I would like to thank Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option when it suited his needs. What’s good for the goose.

For SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a precedent in Senate procedure. Did Reid think it would only be used in the way HE wanted? As in the SCOTUS, precedent can spread like a virus. And as we have said, over and over, the left was warned that its precedents would come back to bite them.

The nuclear can of worms has been opened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The nuclear can of worms has been opened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask Harry Reid. He opened it.

Ask Harry Reid. He opened it.

Exactly. You have a problem with it, write a letter to Harry Reid. He opened it. Time to stick it up his azz.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your one word, totally general, non-specific question was, I assume, a sly way to lead into focusing some kind of unnamed blame on the current use of the nuclear option and brush Reid's culpability under the rug. The "non-answers" focused the blame back onto the originator, and implied that the answer you want is also the answer to why Reid created the nuclear option.

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Reid started this. Am I going too fast? Reid was warned by chuck Schumer that the gop would eventually use the nuclear option against the dems. He was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your answers add nothing to the discussion.... (I detest this style of debate, as I do the current style of governing by winning at all costs...)

I just assumed that you were aware of the history of this rule of order, brought to the Senate floor by Mr Reid. It allows passage of vote by simple majority of 51, which is an easier target to attain than the normal passage vote needed which was 60.


So end result is, after an eight year reign where a group played with the rules to hold us by the short hairs.... the tide has changed and is being used against those who invoked this option.


Please note, Jeff, that this is NOT a pro-Trump post. Simply an answer to your answers feigning surprise and disdain…..

I'd prefer 9 middle of the roaders.

I'd prefer 9 middle of the roaders.

As it should be.... to judge each case on merit, not political affiliation.

To take it a step further, I would prefer 100 middle of the roaders in the Senate too.

As it should be.... to judge each case on merit, not political affiliation.

To take it a step further, I would prefer 100 middle of the roaders in the Senate too.

Good Luck with that, our state can't even come up with 2.

Reid started this. Am I going too fast? Reid was warned by chuck Schumer that the gop would eventually use the nuclear option against the dems. He was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They already have. Blaming this on Reid is silly, the Republicans removed the restriction for SCOTUS. They've already gone there.

All the GOP can say is at least we didn't steal this one....

I just assumed that you were aware of the history of this rule of order, brought to the Senate floor by Mr Reid. It allows passage of vote by simple majority of 51, which is an easier target to attain than the normal passage vote needed which was 60.
Hence my point that the GOP has already used it to push Neil Gorsuch through. There's no can of worms that's been opened, we're far past that. Jim's just so giddy because he thinks Roe is going to be overturned he can't think straight.

This is exactly what I find so nauseating. You project the idea of a landmark decision being overturned into a discussion about the procedure of appointment.... and then assign that idea to another, if only to propagate your agenda. It reminds me of debating with conspiracy theorists about NASA, 9/11, Newtown, flat earth, etc....

I don't think there are any "middle of the roader's" in today's environment. There will always be issues with any nominee by both sides. This is bound to be nasty, I watched some clips of Clarence Thomas where he basically said he was "lynched" in the approval process. Trumps lasting legacy whether we like it or not will be the shape of the Supreme Court in years to come.

I warned you..... ; )


Politics
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
1:11
The Senate goes nuclear

By Paul Kane November 21, 2013 Email the author

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Goes on to say this was R's fault for blocking O's nominees, and that R's said to HR don't do this. HR gave middle finger yada yada yada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html?utm_term=.7900470a61af

All the GOP can say is at least we didn't steal this one....

What did they steal , exactly? The nomination of the nut obama wanted? The American citizens freely chose to give senate control to the gop. As obama liked to say, elections have consequences. I don’t think voters gave the senate to the gop, so they could let obama replace Scalia with a liberal nut job. If the American people don’t like what Mitch McConnell did, they have the opportunity every two years to make a change. So far, they have chosen to leave the senate with the gop, and it’s a safe bet they will keep the senate in November, the seats up for re election could not possibly align any better for the republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence my point that the GOP has already used it to push Neil Gorsuch through. There's no can of worms that's been opened, we're far past that. Jim's just so giddy because he thinks Roe is going to be overturned he can't think straight.

