Trump administration planning on TWO Supreme Court vacancies??

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion & War Issues' started by BSR, Jan 5, 2017.

  1. BSR

    BSR Viscount

    Obviously, the seat to replace the late Antonin Scalia needs to be filled, but this is the first I've heard of a second seat opening up: "Trump's top advisers are anticipating another vacancy early in the president-elect's first term."

    In light of the ages of Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kennedy (78, 80, and 83, respectively), it was reasonable to expect another seat on the Supreme Court to open up during Trump's term, but "early in the president-elect's first term"? What insider information are these top advisers privy to? And is that information reliable/accurate?

    An originalist (most use the term "conservative") replacement for Scalia won't change the fundamental balance of the court because you can't get much more originalist than Antonin Scalia. Since the iffy 5-4 conservative balance would be maintained (Kennedy is labeled a conservative yet occasionally votes with the liberal faction), Senate Dems would be wise to keep their powder dry. The same is true if this second vacancy turns out to be one of the conservatives. But if the vacancy is Kennedy, expect fireworks. And if the vacancy is one of the four liberals, expect the Fourth of July times a zillion.

    Does anybody have any other information on the likelihood/timing of this second vacancy or which Justice would be the one stepping down?
     
  2. BOZO T CLOWN

    BOZO T CLOWN Count

    Court Vacancies Mean Trump Gets To Nominate 12% Of All Federal Judges From Day One
    More than 100 federal judgeships will be vacant when Donald Trump becomes president — a higher number than the past two presidents had when they took office.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman...y-to-leave-a?utm_term=.baG1b0lAjk#.sy0wJbp5kq

    That headline is certainly a good start towards re-shaping the federal courts to a less activist federal judiciary that interprets the law rather than making new laws.

    As for BSR's thought provoking (Bozo would expect nothing less) post, you can be sure that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the last of the Reagan appointees, will be stepping down in the next year or two. Replacing an 81-year old wishy-washy moderate with a 50-55 year old conservative will certainly be a good first step, but the coup de grace will be replacing Ginsburg. She will be 84 years old in March, and has a history of cancer. Who knows if she will be able to stick around for another four years. One would think she'd like to spend her golden years in a nice condo in a retirement community in Boca where she and her aging liberal contemporaries can enjoy the early bird specials at Wolfie's.

    America Will Be Great Again
    14 days to go

    Bozo
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  3. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent

    I know a lot about "a history of cancer." It's not something you think about very much after the first year of being cancer free.
     
  4. [​IMG]
     
    WilliamM likes this.
  5. instudiocity

    instudiocity Marquess

    Marylander1940 raises and teresting question...

    What other laws are still on the books after the Supreme Court found their intent unconstitutional?

    Gay marriage x 47 or 48 states?
     
    marylander1940 likes this.
  6. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    Out-of-date laws often stay on the book because the legislatures just never remove them. When in was in law school, we were always amazed at the laws that were there but never enforced but just lingered.
     
  7. Thank you!

    Many laws about gay marriage, sodomy, abortion, contraception and many other are still in some books despite having been declared unconstitutional by the SCJ... a new conservative majority would love to bring them back to life.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
    longtime lurker and Travis69 like this.
  8. Lookin

    Lookin "Bestower of Forgiveness"

    [​IMG]
     
  9. BSR

    BSR Viscount

    I have no idea who this second vacancy is, but my eyes sure as hell popped after reading that top Trump advisors are planning for not one but TWO Supreme Court nominees. I will be eagerly anticipating every tidbit of news about this subject because the ramifications are enormous. Bozo makes a great point about the huge number of federal justices. While the vacancies in federal courts get fewer headlines, Trump's nominees for the 100+ openings could reshape the legal landscape as much as the selection of Supreme Court Justices because so many important cases don't make it to SCOTUS, thereby making the federal court's decision the legal precedent. But I'm fixated on this second SCOTUS vacancy because I suspect all hell will break loose if/when it happens.

    I found it both ironic and heartwarming that Ginsburg and Scalia were the fiercest of ideological opponents at work yet the closest of friends in their personal lives. About their odd-couple friendship, Justice Ginsburg said, "We were best buddies." I'm sure she deeply misses her best friend. And I'm sure her best buddy, wherever he is, hopes that she lives to be 100.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
    Nvr2Thick, Charlie and latbear4blk like this.
  10. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent

    Thanks for such a positive response. It more than makes up for Bozo's insensitive comments above.
     
