Jump to content
270soft Forum
LegolasRedbard

Anthony Kennedy Resigns

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, LegolasRedbard said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44634176

 

Now that the court's swing justice is out, who will Trump choose to replace him?

I shudder to think. I personally feel selecting judges on blatantly and overtly partisan grounds with the expectation to opine accordingly is a whole, massive miscarriage of justice, itself, in it's entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch was actually more liberal than Kennedy this session.  Kennedy didn't side with the liberal bloc on a single 5-4 ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Patine said:

I shudder to think. I personally feel selecting judges on blatantly and overtly partisan grounds with the expectation to opine accordingly is a whole, massive miscarriage of justice, itself, in it's entirety.

Unfortunately, Deciding based on law is all but forgotten nowadays dying after Roberts vote to save the ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping for either Mike or Charles Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

Unfortunately, Deciding based on law is all but forgotten nowadays dying after Roberts vote to save the ACA.

As I said yesterday, the blindfold needs to be taken off of the voters and put on Madame Justice where it belongs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

I'm hoping for either Mike or Charles Lee

I just want someone who will rule according to THE LAW disregarding partisanship,ideally having a libertarian leaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I just want someone who will rule according to THE LAW disregarding partisanship,ideally having a libertarian leaning.

I agree with NYrepublican, save for I don't necessarily feel a libertarian leaning is fully needed (or desired, in many cases - I have a number of criticisms I hold of libertarian philosophy and libertarianism as a socio-political and economic system which are grave concerns to me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Unfortunately, Deciding based on law is all but forgotten nowadays dying after Roberts vote to save the ACA.

Curiously, that wasn't a partisan vote either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy's retirement is potentially the beginning of the end of America's greatness. Trump will pick another young judge--so both his picks will serve 40 years. I think Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, etc. will all be overturned. I think Ginsberg might not last long. So he might get a third judge. No matter how bad Trump will be viewed as a president, he can now say that he is at least consequential (sort of how Bush II was both consequential and bad--but for different reasons). This is the first day of the Trump presidency that I almost started crying. 

Best case scenario: If it is found that Russia helped Trump win, and Trump's campaign was party to it, then it is clear Trump should be considered an illegal president. If he is declared illegal, shouldn't his nomination be declared void? I'm sure if Clinton had used the Russians to defeat Trump, and it were proven, that they'd declare that the laws, actions, judges, etc. should be undone. I'd like to hear what conservatives think of this, if this event was tied to Trump or Clinton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Kennedy's retirement is potentially the beginning of the end of America's greatness. Trump will pick another young judge--so both his picks will serve 40 years. I think Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, etc. will all be overturned. I think Ginsberg might not last long. So he might get a third judge. No matter how bad Trump will be viewed as a president, he can now say that he is at least consequential (sort of how Bush II was both consequential and bad--but for different reasons). This is the first day of the Trump presidency that I almost started crying. 

Best case scenario: If it is found that Russia helped Trump win, and Trump's campaign was party to it, then it is clear Trump should be considered an illegal president. If he is declared illegal, shouldn't his nomination be declared void? I'm sure if Clinton had used the Russians to defeat Trump, and it were proven, that they'd declare that the laws, actions, judges, etc. should be undone. I'd like to hear what conservatives think of this, if this event was tied to Trump or Clinton. 

If laws ever apply differently to different people or institutions in the same nation based solely on the political beliefs, allegiance, or support of the individuals in question, then are in, or quickly toward being in, one of those authoritarian, dominant-party, human-rights-ignored, corrupt nations that are so common in Africa, the for former USSR, and parts of Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Kennedy's retirement is potentially the beginning of the end of America's greatness. Trump will pick another young judge--so both his picks will serve 40 years. I think Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, etc. will all be overturned. I think Ginsberg might not last long. So he might get a third judge. No matter how bad Trump will be viewed as a president, he can now say that he is at least consequential (sort of how Bush II was both consequential and bad--but for different reasons). This is the first day of the Trump presidency that I almost started crying. 

Best case scenario: If it is found that Russia helped Trump win, and Trump's campaign was party to it, then it is clear Trump should be considered an illegal president. If he is declared illegal, shouldn't his nomination be declared void? I'm sure if Clinton had used the Russians to defeat Trump, and it were proven, that they'd declare that the laws, actions, judges, etc. should be undone. I'd like to hear what conservatives think of this, if this event was tied to Trump or Clinton. 

Congress certified Trump's election.  There's no way to make him an un-president.

Trump has filled a ton of federal court vacancies that had been backlogged while Obama was in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

Congress certified Trump's election.  There's no way to make him an un-president.

Trump has filled a ton of federal court vacancies that had been backlogged while Obama was in office.

