Justice Kennedy Rocks Washington With Retirement

Justice Kennedy

The announced retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has rocked Washington.  I have columns that will be coming out in both the Washington Post and The Hill addressing different aspects of this news.  However, the departure of the last Reagan nominee is obviously the end of an era for the Supreme Court as an institution.  As someone with well-known libertarian leanings, I have always had a strong identification with Kennedy’s jurisprudence.  While conservative in his approach, Kennedy believed that the most sacred role of the Constitution was to protect individuals in quest for meaning and identification in their lives.  I always found Kennedy both personally and judicially to be a man of grace and profound sensitivity.  I have long dreaded his leaving the Court, which will be the worst for his departure.

I have been helping with the coverage of the Court this week and will continue to do so today.  We are looking at a long hot summer as Supreme Court politics moves to the forefront of our national debate.  However, this week should be a celebration and thanks to a man who gave so much to this country over decades of service.  One could disagree with Kennedy, as I did on some cases, but no one questioned his sincere effort to strike a balance under the Constitution and on the Court.

There is little doubt that President Donald Trump is likely to move the Court to the right with Kennedy’s replacement.  Trump has shown a remarkable commitment to fulfilling his campaign promises and this was the most prominent and repeated of those promises.  Moreover, the timing could not be worse for the Democrats.  Without the filibuster rule, the threats yesterday of a fight for the balance of the Court was less than convincing.  There is every reason to believe that Trump is about to deliver on one of his greatest promises and that the Supreme Court is about the change in the significant way since the transition from the Warren to the Rehnquist Courts.

431 thoughts on “Justice Kennedy Rocks Washington With Retirement”

  1. Washington Pist
    Dateline June 27
    Washington DC
    The entire democrat party was savagely attacked and eviscerated by vicious gangs of roosting chickens today.  This is the 3rd time this week this horde of highly dangerous evil avian thugs……….. 




    Research, from less than 2 months ago, suggests Americans want a court that addresses issues as they affect us in the 21st Century. Any court that attempts to rule based on what our Founding Fathers may have thought in 1786 is likely to be a dud.


    1. I’m not buying the idea that basic extrapolation of text is “different” from “original intent.”

      I don’t see mutually exclusive concepts here.

    2. “Original intent” is, to my understanding, is still how rulings are supposed to be made, except for radically conservative judges who try to cite the Constitution as a basis for denying rights clearly intended by the framers to be constitutionally-protected. For instance, the Fourth Amendment speaks to unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment gives us a fundamental right to privacy. People didn’t have cars or telephones when the Constitution was written, and probably such things weren’t even dreamed about, but that doesn’t mean the government can search your car without probable cause, nor can they tap your phone without a warrant because the fundamental right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment applies even though these specific scenarios weren’t contemplated. The Constitution sets forth fundamental concepts, and wasn’t intended as an iron-clad inflexible set of rules that doesn’t change as times change.

      1. Or, even, perhaps speeding laws (say) are fundamentally unconstitutional, inasmuch as devices like automobiles and high rates of speed were not anticipated by the Constitution’s authors.

        1. That is, turn the clock back to 1787. Slavery? No problem? Women get to vote? No way !

      2. “Original Intent” would mean that the SC would not change a centuries/ millenia old definition of marraige.
        This was not high on the list of priorities at the Constitutional Convention.
        Original Intent would not change the definition of a “fine” as a “tax”.
        Especially when the legislation labels the penalty as a fine.
        You cited conservative instances of not following “Original Intent”, but you left out a lot.

        1. The authors of the Constitution lived at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
          They probably had an idea that there would be significant technological advances, the exact nature of which could not be predicted.
          Their focus and mission was not to hamstring legislation that dealt with newer and newer inventions.
          The basic, established structure/ framework of government and society was a completely different matter.
          These are apples and oranges comparisons, to cite anticipation of technological advance as evidence that the SC “knew better” in restructuring governmental and societal norms.
          The provision for amendments was put in place for those who “knew better”.

      3. No, the Amendment does not speak to a ‘fundamental right of privacy’ but to a restriction on the activities of constables.

      4. ” This amendment gives us a fundamental right to privacy.”

        The right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution. Such a right is derived.

        “The Constitution sets forth fundamental concepts, and wasn’t intended as an iron-clad inflexible set of rules that doesn’t change as times change.”

        That is right and that is the reason behind the Constitutional Amendment process.

    3. This idea should be used to modify the Supreme Court too.
      Since the US population is about 11 times bigger than it was when the Constitution was written, Trump should expand the Supreme Court to 99 Justices and fast track all his appointments.

      1. So, what do you think the US landscape would be like if the overwhelming majority of federal judges, including the SC, were hard right-wing?

      2. Dawn, Honey, Trump doesn’t know any judges (except his sister), or even any lawyers, except Michael Cohen. You do realize, don’t you, that any nominations will come from the Kochs and Breitbart. Do you even understand the implications of this? I doubt it. Maybe you should look into it.

        1. Still trapped in your tiny little delusion bubble I see. This is good because the more liberals disconnect from reality the more sane people realize they have no choice but to defend themselves from your waters/manson type of insane plans.

        2. That’s true. The Wa Po ran a story last week saying that a Koch Bros lieutenant has a White House job vetting every appointment.

          1. The Koch Brothers and Trump disagree 180 degrees on Trump’s major platform promise regarding immigration.


      The semantic content of formal written English hasn’t changed that much. Even Elizabethan prose is readily understandable.

      And, of course, the notion you’re peddling is bizarre, but bizarre is convenient for some factions. A protean law is not a law. It is an excuse. If the law isn’t binding, the next best solution is parliamentary supremacy (what Gottfried Dietze called ‘a completely flexible constitution’) rather than judicial ass pulls (which just happen to reflect the social prejudices in their circle of friends).

  3. To quote Barack Hussein Obama: “Elections have consequences, ha, ha.” Yes, they certainly do. Probably the only true thing O has ever said. Though when he said it, he never anticipated how the prophesy would come back to haunt him and the Dems. big time!

    Imagine had the cocky Harry Reid never ditched the filibuster for judges . . . delusionally believing the Dems would never lose the Senate . . . LOL.

    Imagine if Hillary had campaigned in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, like ole’ slick Willy had recommended . . . and was overruled by Robbie Mook . . . LOL.