Reid did it in 2013, which last time I checked, was before Gorsuch got confirmed.

I don’t expect roe to get overturned. I do expect a shift away from liberal activism, and damn right that has me giddy. I remember exactly how I felt whan I heard Scalia died, I can’t believe how much better things are than I feared, all because McConnell finally grew a pair and held off obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oooohhhhhhh

The Burn

https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/status/1012075217584295938

What did they steal , exactly? The nomination of the nut obama wanted? The American citizens freely chose to give senate control to the gop. As obama liked to say, elections have consequences. I don’t think voters gave the senate to the gop, so they could let obama replace Scalia with a liberal nut job. If the American people don’t like what Mitch McConnell did, they have the opportunity every two years to make a change. So far, they have chosen to leave the senate with the gop, and it’s a safe bet they will keep the senate in November, the seats up for re election could not possibly align any better for the republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Merrick Garland was a nut? Is that based on Obama nominating him, therefore he must be an evil progressive? What do you actually know about him other than that he was nominated by Obama?

Merrick Garland was a nut? Is that based on Obama nominating him, therefore he must be an evil progressive? What do you actually know about him other than that he was nominated by Obama?

I’m basing it on the fact that obama wanted him. And the tiny, tiny bit I read. I didn’t write his biography. And I was using hyperbole, I don’t actually suspect he was mentally ill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is exactly what I find so nauseating. You project the idea of a landmark decision being overturned into a discussion about the procedure of appointment.... and then assign that idea to another, if only to propagate your agenda. It reminds me of debating with conspiracy theorists about NASA, 9/11, Newtown, flat earth, etc....
Because they're all interrelated politically...no conspiracy here.

Reid did it in 2013, which last time I checked, was before Gorsuch got confirmed.
Reid specifically said it wasn't allowed for SCOTUS. The Republicans changed that rule to push Gorsuch through which they likely would have done regardless of what Reid did in 2013.

I watched some clips of Clarence Thomas where he basically said he was "lynched" in the approval process.

It is widely viewed that he pulled the race card by saying that when he was questioned on the sexual aspects of his dealings w/Anita Hill.

It is widely viewed that he pulled the race card by saying that when he was questioned on the sexual aspects of his dealings w/Anita Hill.

It is also widely viewed that the dems played the race card, from the bottom of the deck, by claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women. That was actually when I became a republican, after I saw what they did to Clarence Thomas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reid specifically said it wasn't allowed for SCOTUS. The Republicans changed that rule to push Gorsuch through which they likely would have done regardless of what Reid did in 2013.

Ahh. So since you speculate that they might have done it anyway, that means Reid didn’t open the can of worms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh. So since you speculate that they might have done it anyway, that means Reid didn’t open the can of worms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


He opened it for everything else, excluding this.

Better Hope RBG hangs on for 6 more years

(FWIW I want to see a fairly balanced SCOTUS without Kook Left and Kook right)

He opened it for everything else, excluding this.

Better Hope RBG hangs on for 6 more years

(FWIW I want to see a fairly balanced SCOTUS without Kook Left and Kook right)

Agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Better Hope RBG hangs on for 6 more years



Buzzy is older than Kennedy

What did they steal , exactly? The nomination of the nut obama wanted? The American citizens freely chose to give senate control to the gop. As obama liked to say, elections have consequences. I don’t think voters gave the senate to the gop, so they could let obama replace Scalia with a liberal nut job. If the American people don’t like what Mitch McConnell did, they have the opportunity every two years to make a change. So far, they have chosen to leave the senate with the gop, and it’s a safe bet they will keep the senate in November, the seats up for re election could not possibly align any better for the republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So will you support waiting for the mid terms to be finished before starting the Conformation process on Trumps Pick ... My guess is NO

you have no regard with process what did they steal?? now your just playing dumb.. Turtle boy drag his feet for 11 months but now he wants it done by September ... the GOP cant claim innocents

So will you support waiting for the mid terms to be finished before starting the Conformation process on Trumps Pick ... My guess is NO



To be realistic I wouldn't wait either. The publicly stated mantra over and over on the left in Congress has been RESIST. Can't take the chance on waiting and loosing majority.

