Supreme Court vacancy

[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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Trump never forced to Kennedy to resign, there was never a back room deal for Kennedy to pick his replacement, no Kennedy son and cash payment/loan has nothing to do with anything and no there isn’t any dark money involved in the process.

All conspiracy theories pushed by mainstream media sources this past 10 days that people somehow continue to buy into.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Trump never forced to Kennedy to resign, there was never a back room deal for Kennedy to pick his replacement, no Kennedy son and cash payment has nothing to do with anything and no there isn’t any dark money involved in the process.

All conspiracy theories pushed by mainstream media sources this past 10 days that people somehow continue to buy into.

Look who is in denial right now?! #triggered

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Look who is in denial right now?! #triggered

Im not mad about it...but it just continues to prove that major news sources continue to develop false narratives that now are moving into conspiracy theory zone. I never thought Huff Post/Politico/Yahoo new was "Infowars" territory but they certainly have changed my mind this week. They are certainly on the same level now.

[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 JoeRedskin

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.