Supreme Court of the United States

[Teenwolf]

If you were on the far-right you would have on of these

These are all sourceable facts. There's video evidence of Trump praising Kennedy about his son... it's becoming a serious problem these days that no sourcing is ever considered accurate, even if you've got video evidence.

I already have a large majority of RJ thinking I'm a far left nutjob, so please stick to the points, thanks.

[baldgriff]

Put aside that this is Trump (I know this may be difficult)

If any other President looked for advice as to who some of the most qualified justices may be - and asked a sitting justice his opinion - would you be surprised if said justice named individuals that he has worked closely with and mentored and would likely use there seat in a similar manner?

It gets tiring watching people bend over themselves in some attempt to find a gotcha there. In general I am not a big fan of Trump. However as it comes to SCOTUS nominations - he appears to have gotten the first one right. Seems like he has set this one up as a win also.

Selecting someone who appears to hold somewhat conservative views appears pretty reasonable as a Republican President.

[In the Corn]

These are all sourceable facts. There's video evidence of Trump praising Kennedy about his son... it's becoming a serious problem these days that no sourcing is ever considered accurate, even if you've got video evidence.

I already have a large majority of RJ thinking I'm a far left nutjob, so please stick to the points, thanks.

So wait, you're telling me that there are really backroom deals made in politics. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm not surprised a Justice would give input to fill their seat, or any seat. I imagine all the justices would like to see the proteges rise to take their seat. They are no different than anyone else that has invested in someone and wants that person to succeed.

[Sour Masher]

Put aside that this is Trump (I know this may be difficult)

If any other President looked for advice as to who some of the most qualified justices may be - and asked a sitting justice his opinion - would you be surprised if said justice named individuals that he has worked closely with and mentored and would likely use there seat in a similar manner?

It gets tiring watching people bend over themselves in some attempt to find a gotcha there. In general I am not a big fan of Trump. However as it comes to SCOTUS nominations - he appears to have gotten the first one right. Seems like he has set this one up as a win also.

Selecting someone who appears to hold somewhat conservative views appears pretty reasonable as a Republican President.

I tend to agree. While I do think there is a difference between recommendations and a quid pro quo, which some people are suggesting happened, in general I think this is pretty far down the list of things he has or may have done that pisses me off. While I don't agree with the politics of either pick, at least they seem qualified to hold the office, and respect the position, which is a lot more than I can say of many of Trump's appointments. To me, these picks are much more appropriate than the Pruitt's and DeVos' that are not only unqualified but often openly antagonistic to their positions. I liked Ron Swanson on Parks and Rec as much as anyone, but we don't really want people in positions where they are heading agencies they don't believe should exist, or don't know how they actually function.

[Hornsby]

I don't really think that I have a major issue with Kavanaugh as the nominee, his opinions are what I would expect a conservative to have written on over the years. I suspect that his change in opinions from being on Ken Starr's staff, to some writings a decade later, will be a topic that could go on for quite a while. I also think that this confirmation is going to be bitterly contested and drawn out, with Roe v Wade obviously being the major sticking point for most.

All in all, I think that Trump could have done worse...

[onejayhawk]

I wouldn't have a major issue if Kennedy choosing his successor was a quid pro quo for submitting his retirement letter. It's traditional in many venues, so why not this one. It is not as if the candidate were poorly qualified. More likely he asked for a voice in the selection, which is quite reasonable.

Accuracy is something that every journalist strives for above all else, but mistakes are going to happen, it's inevitable.

What century are you talking about? Not this one.

J

[senorsheep]

Kennedy's son helped secure the Trump family business around $1Bn in loans when nobody else would touch him... you could argue that Trump has no knowledge of those types of things, except there's a video of Trump saying "we love your boy and all the great things he's doing with us" or whatever... so yeah, they're very very friendly. Like $1Bn worth of friendly.

I'll try to add it up. I'm using Politifact, Snopes, and the NYT stories they link to try to understand your take.