It is also widely viewed that the dems played the race card, from the bottom of the deck, by claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women. That was actually when I became a republican, after I saw what they did to Clarence Thomas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any links to articles stating that? Biden was slammed for his treatment of Anita Hill.

Obama got Elena Kagan confirmed in a midterm year, and there were republicans who voted for her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So will you support waiting for the mid terms to be finished before starting the Conformation process on Trumps Pick ... My guess is NO

you have no regard with process what did they steal?? now your just playing dumb.. Turtle boy drag his feet for 11 months but now he wants it done by September ... the GOP cant claim innocents

No, it would be asinine to wait until after the midterms. Obama got elana Kagan confirmed in 2010, a midterm year. And in 2016 when the gop prevented obama from getting anyone confirmed, they were able to do so, because the American people gave the senate to the gop. The democrats do not control the senate. Elections have consequences, pretty sure I heard that a lot from 2009 - 2016.

I have great regard for process, and I want my side to follow the same process as the other side, I don’t want my side to self impose a higher hurdle, that’s stupid.

The gop controls the senate. With that, come the same exact perks the dems enjoyed when they last controlled the senate. If the American people don’t like it, they can make a change in 2010, but the gop will be more likely to gain senate seats than lose them. Several democrats up from state’s trump won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Justice Thomas was confirmed, the Dems. controlled the Senate 57-43.

When Justice Thomas was confirmed, the Dems. controlled the Senate 57-43.

There was a time when it was bipartisan. That changed with Bork. Do you remember which side broke withbtradition that time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was not confirmed bc of his role in the Sat. night massacre where he fired Archibald Cox after 2 folks refused and the firing was found by a judge to be improper.

There were other issues including his views of the division of power bt the pres and congress. He also believed that Constituion did not provide any privacy protection to individuals.

He was not confirmed bc of his role in the Sat. night massacre where he fired Archibald Cox after 2 folks refused and the firing was found by a judge to be improper.

There were other issues including his views of the division of power bt the pres and congress. He also believed that Constituion did not provide any privacy protection to individuals.

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

You want to say that Clarence Thomas was guilty, and Bork was unqualified. Fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

You want to say that Clarence Thomas was guilty, and Bork was unqualified. Fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stop making things up - show me where I said either.

I asked previously for you to show me where the Dems. played the race card and that they "claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women" when there were Dems who voted for Thomas and Repubs who voted against him. Biden was skewered for his questioning of Hill. In fact, Thomas was criticized for playing the race card and calling it a "high tech lynching" in his opening remarks. This seemed to scare many of the Dems.

You really don't remember, do you?

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

I found links that defined it as getting attacked politically, especially in the media.

How many times did borks decisions get overturned by higher courts, how many times did Sotomayor?

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

From the way you put it, sounds like it doesn't matter who gets confirmed. It turns out OK. What's all the fuss about? Things are all going just fine. The system works. All these posts are fussing over nothing.

This thread should expire.

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

So I’m way off base to think this s significant, so explain why the left is going berserk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you need to tell this guy that nothing meaningful will change.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32449/no-wonder-jeff-toobin-wants-abortion-so-badly-he-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you could tell this guy nothing meaningful will change
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/columnists/is-media-ignoring-the-biggest-scandal-in-presidential-history-writer-behind-trump-broidy-theory-explains/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you could tell this guy nothing meaningful will change
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/columnists/is-media-ignoring-the-biggest-scandal-in-presidential-history-writer-behind-trump-broidy-theory-explains/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, I’m actually correct when I tell Spence that the left is worried about trump replacing Kennedy. It’s obviously true.

When I point out an obvious truth related to SCOTUS, you respond with a tale about a republican acting horribly. If true, it’s yet another in a long list of republicans acting immorally. Not sure what that has to do with this, other than showing that you are unable to concede that I was right when I said the left is worried, as I would be if I were a democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, I’m actually correct when I tell Spence that the left is worried about trump replacing Kennedy. It’s obviously true.