    Imagine if Nancy Pelosi’s replacement Joe Crowley had actually campaigned . . . and not taken his constituents for granted . . . leaving Pelosi and Maxine Waters as the “face” of the Dems, Trump and the GOP will use as a virtual pinata for the midterms . . . Now add the marxist-socialist “free college and medicaid for all” bartender – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who won on her “Impeaching” Trump threat . . . backfiring by helping to turn out his supporters this November . . . LOL.

    Everyday, all day long, Donald J. Trump, is kicking over the tables of the money changers in the corrupt Washington cartel temple down in the toxic DC swamp, just like he said he would, fulfilling campaign promises – the reason half the country elected him, warts and all . . . sorry Stormy, nobody cares if you gave DJT a BJ 12 years ago . . .

    The “have no message” leaderless and apoplectic Dems and MSM will do anything and everything to try to block whomever Trump nominates to replace Justice Kennedy, to no avail . . . while “Roe v Wade” becomes the 5 alarm fire talking point . . . already begun last night by a hyperventilating Rachel Maddow . . . targeting Senator Susan Collins, to vote against any Trump nominee, while McCain’s AWOL in Arizona, and flakey Jeff Flake stamps his feet . . . neglecting the fact that there are 8 Dem Senators in Red States . . . who will cover those vote losses . . . no problem . . .

    Take it to the bank, ole’ Mitch McConnell will ensure Kennedy’s replacement is confirmed and sworn in before the midterms . . .

    And take it to the bank, Kennedy’s replacement will solidify a solid bench of 5 conservatives for the next 30 years . . . the left’s worst nightmare . . . where a truckload of right-leaning cases in the waiting will be brought . . . OMG!

    Fagetaboutit. Yes, “elections have consequences.” Big time.

    1. “Everyday, all day long, Donald J. Trump, is kicking over the tables of the money changers in the corrupt Washington cartel temple down in the toxic DC swamp”

      Fage: Is this the same Donald Trump who owns a hotel 2 blocks from the White House..?? He’s ‘kicking over the tables of money changers’..??

        1. I’m still trying to imagine Trump getting through the eye of a needle…..

          1. Jay, I will repeat a joke I provided some months ago.

            Trump and some others are in a motorboat and one of the others fall out into the shark-infested water. They stop the boat but can’t get the boat near to the man. Trump walks on the water and carries the man back to safety. The next day the leftwing news media report on the rescue…TRUMP CAN’T SWIM.

            1. Or maybe, Trump and some others are in a motorboat and one of the others fall out into the shark-infested water. They stop the boat but can’t get the boat near to the man. Trump leans out of the boat and shouts “Brothers of mine – leave this poor guy alone. He’s a Republican.”

              1. Sharks are known for being predominantly Democrats especially litigation sharks.

    2. And, that’s what you want? Please explain to me, because I really don’t understand: how can Fatso supporters be “pro-life”, but insensitive to the emotional distress of little brown babies taken from their parents?

      1. It’s easy: Life begins at conception, and ends at birth. Especially if you have brown skin.

        1. “It’s easy: Life begins at conception, and ends at birth. Especially if you have brown skin.”

          Jay, you are acting like a race-baiter. If you don’t like the name don’t act like one.

      2. Natacha – we are just as insensitive to little white babies and little black babies taken from their criminal mothers.

      3. It’s clear there’s a whole galaxy of things you don’t understand.

        1. Embryos are babies? What is your basis for this? Not everyone would agree with that view.

          1. Jay, a baby and what you refer to as an embryo have a lot in common. A baby has a lot in common with an older adult but there are some differences there as well.

            What is the difference between a baby and an embryo that makes the embryo worth killing yet makes the baby worth keeping alive?

              1. I’m looking for your explanation as to what makes the baby in the womb something that is OK to kill but not OK to kill once it is out of the womb. You must have some idea since you made this statement: “Embryos are babies?”. This is an idea that certainly you must have thought about. Or do you just draw important conclusions without thinking?

      4. They are not insensitive to brown babies. They are actually protecting them from being abused by their parents, drug traffickers, and rapists. They are also protecting legal citizens that are brown and black along with everyone else.

    3. You’re reference to President Barack HUSSEIN Obama reminds me that he was the finest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces since Harry Truman. Moreover, prior to his marriage, he undoubtedly had “access” to the white women.

      this is to “‘Merica was a better place when those people weren’t so uppity” fagybout

      1. he was the finest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces since Harry Truman.

        LOL! At the rate the next finest POTUS and CinC is going, BHO will only be remembered for being the catalyst of the 30 year conservative movement. All Hail Obama!!!

      2. So, why did you put his middle name in all caps? What if it had been Charles or Ralph or even Donald? Do you still suspect he was secretly a Muslim, just because of his middle name, without any real evidence?

  4. So we might want to speculate on how US society would be shaped by having a Supreme Court of 6 or 7 very right-wing judges. No abortions? No contraception? No unions? Even more guns? No immigration? No Mirada rights? Poll taxes? No gay rights? What else? Disenfranchisement of blacks or hispanics or even of women? How might it play out?

    1. LOL! You forgot HOA firing squads, an 8 degree increase in global temperatures and forced child labor.. But the Left will surely come up with more sky is falling predictions.

      More popcorn please.

      1. Olly,..
        – Also, the SC will probably hasten the slide of the U.S. into “fascism”. 😧😏

      2. I guess HOA doesn’t stand for “homeowner association” in this context ….

      1. Well, they consider cases brought before them. And I am quite sure there will be (and already is) a long lineup of cases to end abortion access, end gay rights, enshrine political gerrymandering, and any number of other things. And it would hardly be surprising at how a right-wing-packed court would rule.

        Re the gerrymandering issue, it wouldn’t surprise me for right wingers to claim that there is nothing wrong with Republicans having (say) a 60% share of Congress with only a 40% share of the popular vote. And I’d bet that the kind of SC that Trump has in mind, would go along with that.

        1. Jay, firstly they choose the cases they wish to be brought before them. The right is far more sensitive about turning over a previous Supreme Court decision then the left so your comments don’t demonstrate significant thought regarding this situation.

          The gerrymandering issue has been used by both parties.

    2. John Roberts is very right wing?

      That would put The Notorious R.B.G. square in the center then, wouldn’t it?

      Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

      I’ll take some of whatever you’re smoking, please.

    3. Add to that list the gutting of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That’s what Fatso’s older supporters don’t understand or don’t want to acknowledge.

