Supreme Court vacancy

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Would you agree that McConnell and the Republicans took a huge risk on the Garland nomination move and could easily have had HRC or Sanders making these appointments?

They did, just as the Dems took a huge chance by assuming it would be HRC making the picks and not putting up a bigger fight over the block

[Giantone]

Actually no one is talking the stolen seat right now. Channel 4 in DC just had a guy on and he brought up a good point about the Mueller investigation and how this pick had already said he believes a president can not be charged with a crime and that could very well be a factor pro or against him in the nominating process.



Seems the theory is picking up steam


https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-sc...rotect-himself


Practically in the same breath Tuesday morning, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough both praised Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s “character” and argued that by choosing him to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Donald Trump proved himself to be “the most self-serving” president of our time.

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation.

[Giantone]

The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defb...%99t-deny.html



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report


The theory seems to be picking up steam.............


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0af2e76...98make-no.html

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation. Noting that Kavanaugh wrote the article “at the dawn of the Obama administration,”

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defb...%99t-deny.html



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report.

How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?

I respect you to much to believe you are as naive as you are pretending to be.Be respectful.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I respect you to much to believe you are as naive as you are pretending to be.Be respectful.

G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.

I really am lost on this one. What is Trump supposedly masterminding by allowing a retiring justice have a say in his replacement.

I would get it if there was an implication Trump forced Kennedy to resign. But everything I see seems to go to Kennedy forcing Trump to nominate Kavanaugh, and Kennedy's son loaning money to Trump. Unless the claim is that justice Kennedy is a dirty judge or that Kennedy is trying to protwct his son, thats all bass ackwards of Trump masterminding some dasterdly plot.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.

Then you haven't payed attention to your tangerine president.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?

I don't know of any rule or ethical requirement that would prohibit such a conversation. I believe, however, that justices are supposed to remain removed from the selection process in order to preserve the court's impartiality in the country's political process. Separation of powers and all that.

(Strictly speaking, under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," not other judges.)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't know of any rule or ethical requirement that would prohibit such a conversation. I believe, however, that justices are supposed to remain removed from the selection process in order to preserve the court's impartiality in the country's political process. Separation of powers and all that.

(Strictly speaking, under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," not other judges.)

Ok. But as I understand it you kinda practice law or something.

So, if a lawyer in a department is leaving, and the boss wants that lawyer's opinion on who might be a good replacement, is that ethically wrong to ask? Would you assume sinister intent if you were asked?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Ok. But as I understand it you kinda practice law or something.

So, if a lawyer in a department is leaving, and the boss wants that lawyer's opinion on who might be a good replacement, is that ethically wrong to ask? Would you assume sinister intent if you were asked?

No, it is not ethically wrong for an employer to ask an employee to recommend a replacement.

However, a Supreme Court justice is not an employee of the President but rather a member of a separate and equal branch of the government. Does that make it inherently ethically wrong? No. Do I think its good practice? No.

Does it have the potential to create unnecessary entanglements of justices in the political process? Yes. Think about it ... do we want justices lobbying presidents cutting side deals during elections or with sitting Presidents? "You know ... if I retire, you could appoint my successor. Oh by the way, I hear there is a nice little ambassadorship opening up in the Caribbean. If I can't get that, I might as well stay on the bench."

I realize that's pretty cynical and hyperbole but it's not a path we want to start down.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

They did, just as the Dems took a huge chance by assuming it would be HRC making the picks and not putting up a bigger fight over the block

But the Republicans had to know the risk based on all the polling was much larger for them. In fact the Democrats probably loved the thought that HRC would put a replacement candidate up, and the Republicans would have no out on it.

Seems like the major risk was on the Republican side.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

But the Republicans had to know the risk based on all the polling was much larger for them. In fact the Democrats probably loved the thought that HRC would put a replacement candidate up, and the Republicans would have no out on it.



Seems like the major risk was on the Republican side.

No doubt, the risk paid off, and the Dems slept on Trump and lost bigly