Republican president.

From CNN:

Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who provided key votes for same sex-marriage, abortion access and affirmative action, will retire from the Supreme Court.

The retirement is effective July 31, Kennedy said in a letter to President Donald Trump on Wednesday.

Kennedy’s decision to step down could transform the Supreme Court for generations. Trump will have his second opportunity to nominate a justice and will likely replace Kennedy with a young, conservative jurist. That would create a bloc of five staunch conservative justices who could move the court further to the right and cement a conservative majority for the foreseeable future.
The nomination battle will likely ignite a firestorm on Capitol Hill as it comes just a year after Republicans changed the rules of the Senate in order to push through the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first nominee.

A senior White House official said Trump will push for the swift confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice “before the midterm elections.”

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbra of Nex Inactive
    Umbra of Nex
    @UmbraFractus

    • #91
  2. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Sweezle (View Comment):

    Proving once again that voting matters. Trump appointment Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote on the Travel Ban & Fair Union Fees ! If the Senate moves quickly they can vote on a new SCOTUS from Trump’s Conservative list before November elections.

    But Gorsuch *and* TBA!

    I, TBA, totes swear to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal…oh, you didn’t mean me. 

    How embarrassing. 

    • #92
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Maybe I’m missing something, but how does Trump think he’s going to make this happen swiftly, before the elections? I expect the Dems (and maybe even some Repubs) to make sure this drags out for a very long time. I’d love to be wrong.

    Can’t – Former Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid removed the right of the minority to filibuster court nominees.

    Straight up majority votes to confirm members of SCOTUS at every stage.

    Now if only NRBG would announce her retirement as well.

    If she retires she’ll have more time to rehearse for her cameo in the upcoming RBG 2: Electric Boogaloo. 

    • #93
  4. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    Here’s a tweet from Dan Rather, who I believe used to be a news reporter of some kind, “Justice Kennedy retiring… If you are deeply disturbed, absorb the shock. But respond with even more determination.” Such a shock. An 81 year old man decides to retire. Who possibly could have seen this coming?

    • #94
  5. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    blood thirsty neocon:

    From CNN:

    Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative…

    Evidence that journalism is dead, replaced by hack partisans: CNN claiming Kennedy is conservative. At the very best, Kennedy was a moderate liberal.

    • #95
  6. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon:

    From CNN:

    Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative…

    Evidence that journalism is dead, replaced by hack partisans: CNN claiming Kennedy is conservative. At the very best, Kennedy was a moderate liberal.

    But, but…he was appointed by a Republican! For some reason, journos think that is absolutely dispositive of a justice’s philosophical position. 

    Which leads to the question: If Churchill was right about having no brain if you’re not conservative later in life, why is it that jurists with lifetime appointments tend to drift left?

    • #96
  7. Umbra of Nex Inactive
    Umbra of Nex
    @UmbraFractus

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon:

    From CNN:

    Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative…

    Evidence that journalism is dead, replaced by hack partisans: CNN claiming Kennedy is conservative. At the very best, Kennedy was a moderate liberal.

    It depends on what you mean by, “conservative.” He certainly was not an Originalist, but he did have something of a libertarian streak.

    • #97
  8. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon:

    From CNN:

    Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative…

    Evidence that journalism is dead, replaced by hack partisans: CNN claiming Kennedy is conservative. At the very best, Kennedy was a moderate liberal.

    It depends on what you mean by, “conservative.” He certainly was not an Originalist, but he did have something of a libertarian streak.

    I suppose I was more making a point out of what CNN thinks a conservative is. Apparently, it’s anyone who is not hard Left.

    • #98
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    Here’s a tweet from Dan Rather, who I believe used to be a news reporter of some kind, “Justice Kennedy retiring… If you are deeply disturbed, absorb the shock. But respond with even more determination.”

    Determination to do what? To do as Maxine Waters and her Democrat friends suggest?

    Such a shock. An 81 year old man decides to retire. Who possibly could have seen this coming?

    Well, you have to admit it is rare in government.
    We currently have Eight Senators who are 80 years old or older. (Seventeen who are in their 70s.)

