Supreme Court vacancy

LOL, sure you're not. That's why all of a sudden "news source's " you respected are now crap becuase they don't fit your narrative ,don't look now but that is a trump cult thing to do .

Conspiracy theories aren't news...its gossip and tabloid. Belongs on a news stand next to the National Enquirer.

If you chose to trust these sources as legitimate news then maybe you rethink some things.

I'm just saying that the whole scenario as laid out doesn't make logical sense, unless you assume one of our top 9 justices is corrupt. If someone wants to lay out the thought process in a coherent manner I would really appreciate it.

Mooby has presented the very plausible idea that Mueller's probe is looking into Deutsche Bank ties with Trump to Russia, where Russia then exerts influence over Trump and Trump in turn has been acting on it rather than using the full power of the US to stop it. Ok. If evidence is turned up proving this, then Trump should be impeached.

So let's assume that this (or something of this nature) is the underpinning of all of the Trump investigation and that Trump is indeed worried there is something there. Then Trump would have it as a goal to get a Justice on the court to go along with protecting him. OK, so if you then assume that Kennedy's son is not only privvy to shady dealings but implicit in them, that would give you a path to get from Trump/Russia to Trump/Kennedy.


BUT at this point, even if ALL of that is true, you have to then say we have a respected SC Justice who is willing to be complicit in this by peacefully resigning, instead of using his immense authority and powers and/or notifying the ongoing special prosecutor, with the direct purpose of allowing corruption to continue in the presidency and by saying who he thinks would best go along with it, in the SC as well.

Somewhere I am missing a logical connection that makes the thread substantive. I don't for a minute accept the idea that Justice Kennedy would sacrifice the SC and his own legacy for a President, especially if he believed that President to be corrupt.

Conspiracy theories aren't news...its gossip and tabloid. Belongs on a news stand next to the National Enquirer.

If you chose to trust these sources as legitimate news then maybe you rethink some things.



Chico, DENIAL isn't just a river in Egypt any more.:postcop:

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.)

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?

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.

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.

So instead of asking a judge, who had a lifetime appointment, and can retire at his/her choosing (I doubt that any of them are really in need of an ambassadorship at the fine spry age of 80, though if RBG wants to be leave for 1 - I'm ok with that), we should ask those 100 fine apolitical senators, or a nice neutral group like the heritage foundation or ACLU.

Nominating a new SC Justice is the one case in all of our constitution (I think) where the executive branch and the legislative branch, through advise and consent, get to bring politics directly into the SC. If it can be headed off by asking a well respected moderate justice who they think would be the ideal replacement, I would take that 50 times out of 50, over the political side show that is about to ensue.

Chico, DENIAL isn't just a river in Egypt any more.:postcop:

G1 rethinking some things “u know, why haven’t we been back to the moon?”...”Area 51, possible next vacation spot?”.....googles: trump + Illuminati....

G1 rethinking some things “u know, why haven’t we been back to the moon?”...”Area 51, possible next vacation spot?”.....googles: trump + Illuminati....

LOL, # triggered.:spank:

RBG has passed away. Rest In Peace.