      1. My guess is that the gutting would be designed to grandfather in those currently (say) 50 YO or older. Just younger people who would get screwed.

        1. Jay, younger people are screwed because Medicare was built on the idea that the funding comes from the younger people. When Medicare started it was based on I think 15 people to support one on Medicare. Today that number is somewhere between 2 and 3 people supporting one on Medicare and the number of people paying for it is falling. In the meantime, open border policies have been leading towards illegals collecting benefits that eventually come out of these programs, but the left doesn’t care about the working citizen who is paying these bills or citizens that worked their entire lives and now will see their payments diluted by illegals.

          I worry about the next generation, something the left should consider. Nothing the government does will likely affect me. You might consider me a right winger, but I am not protecting myself or a specific ideology. I am trying to protect the younger generations that have been left with horrendous bills, are being poorly educated and likely will find their standard of living falling compared to the rest of the world unless many of the leftist policies are reversed.

          I am not talking about things like abortion that should be a state issue. The states will never permit an end to abortion. I am mostly talking about economic issues, issues involving personal freedom and the ability to improve one’s lot in life.

          1. “The states will never permit an end to abortion.” Some (perhaps half) would and probably will ban abortion. They might well also ban contraception. More interestingly, if there are states where a woman can get abortions, and states where they can’t – what then? I can imagine draconian measures to prevent travel for purposes of obtaining abortions. Inspections at border crossings? Mandatory pregnancy testing?

            1. Since you are so certain that “perhaps half” would totally ban abortion, how about naming the ten most likely. More likely abortion laws would vary from state to state so one could choose the state that provided the care one wanted. Decades ago, even when banned, abortions still took place. I could see Indian reservations opening up abortion centers just like they have gambling casinos.

              I would worry more about the morality of our country. As the morality declines the likelihood of us remaining a free people declines as well.

              1. I would worry more about the morality of our country. As the morality declines the likelihood of us remaining a free people declines as well.

                Allan, I thought you would find this article interesting:

                And it is historically demonstrable that, when total power is invested in the state, murder and theft tend to become official and impregnable. The free economy permits morality but does not guarantee it; the coerced economy guarantees immorality. This formulation may prove distasteful to authoritarians accustomed to identifying all defenders of economic freedom as Manchesterians. Yet I can conceive of no other which can maintain the conditions of moral choice. It may prove equally distasteful to libertarians, accustomed to seeing all “true believers” as enemies of liberty. Yet I can conceive of no other that will ensure the sanctity of freedom. If there is no value system with which we may rebuke the pretensions of despots, what is to prevent the rule of force in the world? If there are no objective standards of right and wrong, why object to tyranny? If murder and theft are not immoral, why object to them either singly or in the mass?


              2. “I could see Indian reservations opening up abortion centers just like they have gambling casinos.”
                What an interesting idea…. I hadn’t thought of that. I can see the signs by the Interstate: “Ho Chunk Casino and Clinic…. Gambling in the Front Room, Clinic Upstairs.” A sure-fire way to increases tribal revenues.

          2. False. Illegals pay much more in taxes than they could ever take out in benefits. Wild-eyed paranoia looks good on you though. Pro tip: hannity isn’t really trying to inform you.

            this is to “but he sure is a looker, that hannity feller” allan

            1. Mark, that is what your contrived literature provides you and you suck it up. I pity anyone that uses any of your services. You have the intellect of a chicken after its head is cut off.

                1. I’m sorry Squeeky. You are absolutely right. I gave Mark far too much credit.

            2. Marky Mark Mark – prove that illegals pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. Super pro tip: You are not a pro.

      2. Has any of these programs been gutted? They have to be constrained or they could consume the entire GDP but I haven’t seen one Legislator or the President advocating such drastic change.

          1. Jay, you need a bit of training in mathematics. The top 10% pay over 50% of the taxes and I think the top 20% pay well over 80% of the taxes.

            Instead of reading obvious hit pieces you would do better playing golf. Your golf game would improve and you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

            1. Jay, you need a bit of training in mathematics. The top 10% pay over 50% of the taxes and I think the top 20% pay well over 80% of the taxes.

              I think you’ve confounded personal income taxes with taxes in general.

              1. Yes, because the other is very difficult to compare and Jay was talking about income taxes. I don’t know if anyone has compared all the other taxes excluding social security which is on average relatively proportionate to what one supposedly put in. Then again there are state taxes as well. Do you have a set of numbers to describe the total tax burden including property tax, sales tax, etc.? Don’t forget estate taxes but exclude Warren Buffet because though he complains about the tax benefits the wealthy get much of his wealth is directly and indirectly derived from those tax advantages.

        1. Thirty-odd years ago, Fred Barnes took a collection of Jesse Jackson’s speeches, extracted the discrete factual contentions in re federal public policy, and assessed them for veracity. Jackson talked rot all the time, because he actually didn’t know anything about public policy, even at the level of spare schematics on whether appropriations had gone up or down in real terms. (He didn’t know much about the general ledger of the organization of which he was supposedly the President, either). Impressions, feelz, that’s all these cretins have. (The animating principle is always the same, though: mo’ money to hire MEd.’s and M.S.Ws. How very conveeeenient).

          1. Relevance? What does Jesse Jackson have to do with anything of consequence. Who’re you gonna randomly reference next, David Duke?

            this is to “ya, I don’t make much sense, but my meds haven’t kicked in yet” spastic

            1. The point of my remarks is not that difficult to grasp Mark. It’s kind of rum that you claim to have passed the Texas Bar exam.

            2. Marky Mark Mark – the race hustler, Jesse Jackson is always relevant and open for discussion.

  5. First, Charles Krauthammer dies, and now Kennedy retires?! I fear the partisan divide will just get wider and less civil. Thank heavens for Professor Turley!

    1. I fear the partisan divide will just get wider and less civil.

      However, Mr. Civility just made a shot across the bow by declaring the Court will be the worst for his departure. That is hardly a statement encouraging trust in our future court. That statement does not sow seeds of civil discourse; which of course is the very thing his blog thrives on.

  6. I have long dreaded his leaving the Court, which will be the worst for his departure.

    Unless of course you are nominated, and then magically it will be the best because why, you would be able to take off your ConLaw hat and don your social engineer hat?

  7. When you have 4 Justices who can’t find the 2nd Amendment (with regard to an arbitrary D.C. handgun ban) in order to please their political party, and another 4 who can’t find habeas corpus (with regard to GITMO) in order to please their political party, that leaves one Justice left who is actually doing his job — and is incorrectly called a “moderate” or “swing vote” for his troubles..