Deutsche Bank made several large loans to Trump while Justin Kennedy worked there - roughly 1998 to 2009 - and also after he had left. Check. The business relationship between the two entities is ongoing and remains good, despite one legal dispute in 2008.

Trump extended a pleasantry to Justice Kennedy when he met him because of his previous business relationship with his son. Check. So far, so good. There is no evidence of a relationship beyond that, according to Politifact.

Also, turns out Gorsuch was a former Kennedy court clerk as well as Kavanaugh.... hmm, both SC nominees coming highly recommended by Kennedy, both create "big wins" for Trump...

Yes, both guys are Kennedy guys. What specifically makes justices connected to Kennedy "big wins" for Trump, compared to other nominees he could have chosen? He could have nominated virtually anyone and pushed them through on a partisan vote, and they would have been perceived as big wins by Republicans. Heck, a large percentage of Republicans view Kennedy as a closet liberal traitor, particularly those in the Trump yahoo wing of the party. I'd think they'd prefer farther right justices not influenced by Kennedy. So I'm not sure I understand what he gained by picking Kennedy justices vs. justices from other quarters, since he was perfectly happy to ignore non-Republican opinion from the get-go. Unless you're suggesting that Kennedy is the one holding the whip over Trump somehow, which is the opposite power dynamic from the one fueling the conspiracy theory floating around on leftisit clickbait websites that Trump forced Kennedy to retire so he could name his successor.

Kennedy gives:

*the appearance that he's influencing his son to give Trump $1Bn in loans.

OK, you really lost me here. You can't be saying that Justice Kennedy influenced his son to give loans to Trump, because, without foreknowledge that Trump would one day be the president picking Supreme Court nominees, why would Kennedy do that during the time frame that his son was working at Deutsche Bank? I must be misunderstanding you, so please elaborate.

Trump gives:

*ability to handpick 1 SC seat.

*ability to handpick replacement for his own SC seat.

Bottom line, its obvious that there's a deal when you look at the facts. It might not be illegal, but its blatant corruption, not hidden at all. That's why the reporter "jumped the gun" on the story about picking the replacement... all the dots line up.

Just my take.

You really think that Justice Kennedy is the same type of megalomaniacal scumbag deal-maker that Trump is? In all his decades as a high-profile public figure, I don't think I've ever heard anyone impugn his personal or professional integrity. I'd need to see a whole lot more sourceable fact in support of that assertion before I'd write him off as obviously and blatantly corrupt.

[B-Fly]

I wouldn't have a major issue if Kennedy choosing his successor was a quid pro quo for submitting his retirement letter. It's traditional in many venues, so why not this one. It is not as if the candidate were poorly qualified.

Here's the issue, to my mind. If you've got a President who is itching for a chance to replace the Court's aging swing vote with young base-pleasing conservative and secure a strong conservative majority on the Court for decades, and that Justice is thinking about retirement but would love to see a friend and protégé as his successor, and they're both working over the course of more than a year to positively influence the other (including potentially direct one-to-one negotiations), and then you throw in for good measure a business relationship between the President and the Justice's son...doesn't all of that at least raise a concern regarding a potential influence on the Justice's decisions on cases before the Court of significant importance to that President, and doesn't that at least raise a concern regarding the strong judicial ethical standard of avoiding even an appearance of impropriety? Look, I'm not assuming anything I'm reading about this as "proven", but I am troubled by the possibilities flagged here and think this sort of thing could reflect very poorly on the institution of the Supreme Court.

[B-Fly]

Yes, both guys are Kennedy guys. What specifically makes justices connected to Kennedy "big wins" for Trump, compared to other nominees he could have chosen? He could have nominated virtually anyone and pushed them through on a partisan vote, and they would have been perceived as big wins by Republicans. Heck, a large percentage of Republicans view Kennedy as a closet liberal traitor, particularly those in the Trump yahoo wing of the party. I'd think they'd prefer farther right justices not influenced by Kennedy. So I'm not sure I understand what he gained by picking Kennedy justices vs. justices from other quarters, since he was perfectly happy to ignore non-Republican opinion from the get-go. Unless you're suggesting that Kennedy is the one holding the whip over Trump somehow, which is the opposite power dynamic from the one fueling the conspiracy theory floating around on leftisit clickbait websites that Trump forced Kennedy to retire so he could name his successor.