When I point out an obvious truth related to SCOTUS, you respond with a tale about a republican acting horribly. If true, it’s yet another in a long list of republicans acting immorally. Not sure what that has to do with this, other than showing that you are unable to concede that I was right when I said the left is worried, as I would be if I were a democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What obvious truth was in the article you linked?
A quote from the article you linked:
No Wonder Jeff Toobin Wants Abortion So Badly, He Once Allegedly Gave His Mistress Money To Have One
A quote from the one i linked:
The prospect of Trump having had a political ally pay off a mistress to have an abortion would be extremely scandalous, even for him. But what we didn’t know, until now, is that there appears to be legitimate evidence to suggest that this affair and pregnancy happened while Trump was the president of the United States!

What obvious truth was in the article you linked?
A quote from the article you linked:
No Wonder Jeff Toobin Wants Abortion So Badly, He Once Allegedly Gave His Mistress Money To Have One
A quote from the one i linked:
The prospect of Trump having had a political ally pay off a mistress to have an abortion would be extremely scandalous, even for him. But what we didn’t know, until now, is that there appears to be legitimate evidence to suggest that this affair and pregnancy happened while Trump was the president of the United States!

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, he doesn't really. Maybe two years.

From the way you put it, sounds like it doesn't matter who gets confirmed. It turns out OK. What's all the fuss about? Things are all going just fine. The system works. All these posts are fussing over nothing.

This thread should expire.
Then why is Jim so excited? He doesn't think Roe will be over turned. He doesn't seem to be anti-gay. He's a sportsman so I'd think he'd oppose repeal of environmental legislation. He's a devout Christian so wishing for payback with the suffering of others, even former democratic leadership would be against his faith...

This really may be an existential question for the board. Why is Jim so giddy?

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I would hope that this country can withstand whatever Trump does.
Regardless of what you think, he has no magical powers.
Gaslighting does not qualify you as a superhero.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would hope that this country can withstand whatever Trump does.
We will but I had no idea the damage Trump would do to our democracy would be so significant and come so quickly. I don't think most of the effects have even really been felt yet and it looks like his rampage is far from over.

Well, he doesn't really. Maybe two years.

Come on Jeff. What is the average turnover of a SCOTUS seat? Lifetime appointment. Each appointment is an important one. Kennedy certainly held ground from Reagan, so had an effect much greater than two years...

[QUOTE=spence;1145666]We will but I had no idea the damage Trump would do to our democracy would be so significant and come so quickly. I don't think most of the effects have even really been felt yet and it looks like his rampage is far from over.[/QUOTE.

We will, just as we did from the Obama years. (though the families who lost loved ones due to lack of action will never recover) No need for me to harp on the negative effects the previous two terms had on me, but my industry is white hot currently. People are spending on their homes. Is that a direct result of Trump? Not going to say that. Just what effects are you expecting Jeff?
His style is not one I admire, but that is how business is done in much of New York. And I disliked him as a businessman and a person. But he was the lesser of two evils we had on the ballot. Our only hope to get change next time is to present a better candidate.... Until then.... suck it. We did.

Well, he doesn't really. Maybe two years.

No, I mean if he nominates somone more conservative than kennedy, the court is transformed for a long time, because the judge gets a lifetime appointment. I am aware the potus isnt there for a generation, though the last jerk sure felt that way at times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would hope that this country can withstand whatever Trump does.
Regardless of what you think, he has no magical powers.
Gaslighting does not qualify you as a superhero.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the republic can survive obama with the dems controlling Congress, I’m confident. What did I ever say that implied he had magic powers? Name one thing please?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the republic can survive obama with the dems controlling Congress, I’m confident. What did I ever say that implied he had magic powers? Name one thing please?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He certainly has you mesmerized, you’ll figure it out someday
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More condescending crap from a pie hole🏅
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He certainly has you mesmerized, you’ll figure it out someday
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have him figured out, he’s a morally bankrupt scumbag who knows how to get what he wants, and from my perspective he’s done great things, while making an ass if himself every couple of days. He also knows how to pummel liberals, and I mean pummel them, at their own dirty game. They can’t handle it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have him figured out, he’s a morally bankrupt scumbag who knows how to get what he wants, and from my perspective he’s done great things, while making an ass if himself every couple of days. He also knows how to pummel liberals, and I mean pummel them, at their own dirty game. They can’t handle it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



It’s a beautiful thing to watch. 👍
Not a good time to be a liberal 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a beautiful thing to watch. 👍
Not a good time to be a liberal 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it is, and no it is not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a good chance DJT could have 2 more judges over the next few years. If high 70s to mid 80s are the benchmark for SC Justices retiring we will use 80 years old as a benchmark for Justices to retire. Interesting thing - how many of you plan to be working hard and flat out at 80? So these numbers are probably very optimistic as to how long these people will last.