    And now he’s leaving.

  8. I think I can see the propellers on the Democrat Party Titanic.

  9. The most notable thing Justices Kennedy and Roberts have accomplished is ruining the lives of 900,000 registered citizens and their families (3 million) by quoting a statement by a therapist in Psychology Today in 1986 concerning an erroneous 80% recidivism rate which went on to be included in over 100 cases across the nation. The collateral damage is on-going, and we will see if SCOTUS grants cert in the Colorado case ruling by Judge Matsch and if the Solicitor General suggests it apply to all registered citizens not just the three individuals. Google: Frightening and High by Ira and Tara Ellman. Women Against Registry

    1. The appellate courts aren’t ruining the lives of anyone. They’re just not interfering with legislative discretion. Statutory law and public discourse on sex offenses is part of the madness of the age. Every rule and custom which tended to contain the expression of human sexuality has been stigmatized by the cadres, mocked in mass entertainment, and sometimes debarred in law. Then politicians and officialdom (with public approval) turn around and impose draconian penalties on one particular class of deviant. Jared Fogle was slapped with a 15 year minimum sentence for collecting dirty pictures. The man who took the pictures is serving a minimum sentence of 27 years. My favorite example of public posturing was the legislator in Florida who had persuaded that body to enact a law that a registered offender could not live within x distance of a school. He later admitted he’d never examined a map before sponsoring that provision. You had registered offenders in some loci camped out under highway overpasses because that was the only place that wasn’t within x distance from a school.

      1. Contact David Feige who was a PD with Bronx Defenders for 15 years and ask him to allow you to watch his documentary ‘Untouchable’ filmed in Florida.

  10. Paul, nobody from the Ivy League. And nobody from a university on the left coast. Simply candidates from fly over country.

    1. … so that we can remake the entire country to look like Kansas or Mississippi ?

      1. Jay S – why not, it has been a long time since someone outside the insiders has sat on the Court. I am tired of elitist judges.

        1. Yeah, these elitist judges have too much education. Better if they don’t know too much.

          1. Jay S – they all get the same education, a J.D., so I want them to have some practical application in the world. Sandra Day O’Connor was raised on a ranch, which helped her decisions. What can we say about the backgrounds of the justices we have currently?

            1. No, we don’t need anymore five-part balancing tests. And the wench voted to uphold Roe v Wade. Btw, she was the issue of Stanford Law School.

              My gut tells me that Thomas Sowell’s view – that the consequential variables are whether or not the judge in question is a social climber and whether or not the judge was abnormally other-directed – is the correct one. You want someone who knows his own mind and is at home being outre. What I suspect we’ll end up with is someone who pleases Rob Portman.

            2. Somehow I don’t think a JD from Southwest School of Law and TV Repair represents the same education as one from Harvard or any other well-known school.

        1. No I wouldn’t. But somehow the idea has crept in that having an educated and widely experienced point of view is inferior to being an ignoramus in the boonies.

          A related observation: In the 1930s, movies were often set in (say) New York or Europe. The main characters were often witty and urbane and (presumably) well educated. Not anymore. There seems to have been a triumph of the rural and isolated against urban society.

          1. “No I wouldn’t. But somehow the idea has crept in that having an educated and widely experienced point of view is inferior to being an ignoramus in the boonies.”

            That is only in your imagination.

          2. No I wouldn’t. But somehow the idea has crept in that having an educated and widely experienced point of view is inferior to being an ignoramus in the boonies.

            Who do you have in mind, Jay? I don’t doubt there are inanities people with post-baccalaureate degrees are less prone to than the rest of us, but my own exposure to fancy people of various sorts leads me to believe they have different prejudices, not fewer prejudices or less intense prejudices. It’s not hard to think of nonsense the affirmation of which is a status marker in faculty circles. With scant doubt, widespread abortion, racial preference schemes (‘diversity’), and the notion that the trouble in the world finds its origin in the United States is far more prevalent among higher education types and their thrift-shop markdown confederates than it is among normal people. Assent to social fictions about homosexuals is another status marker. Maintaining the notion that crime rates are unresponsive to police presence is another crock that higher education types (though not ordinary affluent people) are wont to adhere to. One thing Thomas Sowell emphasizes: expertise is not intelligence and intelligence is not articulateness.

            1. So maybe anyone with more than a high school education should be barred from government service ?

              1. How does that follow from anything I actually said?

          3. I haven’t seen any films set among the ‘rural and isolated’, except the one about the alien invaders with exceptional hearing.

            My grandmother was witty and genteel and of that generation, Jay. She also believed in fixed standards.

            1. My rural grandparents were witty and occasionally genteel, but they most definitely had a parochial viewpoint. Among other things, I can clearly remember them railing against the Jews.

              1. Lah di dah. Ron Unz has created a website where people do that routinely. Most of them seem to be technical personnel vain about their intelligence.

          4. But somehow the idea has crept in that having an educated and widely experienced point of view is inferior to being an ignoramus in the boonies.

            And yet one could conclude Jay that you believe having an educated and widely experienced point of view in the boonies is inferior to being an ignoramusin the Big City.

            1. As far as I can tell, educated and widely experienced people in the boonies – are mostly in Vermont. Certainly not rural Mississippi or Tennessee.

              1. By ‘widely experienced’ Jay means ten day jaunts to foreign countries, not military service or learning several trades.

      2. Ooo dems may wanna be careful if they plan to launch a ridicule campaign against this demographic.

  11. I say Granny Ginsburg is the next domino to fall. She’s 85. Show of hands: Who thinks an 85-year-old should be making policy decisions on anything besides her choice for lunch? And even more interesting is that Trump will get to name her replacement.

    1. Yeah, Ginsburg is next. Rather than use the lunch analogy, I prefer sports betting. So what are the odds that Trump will replace Ginsburg. Place your bets.

        1. mespo – 2 to 1 during this term. If the Republicans take the midterms, she retires.

        2. For sure she wouldn’t last the second term and just having the power to name that third Justice is enough to bring in another five percent on it’s own added to the 40% anti Clinton anti socialist faction which made up the largest voting faction of 2016. Those two factions plus the Constitutional Republic faction in the GOP and the suddenly no longer RINOs added to the Socialist Progressive aka once upon a time as Democrats movement to the extreme left …….the chances of a second term are massive under the banner of Constitutional Republic Party (the insider already elected coalition) and the addition of the Constitutional Centrist Coalition (the outsider to the CRP Add that together looking at 60% plus when it comes to choosing the Electoral College.