I think the issue here isn't that these Kennedy clerks are bigger "wins" for Trump than other potentially even more conservative nominees would have been. (Although Kennedy was known for picking a mix of more conservative and more liberal clerks, and Trump obviously didn't even glance at any of Kennedy's more liberal proteges, like Michael Dorf.) The issue here is that Trump is trying to entice with carrots (not force with sticks) a Kennedy retirement, and naming one Kennedy clerk out of the gate and following that up with a promise to name a second Kennedy clerk, is the type of carrot that could truly influence a socially moderate conservative like Kennedy, who might otherwise be troubled by Trump's populism/nationalism, to retire now rather than holding off until after 2020. But ultimately I still think the bigger concern is whether Kennedy simultaneously was attempting to entice Trump to name Kavanaugh with carrots of his own.

[baldgriff]

alternately - Trump asked a qualified individual that he knows is uber qualified what his thoughts are as to filling an empty seat. Uber qualified person gave him very solid advice as to individuals that would be good options. Trump took the advice and applied it to his decision making process....

Not everything is a damned conspiracy.

This coming from a guy who has been accused of being a

[senorsheep]

I think the issue here isn't that these Kennedy clerks are bigger "wins" for Trump than other potentially even more conservative nominees would have been. (Although Kennedy was known for picking a mix of more conservative and more liberal clerks, and Trump obviously didn't even glance at any of Kennedy's more liberal proteges, like Michael Dorf.) The issue here is that Trump is trying to entice with carrots (not force with sticks) a Kennedy retirement, and naming one Kennedy clerk out of the gate and following that up with a promise to name a second Kennedy clerk, is the type of carrot that could truly influence a socially moderate conservative like Kennedy, who might otherwise be troubled by Trump's populism/nationalism, to retire now rather than holding off until after 2020. But ultimately I still think the bigger concern is whether Kennedy simultaneously was attempting to entice Trump to name Kavanaugh with carrots of his own.

Eh, from what I read, enticing justices to retire within advantageous time frames is standard practice in modern politics. It wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but.... ya know. In the grand scheme of things, I think you have to pretty much accept this level of political horse-trading, so long as laws aren't being broken. Within reason.

[Sour Masher]

Eh, from what I read, enticing justices to retire within advantageous time frames is standard practice in modern politics. It wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but.... ya know. In the grand scheme of things, I think you have to pretty much accept this level of political horse-trading, so long as laws aren't being broken. Within reason.

Yeah, at this point, and with this president, I think we all should be relieved he didn't pick Ruddy Guiliani, or Chris Christie, or a former contestant on the Apprentice that happened to have a law degree, or his favorite worker at his local McDonalds, or one of his kids, or an anarchist who doesn't believe in the concept of the law.

[senorsheep]

Yeah, at this point, and with this president, I think we all should be relieved he didn't pick Ruddy Guiliani, or Chris Christie, or a former contestant on the Apprentice that happened to have a law degree, or his favorite worker at his local McDonalds, or one of his kids, or an anarchist who doesn't believe in the concept of the law.

Yep. Considering how badly he and his party have shat upon the process, the outcome could have been much, much worse.

[Bernie Brewer]

You really think that Justice Kennedy is the same type of megalomaniacal scumbag deal-maker that Trump is? In all his decades as a high-profile public figure, I don't think I've ever heard anyone impugn his personal or professional integrity. I'd need to see a whole lot more sourceable fact in support of that assertion before I'd write him off as obviously and blatantly corrupt.

Wait, he said they were facts!

[DMT]

Yep. Considering how badly he and his party have shat upon the process, the outcome could have been much, much worse.

I know this is not your meaning, but why the hell should progressives be satisfied that "it could've been worse"? It's a complete crock of shit that Garland isn't sitting there with Gorsuch being the current nominee.