Congress' judicial powers regarding sitting high federal executive offices (like the U.S. President) - basically, the political circus, nepotistic ring of favour-trading, political ally calling, and the unfunny joke that is the impeachment process by the House of Representatives and trial by Senate, and the golden keys of power abuse completely gratis that is the Presidential pardon - are yet another inherent miscarriage of justice in and of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Kennedy's retirement is potentially the beginning of the end of America's greatness. Trump will pick another young judge--so both his picks will serve 40 years. I think Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, etc. will all be overturned. I think Ginsberg might not last long. So he might get a third judge. No matter how bad Trump will be viewed as a president, he can now say that he is at least consequential (sort of how Bush II was both consequential and bad--but for different reasons). This is the first day of the Trump presidency that I almost started crying. 

Best case scenario: If it is found that Russia helped Trump win, and Trump's campaign was party to it, then it is clear Trump should be considered an illegal president. If he is declared illegal, shouldn't his nomination be declared void? I'm sure if Clinton had used the Russians to defeat Trump, and it were proven, that they'd declare that the laws, actions, judges, etc. should be undone. I'd like to hear what conservatives think of this, if this event was tied to Trump or Clinton. 

Gay marriage isn't going to be overturned.  Republicans have (thankfully) stopped talking about it for the most part and an increasing number of Americans are supportive of it from both parties (as well as independents/3rd parties).  Plus, that ruling had quite a bit of standing with the 14th Amendment.  Conservatives have shifted to trying to get the government out of marriage completely.

As to your question about Russia.  I'd support impeachment (and of the VP if they were a part of it), but that doesn't reverse previous decisions made.  The only way the voiding situation would come up is if it were discovered that the person wasn't eligible under the Constitution (which would be a serious crisis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

The only way the voiding situation would come up is if it were discovered that the person wasn't eligible under the Constitution (which would be a serious crisis).

That's unlikely, but not impossible.  Perhaps there's a reason Trump never released his birth certificate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pilight said:

That's unlikely, but not impossible.  Perhaps there's a reason Trump never released his birth certificate...

Now that you mention it, he has not. 

 

11 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Gay marriage isn't going to be overturned.  Republicans have (thankfully) stopped talking about it for the most part and an increasing number of Americans are supportive of it from both parties (as well as independents/3rd parties).  Plus, that ruling had quite a bit of standing with the 14th Amendment.  Conservatives have shifted to trying to get the government out of marriage completely.

As to your question about Russia.  I'd support impeachment (and of the VP if they were a part of it), but that doesn't reverse previous decisions made.  The only way the voiding situation would come up is if it were discovered that the person wasn't eligible under the Constitution (which would be a serious crisis).

I think viewing gay marriage as the only issue is a bit wrong, because there are numerous issues that affect the LGBT community beyond the right to marry. Workplace discrimination,  should the same sex spouse receive benefits much like a hetero couple?, trans rights, adoption. 

And while I doubt the new court will overturn a recent SCOTUS ruling, I would  not be surprised if they ruled from a far right position on any of the what ifs I've listed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Now that you mention it, he has not. 

 

I think viewing gay marriage as the only issue is a bit wrong, because there are numerous issues that affect the LGBT community beyond the right to marry. Workplace discrimination,  should the same sex spouse receive benefits much like a hetero couple?, trans rights, adoption. 

And while I doubt the new court will overturn a recent SCOTUS ruling, I would  not be surprised if they ruled from a far right position on any of the what ifs I've listed. 

The marriage decision had a basis in the Constitution (one of the reasons for that was public benefits) which is why Kennedy sided in favor in this case.  But, the others lack a constitutional basis (one of the reasons Kennedy voted to send that bakery case back to Colorado).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The marriage decision had a basis in the Constitution (one of the reasons for that was public benefits) which is why Kennedy sided in favor in this case.  But, the others lack a constitutional basis (one of the reasons Kennedy voted to send that bakery case back to Colorado).

True true. But Kennedy won't be on the court any more- well atleast till July.  And what if a man is fired from his job for simply being a homosexual, or trans? Should someone that is LGBT be a protected class, much like gender and race? Or is it even the government's place to dictate such a policy? 

Should an insurance provided by an employer pay for surgical procedures directly related to transitioning from one sex to another?

Or in some states, can a same-sex couple(or even a hetero unwed couple)co adopt a child? 

Without a center-right moderate vote on the bench, who knows how the court will decide. After all, what I am describing- unwed couples adopting, trans rights, workplace discrimination- were not thought of in the political class in the 1700's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

The marriage decision had a basis in the Constitution (one of the reasons for that was public benefits) which is why Kennedy sided in favor in this case.  But, the others lack a constitutional basis (one of the reasons Kennedy voted to send that bakery case back to Colorado).