          And that isn’t counting keeping the War Monger Party aka the What’s Economics Party, aka the We Support Victimizers of Women Party aka the Hate Party leaving only a few die hards, a few campus twinkies and snowflakes and the leaders of a party with no members left

          The left continues to keep lumping their opponents together under one heading which in turn causes them to forget who controlled in 2016

          The counter revolution anti socialist revolution continues.

          Many a slip twixt cup and lip though and nothing is written in stone but a 7-2 and the need for making the tax cut permanent even enlarging it one or two percent for individuals is very heavy club when the other side can only bleat ‘we are going to raise taxes.’

          Not to use another space I agree 2-1 and voluntarily if repubs take the midterms.

    2. She’s been gone for sometime somebody just needs to wake her and show her home.

      1. Clearly you don’t know her very well. What evidence do you have that she is doddering in any way?

        1. Jay S:

          She’s survived two bouts of cancer (colon and pancreatic) and had a stint implanted in her coronary artery. She’s 85 and unless she wears a big “S” on her chest, she susceptible to human experience with all its maladies.

          1. She had a bout of Pancreatic Cancer in 2009. She evidently had a Whipple Procedure which contained it. I had a dear friend who had a Whipple in 2007. He was told that they weren’t sure what sort of cancer he had, but that if it was pancreatic cancer, it would return. That she’s bumped and ground along for 9 years suggests she’s either a case for a paper or her pancreas was infected with some other sort of cancer. (I think there’s one indigenous to the bile duct, if I’m not mistaken).

            1. TS to Dance,..
              – Ginsburg’s pancreatic cancer was apparently caught at the very earliest stages.
              I think she was being scanned for something else, and they incidently caught the pancreatic cancer.
              A friend went in for imaging prior to neck/ disk surgery; incidental to that, they spotted thyroid cancer.
              Another friend had the same experience with kidney cancer….they were imaging his back for disk problems, found very early stage kidney cancer as well.

    1. Are you up for overturning Brown v. Board of Education? Segregation forever?

      1. The Warren Court’s legacy includes: the 1958 assertion that the Court was the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s content, the beginnings of micromanagement of public education (which reached its apogee in Boston and Kansas City a generation later), the assertion of ass-pull principles and plenary discretion over the redistricting process, the manufacture of a phony ‘right to privacy’, enforced secularization, the beginnings of abusive application of the equal protection clause, and the beginnings of the make-a-dog’s-breakfast approach to 4th Amendment jurisprudence, The real fun got underway during the Burger Court, which included 4-7 judges who had been on the Warren Court and a pair of replacements (Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens) who were commonly aligned with the residue of the Warren Court. And, of course, in recent years we’ve seen re-affirmations of some of the Burger Court’s worst decisions, power grabs over courts-martial, and Justice Kennedy’s fancy that the Court should be the tribune of the homosexual population.

        1. Don’t forget the Kelo decision that most Liberals blame on the Conservative justices when it was the Liberal justices that screwed up.

  12. Yesterday I went to the post office and mailed a letter to Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society in which I recommended that Professor Turley be considered for a future vacancy on the Supreme Court. Imagine my surprise when I arrived home and learned that Justice Kennedy had announced his retirement. Turley would get bipartisan support. He would be a great Justice and his discourse with Justice Gorsuch would b an “intellectual feast”, to quote Robert Bork.

    1. tbieter – who would get up in the middle of the night to run his blog if he was made a justice.

      1. Good point – the country could not survive the loss of this blog. Where else could highly opinionated people go to let off steam?

        1. Jay S.,,
          -As an alternative, I was thinking Poppie’s Restaurant ( from Seinfeld) would be a good place to gather and debate contentious issues.😄

  13. Dums just keep outing themselves and they really have to thank their allies the MSM and the Hollywood nut jobs. Meanwhile the party is being taken over by Socialist (maybe even some closet communist?) right before their eyes.

    1. The woman belongs to the outfit founded by Michael Harrington when the old Socialist Party decomposed into three successor organizations. The thing is, Harrington may have accepted cheesy identity politics, but that’s not what got him out of bed in the morning. Political economy was what interested him. See his last work, The Next Left. If Bernie Sanders had his druthers, that’s what it would be about. This dame is a Puerto Rican chauvinist whose preference is for an end to immigration enforcement and more jobs for social workers.

      1. Yea Free, Free, Free everything for everyone just come to the U.S. it’s all Free! Get your wheelbarrow and will fill it with cash to buy a loaf of bread.

  14. Not deferring retirement until 2019 speaks volumes: such an obvious political maneuver will dash any hope he may’ve had for a fair epitaph.

    1. He’s 81 years old. In New York, he’d have been emeritus at the end of 2006 and debarred from hearing any more cases at the end of 2012. Why should he sit on the court another year just because it’s convenient to you?

      1. It’s entirely possible that Justice Kennedy wanted his replacement to be a critical issue in the 2018 mid-term election. Or, to put it the other way around, that Justice Kennedy wanted the 2018 mid-term election to exert an influence over Trump’s decision as to whom, exactly, to nominate to replace Kennedy. Rumor has it that Kennedy prefers Kavanaugh as a successor. But Kavanaugh might not be controversial enough for Trump.

          1. That’s not the point. Trump has to take the mid-term elections into account when choosing who to nominate. If Trump chooses the most controversial nominee possible, Trump could tip the scales in favor of a Democratic majority.

            1. Boy, do you not know Trump. He’ll pick who he wants regardless of political effect. He’s a populist determined to keep campaign promises.

              1. And the Republicans could lose control of Congress because of it.

        1. L4D – it has been rumored for 4 years that Kennedy was going to retire. And for at least a year that Kennedy would do it this year. Wait until RBG retires or dies, the skies will open if it happens during Trump’s term in office.

          1. PCS–I’m glad to see you’re worried that Kennedy’s replacement might not be enough to fulfill your wish list.

            Do you really think of Trump as Santa Claus?