    Nvr2Thick and MikeBiDude like this.
  11. BSR

    BSR Viscount

    In fairness to @BOZO T CLOWN, I don't think what he said was insensitive, just realistic. Justice Ginsburg is almost 84 and has survived two diagnoses of cancer. To hypothesize that she is the likeliest "second vacancy" isn't mean or malicious; it's just stating the obvious.
     
    BOZO T CLOWN likes this.
  12. BgMstr4u

    BgMstr4u Count

    What interests me in this thread is not just speculation about the SCOTUS but more the Democrats' choices when these nominations are made. In less than 2 years 25 of the 33 senators up for re-election are Democrats, and of those 13 are from states Trump won or almost won. Schumer seems to think that copying the GOP stonewall technique will win for them, as it manifestly did for the Republicans. But the playing field is different. There is no telling yet how Trump and his team will look in 18 months. If Schumer really does throw wrenches into the works, he faces two very different and I would argue skillful opponents who can make mincemeat of his efforts. The GOP in the last few elections faced a DNC run by Hillary Clinton through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who turned out to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight. My bet is that the RNC will continue to be run by Reince Priebus through Romney's niece. Priebus was an astoundingly effective manager who quietly built the party apparatus into the juggernaut it is now. If I were a betting man I'm not sure I would favor Schumer in that showdown. The second factor is Trump himself, who has shown himself to be a master of political jiujitsu. Schumer has brought many of the endangered senators onto his leadership team., but that can backfire on them badly by not giving them enough wiggle room to run to the right of Schumer and Pelosi if they need to. Just suppose Schumer, who really cannot win these confirmation battles but only delay and defame, is baited into a corner by Trump? He has already called Schumer a clown, and why not? The absurdity of Schumer's rhetoric may be enough of a hook to hang it on. His tactics can bring down the whole Democratic ship - what's left of it - if it gets blown off course.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  13. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent


    The kindest thing I can says is the Bozo can be a bit too blunt in his support in his support of President-Elect Trump.
     
  14. BOZO T CLOWN

    BOZO T CLOWN Count

    What is insensitive about pointing out that Justice Ginsburg will be 84 years old in March and is a (two-time) cancer survivor?
    The left used those same stats in the last few years in an attempt to persuade her to retire so she could be replaced by a younger like-minded judicial activist.

    America Will Be Great Again
    11 days to go

    Bozo
     
    BSR likes this.
  15. BSR

    BSR Viscount

    Justice Ginsburg's medical history was a perfectly acceptable topic when liberals wanted to make a point yet "insensitive" when a conservative brings it up. Bozo, you forget that liberals see the entire universe through the prism of only one question: "how does this benefit ME?"
     
    BOZO T CLOWN likes this.
  16. pitman

    pitman Viscount

    At the GOP convention, at a time when most observers believed Trump would lead the party to a historic defeat, Ted Cruz pointedly refused to endorse him. A month later, after Trump loyalists in Texas threatened to primary him in 2018, Cruz flipped and endorsed Trump. What question do you think Cruz was asking himself as he made these two contradictory decisions? I don't think it was "What would Jesus do?". Is Cruz a closet liberal?
     
  17. BgMstr4u

    BgMstr4u Count

    Cruz is a not-so-closeted opportunist. That particular affliction has no partisan boundaries.
     
    Charlie and mike carey like this.
  18. BSR

    BSR Viscount

    As Ronald Reagan wisely said, "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's that they know so much that isn't true." Do your research, pitman. Ted Cruz never endorsed Trump. He said that he had to vote for Trump because Hillary would be so utterly disastrous for our country and urged all his supporters to do the same. When you endorse a candidate, you're basically saying "this guy (or gal) is awesome, he's super-qualified, he'll make a great President (or Senator or whatever)." Cruz said none of that. He said that we had to stop Hillary at all costs, a point that I look back on and actually agree with, even though I refused to vote for Trump last November.

    After Trump's victory, of course, Ted Cruz was all smiles and handshakes with the President-elect, acting as if the Donald were his BFF. But a Senator has to get along with the incoming President because otherwise he'd accomplish nothing in the Senate and would be a poor public servant for the people who elected him. If Cruz hadn't gone to Trump Tower, metaphorical hat in hand, he would have been criticized for not being able to get along with others. As it stands, Ted Cruz is the number one person whispering in Trump's ear for Supreme Court nominees (rumor has it there is a second vacancy opening up in the near future). That's gotta be driving liberals nuckin' futs :p
     
  19. purplekow

    purplekow Regent

    As to MR Cruz.
    I believe in a speech to his largest audience, at the Republican Convention, he did not endorse trump just suggested, that people vote their conscience. Any later suggestion as to voting choice, if it happened, was given to a smaller audience and with less fanfare