The bakery case may stand up Constitutionally, but no real Christian following Christ's teachings and ministry would behave as those bakers did. If they're going to claim freedom of religion as a basis to do that, they should at least have the decency to take the word 'Christ' out of their self-referential religious label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

The bakery case may stand up Constitutionally, but no real Christian following Christ's teachings and ministry would behave as those bakers did. If they're going to claim freedom of religion as a basis to do that, they should at least have the decency to take the word 'Christ' out of their self-referential religious label.

This is entirely incorrect, the Christian response is to very politely inform the couple that it is a betrayal of Christian values to furnish support for a "wedding" of such a nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

The bakery case may stand up Constitutionally, but no real Christian following Christ's teachings and ministry would behave as those bakers did. If they're going to claim freedom of religion as a basis to do that, they should at least have the decency to take the word 'Christ' out of their self-referential religious label.

Denying someone solely because they are gay wouldn't be Christian, but supporting a gay wedding also wouldn't be Christian.  This isn't a one hat fits all issue.  It depends on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

This is entirely incorrect, the Christian response is to very politely inform the couple that it is a betrayal of Christian values to furnish support for a "wedding" of such a nature.

 

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Denying someone solely because they are gay wouldn't be Christian, but supporting a gay wedding also wouldn't be Christian.  This isn't a one hat fits all issue.  It depends on the situation.

Christ, Himself, performed his ministry in Galilee, which, at that time, was a rundown, underdeveloped, economically-depressed slum of a province of Judea, and, by the standards of the Pharisees in Jerusalem, MORALLY LAPSING - a highly marginalized part of the polity in all ways. Although not specifically written as ministering to homosexuals, Christ ministered to beggars, prostitutes, poverty-ridden merchants (who, in such days, had to engage in a few unsavoury business practices to get by), lepers (who were considered unclean morally, as well as medically, in that day), and others, as well as a population who regularly did not live up to the high ritual demand of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. By the standards of the Herodian Dynasty theocratic monarchic of Judea and the Romans who propped the proxy or client state, Christ Himself was considered a criminal - including accused of heresy by the Pharisees and fermenting anti-Imperial sentiment and potentially by the Romans - and was executed by crucifixion, a very horrible way to go. He was obviously NOT nearly as judgemental of dealing with people, even positively, cordially, and productively, solely by their lifestyle and situation as you two believe it is Christian to be, and He enjoined his followers to live, as much as is mortally possible, a Christlike life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

 

Christ, Himself, performed his ministry in Galilee, which, at that time, was a rundown, underdeveloped, economically-depressed slum of a province of Judea, and, by the standards of the Pharisees in Jerusalem, MORALLY LAPSING - a highly marginalized part of the polity in all ways. Although not specifically written as ministering to homosexuals, Christ ministered to beggars, prostitutes, poverty-ridden merchants (who, in such days, had to engage in a few unsavoury business practices to get by), lepers (who were considered unclean morally, as well as medically, in that day), and others, as well as a population who regularly did not live up to the high ritual demand of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. By the standards of the Herodian Dynasty theocratic monarchic of Judea and the Romans who propped the proxy or client state, Christ Himself was considered a criminal - including accused of heresy by the Pharisees and fermenting anti-Imperial sentiment and potentially by the Romans - and was executed by crucifixion, a very horrible way to go. He was obviously NOT nearly as judgemental of dealing with people, even positively, cordially, and productively, solely by their lifestyle and situation as you two believe it is Christian to be, and He enjoined his followers to live, as much as is mortally possible, a Christlike life.

I just said that to deny someone just because they are gay would not be consistent with the teachings of Christ (and therefore the principles of Christianity).  I'm agreeing with you that Christ would want Christians to serve them with love in most cases (which most cases wouldn't go against the religious beliefs of the bakers).  However, serving a gay wedding would be participating in something which goes against Biblical teachings.  While Christ was ministering to those, he wasn't participating in any activities that were promoting ungodliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I just said that to deny someone just because they are gay would not be consistent with the teachings of Christ (and therefore the principles of Christianity).  I'm agreeing with you that Christ would want Christians to serve them with love in most cases (which most cases wouldn't go against the religious beliefs of the bakers).  However, serving a gay wedding would be participating in something which goes against Biblical teachings.  While Christ was ministering to those, he wasn't participating in any activities that were promoting ungodliness.

I thought the case was serving a cake itself. That's always been how it was presented to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jvikings1 Do you have an archived or old news article on this story? I may have been misinformed on the actual parameters of what was going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×