            1. L4D enables David Benson – my comment was in regard to the response from liberals and progressives.

          2. Paul C. Schulte,

            – Trump commented that Kennedy’s timing in retiring at this particular time reflected Kennedy’s confidence in him to make a wise choice in appointing another S.C. Justice.
            With that reassurance, I don’t see substantial opposition to whoever Trump selects😉; it’ll probably be a unanimous 100-0 yes vote in the Senate confirming Kennedy’s replacement.😄

              1. Paul C. Schulte,…
                – I think Trump will probably get a nominee confirmed, but maybe not the first one he puts up for consideration.
                Also, with McCain, Flake, and maybe Corker, that shaky 51- 49 GOP majority may not be enough…they may need to peel off a couple of Democratic Senators to get a confirmation.

                1. Tom Nash – there is the possibility that McCain will die before the vote and AZ will have a new Senator to vote with Trump. Although, I have heard that Cindy McCain is pimping for the job.

                  1. Another time, another place, someone like Cindy McCain might be an appropriate candidate for something or other. She’s not young, is experienced in business, and managed to build a family and stay out of the divorce courts. However, now’s not the time nor is Arizona the place. And, of course, she doesn’t need the money.

                    1. DSS – what makes you think Cindy McCain is experienced in business? She was a nurse.

                    2. No schoolteacher. She’s also supervised her father’s beer distributorship for the last 18 years.

                    3. “She was a nurse.” – Paul about Cindy McCain

                      Are you sure about that, Paul?

                    4. anonymous – I am going to walk that back. She was a special ed teacher. Here is her interest in Hensley:

                      In 2000, she became chair of the now $300 million-a-year Hensley & Co.[54][55] following her father’s death.[44] It is one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the United States.[56] Cindy, her children, and one of John McCain’s children from his first marriage, together own 68 percent of the company.[57] As chair, her role takes the form of consultations with the company CEO on major initiatives such as new products, new plants or employee welfare, rather than that of an active physical presence.[58][59] She does not have operational control of Hensley, and Anheuser-Busch considers her to be an absentee owner.[60] By 2007, she had an annual income of over $400,000 from Hensley and an estimated net worth of $100 million.[25] She also owned at least $2.7 million worth of shares of Anheuser-Busch stock

            1. “Trump commented that Kennedy’s timing in retiring at this particular time reflected Kennedy’s confidence in him to make a wise choice in appointing another S.C. Justice.”
              When I read that, I just about tossed my cornflakes this morning.

        2. When Kennedy decided to retire he already knew that his replacement would be from one of 25 names.

  15. The repugthuglicans will ram through an ultra right wing corporate Federalist that will continue to destroy America from the inside. The rich, the wacko evangicals, the corporations, the racists, misogynists and homophobic will all be celebrating now. Roe will be gone and women will have no rights along with the poor, working people and people of color within a generation.

    1. I can never tell if posts like this are parodies or not.

      1. DSS – you should see the twattersphere. Liberals are afraid all their sacred cows are going to be slaughtered.

        1. All of their sacred cows should be. Griswold, Roe and Doe, Webster, Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell should all go. Every decision where the civilian courts interfere with military discipline should go. All but a few redistricting decisions purporting to be constitutionally inspired should go Just about every decision on public education should go above and beyond case law which disallows parallel school systems The state legislatures refused to enact the ‘Equal Rights Amendment’; the courts imposed it anyway claiming warrant from the 14th amendment; out! The entire body of jurisprudence which imposes a fanciful secularist orthodoxy on local governments, OUT!. Wickard and every other decision erasing the distinction between ‘interstate commerce’ and any other sort of economic activity, OUT! The body of law which extends general police power to the federal government (by inserting incantations in the federal penal code like ‘crossing state lines with intent to…” or ‘…as a part of interstate commerce’), OUT!

          1. Smash all the clocks. Atavism uber alles.

            Now that’s a parody.

              1. Getting what you’ve always wanted is one of the worst things can ever happen to anyone.

                And that’s the true meaning of Christmas.

        1. So do Jill and Natacha. They’re just less concise and give you more of their feelz.

    2. It is the legislature that passes laws and if the legislature or the people don’t like the way the Constitution is written they can pass an amendment.

  16. I suspect the Vichy Republicans in Congress (squishes Collins and Hoeven, cheesy careerist Murkowski, pretentious Ivy League careerist Portman, spitemeisters McCain and Corker, and bully’s little pals Graham and Flake) will prevent anyone decent from passing through.

    A Republican making appointments to any appellate court has one job: find someone who isn’t a social climber, whose opinion isn’t that of the last person to whom they spoke, who demonstrates a clear understanding that the judiciary defers to elected officials unless there is clear constitutional warrant not do, and who regards the equal protection clause as an admonition to executives to enforce laws diligently and impartially (not as a roving mandate to annul any legislation said judge doesn’t care for). The number of ‘landmark decisions’ should be nil, bar those decisions clearing the filth and debris from case law.

      1. The Right thinks the justices deciding Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore were. Same for the Left in the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

        1. It’s usually partisan Democrats complaining about Bush v Gore. (And Citizens United). I think the theory behind their complaint in Bush v Gore is that it’s outrageous when their agents in the appellate judiciary (Barbara Pariente et a) don’t get to tear up statutory law and dictate outcomes. I think their theory in Citizens United is that when their incorporated entities raise money and purchase advertising and publish papers it’s ‘participation’ and when the opposition does it it’s ‘corruption’.

  17. Trump’s short list to replace Justice Kennedy:

    Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

    Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

    Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

    William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

    Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

    Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

    1. TJ – they need someone who did not go to Harvard or Yale Law.

      1. This guy went to JT’s school

        Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit:

        Hardiman was among those interviewed by Trump last year to fill the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s death. He took an unconventional route to the federal bench: He was the first in his family to graduate from college and drove a taxi to help pay for his education. He is a Georgetown University Law Center alumnus and is also reportedly the favorite of Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, with whom he serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. He has previously written two majority opinions — one backing the strengthening of mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, and the other supporting strip-searches — that were reviewed by the Supreme Court.

              1. I don’t think Jay understand that he lives a decent life because other’s are risking theirs.

                  1. Great words from the ‘double tap’ fan.

                    Bloviation from a fettered mind.

                1. Others … risking lives — like you, Allan?

                  What have you done in this regard?

                  Count the ways.

                  You confuse your warbling diatribes on this site with sacrifice, of yet only your verbiage carries the consternation that you claim contributes to ‘decent lives.’

                  You speak beyond your means.