    List of Senators by Age.

    • #99
  10. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    So much winning!

    The only thing Trump got wrong:  None of us is ever going to get sick of winning!

    • #100
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    How about the first Asian on the Court, John Yoo?

    The only downside would be the loss of Law Talk (although sales of McRib would skyrocket – buy McDonalds stock).

    • #101
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Be still my heart. Yes, Ted Cruz!

    Yes!  In drag, trans, or just as he is, Cruz would be great!

    • #102
  13. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The other two I’m not so sure about but you could help ensure their compliance by nominating a woman:

    My bet it is a woman.

    OMG . . . tell me there’s a black or Hispanic woman on the list . . .

    Janice Rogers Brown of the DC Circuit would be great, except she is 69 years old.

    How about the first Asian on the Court, John Yoo?

    another hispanic, Cruz? In drag?

    He can just say that he identifies as a woman, right? Those are the new rules.

    Exactly.

    • #103
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Stad (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    So much winning!

    The only thing Trump got wrong: None of us is ever going to get sick of winning!

    What have we won regarding this issue yet? We don’t know who is even nominated. If anything the “winning” credit should go to Anthony Kennedy. 

    • #104
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    Presumably anyone who actually wants the job will follow precedent, refuse to comment on specific cases that might come before the court, and speak in very general terms about judicial philosophy, fidelity to the Constitution, and so forth. Would that give Collins or Murkowski enough ammo to justify voting no?

    The MSM will probably did up some statements made in the past and say, “This is how the nominee would answer is he wasn’t dodging the question.”

    • #105
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    He can just say that he identifies as a woman, right? Those are the new rules. 

    Cruz can say he identifies as a Supreme Court justice, then we can skip the vote all together . . .

    • #106
  17. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    What to make of POTUS praising Kennedy today as a “man of vision”? I hope they don’t share that vision.

    • #107
  18. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What to make of POTUS praising Kennedy today as a “man of vision”?

    Standard boilerplate.

    It’s like when a nasty Democrat politician dies, and even Republicans will take a moment to say something nice.

    Democrats rarely return this kind of sentiment. (See Scalia, et al)

    • #108
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What to make of POTUS praising Kennedy today as a “man of vision”? I hope they don’t share that vision.

    I think he is just saying something polite and nice. 

    • #109
  20. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    So much winning!

    The only thing Trump got wrong: None of us is ever going to get sick of winning!

    What have we won regarding this issue yet? 

    We have won delicious schadenfreude. A bounty of leftist tears – enough to float the soon-to-be-increased Navy.

     

    • #110
  21. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Chris Matthews: “This is the time for vengeance.”

    So much for civility.

    • #111
  22. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What to make of POTUS praising Kennedy today as a “man of vision”? I hope they don’t share that vision.

    He’s being genteel and magnanimous, something the left is incapable of doing (think of Barbara Bush’s passing and the loony professor’s tweets).

    • #112
  23. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    McConnell already 86’d the filibuster for Gorsuch. All it takes is a simple majority.

    Don’t [redacted] this up. I’m looking at you, Collins, Murkowski, and Flake.

    That’s what I’m talking about. Why does anyone think this lovely trio won’t vote against Trump’s selection?

    McCain most likely will.  As for the others, it depends on how vocal their Trump-supporting constituents get . . .

    • #113
  24. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    This is the moment of truth: am I right that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and possibly others) will never vote to confirm the Justice who would (theoretically) reverse Roe v. Wade?

    How would they know? If a nominee says “I oppose Roe and would vote to overturn it” during his hearings, then yes, they might vote against him.

    Presumably anyone who actually wants the job will follow precedent, refuse to comment on specific cases that might come before the court, and speak in very general terms about judicial philosophy, fidelity to the Constitution, and so forth. Would that give Collins or Murkowski enough ammo to justify voting no?

    A judge is not supposed to answer such a question anyway, as it would show prejudice and be considered grounds for recusal.

    Unless your name is Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

    • #114
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.