How long to reach 80 years old:
John Roberts - 17
Anthony Kennedy - retiring now
Clarence Thomas -10
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (5) Yes - she is Eighty Five now in 2018
Stephen Breyer - now
Samuel Alito - 12
Sonia Sotomayor -16
Elena Kagan -22
Neil Gorsuch -29



How long to reach 75 years old:
John Roberts - 12
Clarence Thomas -5
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (10) Yes - she is Eighty Five
Stephen Breyer - (5)
Samuel Alito - 7
Sonia Sotomayor -11
Elena Kagan -17
Neil Gorsuch -24
New Justice - say 28 years

In the next 5 years there is a good chance of 3 leaving the bench (not including Kennedy's replacement):

Notorious RGB, Breyer, and Thomas





I have great regard for process, and I want my side to follow the same process as the other side, I don’t want my side to self impose a higher hurdle, that’s stupid.


^^^^ This. Equal opportunity - not manipulated outcome.

It’s a beautiful thing to watch. 👍
Not a good time to be a liberal 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frankly, no. It is not good to see either side do it though it bothers me less when it is Progressives being triggered.

[QUOTE=JohnR;
Frankly, no. It is not good to see either side do it though it bothers me less when it is Progressives being triggered.[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree. Being on the conservative side I'm comfortable but seeing how some of my family and friends are reacting on social media makes me somewhat concerned about their future (mental) state of mind if the trend continues.

I tend to agree. Being on the conservative side I'm comfortable but seeing how some of my family and friends are reacting on social media makes me somewhat concerned about their future (mental) state of mind if the trend continues.
I don’t see most of this as a liberal vs conservative thing, it’s a good America vs a bad America sort of thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the left,if you don't agree with their ideals then you must certainly be a bad American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t see most of this as a liberal vs conservative thing, it’s a good America vs a bad America sort of thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


That statement is the sort of thing that will begin the next civil war.
I did not click on the youtube, no need after that troll.


I saw a video recently where the speaker said that conservatives and libertarians need to be vigilant but not act first and wait ,even if they have to take a beating, for the liberals to fire first. Well my immediate reaction was that they already did fire first, it was on a ballfield recently, remember? Well threats are one thing, actions are another. People need to calm down and stop listening to propaganda and the media needs to be a lot less dramatic and stop egging lunatics on.


I don't understand all the Chicken Little speak, Trump has not even announced his choice yet and people are freaking out.

That is the left,if you don't agree with their ideals then you must certainly be a bad American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Exactly not the point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=JohnR;1145690]There is a good chance DJT could have 2 more judges over the next few years. If high 70s to mid 80s are the benchmark for SC Justices retiring we will use 80 years old as a benchmark for Justices to retire. Interesting thing - how many of you plan to be working hard and flat out at 80? So these numbers are probably very optimistic as to how long these people will last.

How long to reach 80 years old:
John Roberts - 17
Anthony Kennedy - retiring now
Clarence Thomas -10
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (5) Yes - she is Eighty Five now in 2018
Stephen Breyer - now
Samuel Alito - 12
Sonia Sotomayor -16
Elena Kagan -22
Neil Gorsuch -29



How long to reach 75 years old:
John Roberts - 12
Clarence Thomas -5
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (10) Yes - she is Eighty Five
Stephen Breyer - (5)
Samuel Alito - 7
Sonia Sotomayor -11
Elena Kagan -17
Neil Gorsuch -24
New Justice - say 28 years

Ruth Ginsburg is 85 & has cancer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly not the point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the meme was too much for me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the meme was too much for me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I didn’t post a meme, it was a funny video clip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

#walkaway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device