                  1. WWAS, your reply was incoherent lacking a logical train of thought. You don’t sound like you have much respect for those that keep you safe nor do you seem to have concern for the working American family. All and all I haven’t heard you say much of anything important. It seems your main purpose here is to complain.

                    1. “… your reply was incoherent lacking a logical train of thought.” — Allan

                      Sure it was, Allan. This is what you claim of everyone that counters you.

                      However, I don’t see much logic in your diatribes.

                      “You don’t sound like you have much respect for those that keep you safe” — Allan

                      Who keeps me safe, Allan? Surely not you.

                      “… nor do you seem to have concern for the working American family …” — Allan

                      Well, that’s exactly what I am, Allan. Why do you think I am removed from your claims?

                      Is it so that you can argue without specifics, so that you can spout your venom; ridiculing all with your grand vision?

                      “All and all I haven’t heard you say much of anything important. It seems your main purpose here is to complain.” — Allan

                      You haven’t heard from me for a very long time. My main purpose here to point out your hypocrisy — every now and again.

                      You are a flustered fool, who accuses others of — well, read your own post.

                      You thrive on straw men — accusations not warranted, indeed inflated — to dismiss; an illusion of grandeur of your making.

                      Few are fooled by your claims of logic, as your post prompting this one shows none.

                      Good luck, Allan, convincing others that you are the epitome of rational discourse.

                    2. WWAS you said nothing as usual. One can’t even label you as clever. You are totally unaware of what I or anyone else does. You might be middle class but you don’t have to act like you are stupid and unaware. Anytime you wish to debate ideas go ahead and pick what I say apart. Don’t be a coward and rely on generalities. Give up on your Sponge Bob toys that don’t make an impact and are entirely safe for toddlers.

                      You write: “My main purpose here to point out your hypocrisy “… “You thrive on straw men ”

                      Then go ahead and do so and make sure you point out the straw men. I am here to have a good debate but most of the times it seems like all you are here for is to bitch and moan. Why don’t you start a blog bitchandmoan.com since that seems to satisfy your intellectual needs?

                      Right here you have a chance. Pick out a major issue where we disagree and have an adult discussion. Don’t be a Peter Shill. Deal with real verified facts. In chess, white goes first and has the stronger position. You can go first and pick out the issue you wish to discuss.

                2. Allan said, “I don’t think Jay understand that he lives a decent life because other’s are risking theirs.”

                  Gratitude is neither subject to command, nor can Allan deprive his neighbors of their gratitude simply by attributing ingratitude to his neighbors.

                  The same goes for understanding; which is neither subject to command nor Allan cannot deprive his neighbors of their understanding simply by attributing misunderstanding to his neighbors.

                  And yet, such false attribution remains precisely and exactly what Allan attempts to get away with on this blawg over and over, again and again. Allan is boorish beyond belief.

                  1. Yes, Allan is very good at ingratiation.

                    For what purpose only he knows, yet his faux benevolence points the way.

                    1. Perhaps Allan thinks of gratitude as just another zero-sum game. If so, then the only way Allan can express more gratitude is to expropriate it from some other poor schnook. Kind of like Pareto’s snide definition of economic efficiency.

                    2. Diane, just like you believe the economic pie doesn’t grow in a marketplace you believe the same for the marketplace of interaction. That is a fundamental mistake you make in all too many of your arguments.

                    3. “Points the way for Allan, I mean.”

                      WWAS, I don’t think you know the way anything points. That is why your rely on arguments without content.

                    4. “He does seem to be a zero-sum kind of guy. Malthusian, really.”

                      WWAS, you are very confused.

                    5. Theoretically everyone engages in one sort of impression management scheme or another. Allan appears to be fond of alter-casting (imposing identities on other people). Of course, it’s hardly just Allan. Vast stretches of this blawg are devoted to imposing identities on other people. For instance, I imagine a badger whenever I see the name Allan.

                    6. “Allan appears to be fond of alter-casting (imposing identities on other people).” — L4D

                      Seems to be the vogue — a straw setup so that talking points are easily assuaged.

                      However, I think Allan is more of a wolverine; attacking without cause, snarling at the remains; scanning for another passerby.

                      A badger would go back in its burrow after the crowd had passed.

                    7. “Allan appears to be fond of alter-casting (imposing identities on other people).” — L4D

                      “Seems to be the vogue — a straw setup so that talking points are easily assuaged. However, I think Allan is more of a wolverine; attacking without cause, snarling at the remains; scanning for another passerby. A badger would go back in its burrow after the crowd had passed.”

                      WWAs you are the badger that finds its hole whenever intellect is called for. Diane is the rabid wolverine that doesn’t know what she is doing.

                    8. WWAS I don’t think you got the full meaning of what Diane was trying to say.

                  2. Jay is not being deprived of expressing gratitude. Jay is being encouraged to think a little deeper. You don’t recognize a lot of this Diane because not all the circuits in your brain are connected so obvious gaps appear where fluid ideas should be present.

                    1. mespo – the questions are the drugs legal or illegal and are they mind-altering?

                    2. How do you know, mespo?

                      You don’t.

                      Let’s see — looking around I see one bottle of wine.

                      But you carry on, ambulance chaser; double-tap boy; bourbon, now scotch swiller.

                    3. WWAS – the fresh air is 110 degrees and only an idiot goes out in it unless you have to.

                    4. The air I was referring to is 98.6.

                      Difficult to admit, I’m sure, but there it is.

                    5. WWAS – that comment does not make sense. Can you expand, please?

                    6. “The air I was referring to is 98.6.”

                      WWAS, though you might not realize it outside air of 98.6 is pretty hot as well.

                    7. The air exhaled from you lungs is presumed to be near normal blood temperature. Unless you’re running a fever.

                    8. Or, from someone’s ‘arse’.

                      Brown nose is a simple way to think about it, PCS.

                    9. Please pardon my other hasty assumption.

                      There was a scatological subtext on the game table.

                    10. There is no game table; it’s just that PCS has been fawning for recognition from mespo for years.

                      PCS so wants to be of mespo’s equal; yet this will never occur — unless, of course, mespo lowers himself to PCS’ level of idiocy, which might be approaching, though I doubt the final splash occurs.

                    11. WWAS – you really like to play in the mud, don’t you? You like to dirty other people up, however, you are too afraid to expose yourself. The only thing I worry about is not getting banned from this blog. I know I cut it fine sometimes and maybe JT and Darren cut me some slack, but I am an egalitarian, I chat with everyone, including you. You just come in to poison the well. Your comments will not stop me from commenting to whomever I like, whenever I like.

                      So, my little well-poisoner, what do you have planned next?

                    12. “PCS so wants to be of mespo’s equal; yet this will never occur — unless, of course, mespo lowers himself to PCS’ level”

                      WWAS, Perhaps in the long term you will grow tall enough to tie mespo’s shoes.

                    13. Haven’t you been the one to define the level of discourse in some time, PCS? So if mud fits you should look at yourself — isn’t this your sandbox by your multiple claims of such?

                      How should I expose myself, PCS? Do you want a picture?

                      If you don’t get my drift by now, I can’t help you.

                      You don’t ‘chat’ with anyone. You berate.

                      As evidence, look at the seemingly perpetual demand of Benson ‘owing’ you — at last count — five citations, though I don’t know where the other four came from as the original complaint was a definition from the OED.

                      Then on top of this, you claim — in bold — that L4D enables Benson in most responses to L4D.

                      There is no connection except in your addled mind — the same mind that thinks L4D is Annie/Inga …

                      You are far from the egalitarian persona you see for yourself.

                      Keep posting — I’m here to point out what an unprincipled, passive/aggressive fool you are.

                    14. WWAS – you have been reading Psychology Today again, haven’t you? I have always claimed that the blog was JT’s sandbox, however, Benson has entered my sandbox when he made the fictitious claim about the OED. I spent a lot of time researching in the OED, so I know exactly how a definition from the OED looks. That is why I knew he was not using the OED, as he claimed. And that is why I called him on it.

                      Since we are diagnosing from afar, I think you are projecting. What would you give to have mespo like you? However, you would have to change your style of attack writing. You seem to be sitting on a lot of deep-seated anger that you have never dealt with. Can I suggest you try at least group counseling? Your insurance will probably pick it up.

                    15. mespo727272

                      June 28, 2018 at 11:49 PM

                      I have no doubt your house is a veritable storehouse for all manner of drugs. Ask me how I know.”

                      Thermal Infrared imaging? A Forward Looking Infrared [FLIR] system? Why can’t prison guards use remote sensors to detect objects concealed in a prisoner’s rectum? Is there a punitive, disciplinary or correctional benefit to be had from conducting strip searches and rectal examinations, instead?

                    16. Seriously though, if the TSA can scan suitcases at the airport, then why can’t the DOC scan convict orifices at the penitentiary? There must be something about strip searches and rectal exams that correctional officers prefer. The latex gloves?

                1. Jay S – Weeelll, you can be the one looking for the Uzi up the a$$. 😉

                  1. Another brilliant comment by the biggest fool of all — PCS.

                    No value, nothing of worth stated — just pain old bull.

                    1. WWAS – so you want to be the one looking for the Uzi shoved up his arse!!! Fine by me.

                    2. One has to ponder why someone’s ‘arse’ is big enough for an Uzi.

                      How many clips can you hold, given the size of the breech of the weapon?

                      You are a fool, PCS.

                    3. WWAS – I did not make the original comment, Jay S. did. You really need to keep up. Oh, and for your information, the fool was the one person who could tell truth to power and not be killed for it. The fool is a position, are you trying out for it?

                    4. Yeah, but you tacked on to it — thinking your quips would save you.

                      You are faulty by many means, the least your propensity to backtrack and proffer non-sequiturs.

                      The fool is you, PCS; no question.

                    5. Paul, you win. You got first prize from WWAS who in a short burst of activity has thrown insults at 4 people without saying anything useful or clever. I think we should build a statue to honor WWAS. I was thinking of something in the line of Walt Disney’s Dopey, but Dopey is a likable figure who seems to be more on the ball than WWAS.

                2. WWAS: “PCS so wants to be of mespo’s equal; yet this will never occur — unless, of course, mespo lowers himself to PCS’ level of idiocy, which might be approaching, though I doubt the final splash occurs.”


                  PCS: “Since we are diagnosing from afar, I think you are projecting. What would you give to have mespo like you? “
                  Actually, I like everybody who writes here on the blog so WWAS need not worry if he does at all. Tough language doesn’t bother me and smart challenges to my ideas are compliments and enrich my thinking. I have learned from everybody here even the most vociferous opponent. Ask Nick Spinelli! Even my detractors at least spend the time to read and reply and that is certainly not indifference. As to intellectual candlepower, my guess Is that most of the folks here at least meet and likely exceed mine. Paul’s surely soars above me and it doesn’t pain me to say it. My self worth has never equaled my IQ or my net worth for that matter.

                  I think forums like this are important and I appreciate JT letting us freely discuss without the crushing hand of a net nanny shooing us away. A little witty repartee never hurt anybody and probably has helped a lot. It makes me smile.

        1. Allan – I find it interesting that JT thinks that Washington is the center of the universe. 😉 Only Washington is rocked?

          1. I would love to be able to prevent all our legislators from owning a home or property within 100 miles of DC. Let their primary homes be in their districts. Let them rent in DC without the option to buy even after they have left office.

        2. So would the new justice be able to teleconference into the SC, without actually having to move to Washington?

          1. Come to think of it, maybe some would like to move the entire Supreme Court to somewhere with a more conservative feeling. Branson MO perhaps? And held at the Lawrence Welk theatre.

            1. No one is saying that Legislators shouldn’t reside in DC rather that they should believe their home is where they are coming from and not from Washington DC.

            2. That is not a bad idea. But all the swamp critters would just move to Missouri, and soon it would be a swamp also. FWIW, I like Lawrence Welk. I used to watch it on PBS with my dad on Saturday nights. The music was kind of bland, but at least it was normal. I think it gave me an appreciation for different musical genres, and artist. Like this girl, who a lot of my friends say her hair looks like mine, and that she sounds a lot like me to boot. We are about the same size, but I am a lot darker, skin wise. More Mediterranean-ish. Maybe one of those old Spaniards who washed up in Ireland way back when was related to my line??? Anyway, I love her version of this:


              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            1. Yeah, they cold have the champagne music bubble machine going in the background.

          2. Jay, my statement was: ” to prevent all our legislators from owning a home ”

            Though you may not realize it from the attitude of the more Liberal Justices, they are not legislators.

        1. Teaching Spastics to Dance

          June 28, 2018 at 6:59 AM

          “I can never tell if posts like this are parodies or not.”

          Yes you can.

Comments are closed.