Kennedy Leaving SCOTUS

Cuddles · Jun 28, 2018

Here4money said:
On the plus side, Flake's threats on tariffs now have some teeth.

UsualName · Jun 28, 2018

On the road to Iran...

Slartibartfast · Jun 28, 2018

UsualName said:
On the road to Iran...

Worth posting twice this one.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former...ns-up-about-resignation-trump-administration/

Government agents surprise former ICE spokesman at his home
During the interview at his home, some three months after he quit, Yuccas and Schwab were interrupted by a surprise visit from men who said they were agents from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office. He was "completely shocked" to see them.

Schwab said his conversation with the agents had to do with Oakland's mayor.

"Did you ever contact the Oakland mayor's office?" Yuccas asked.

yuccas-fmr-ice-spokesman-needs-tracks-and-gfx-frame-8759.jpg

Men who identified themselves as agents from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office show up unexpectedly at James Schwab's door during an interview with CBS News' Jamie Yuccas

CBS News
"No. I've never met her before. I never contacted Libby Schaaf," Schwab said. "Never. I would never tell her. I would never tell anyone...They were very serious. He was very stern with me, and it was concerning."

Schwab said it was "absolutely" an intimidation technique.

"Why, three months later, are we doing this?" Schwab said. "This is intimidation. And this is why people won't come out and speak against the government."

Asked if he believes other agencies are struggling with the same thing, Schwab said, "I know that they are, because they've reached out to me."

Schwab said he's speaking out now because he's talked to others in the federal government with similar concerns.

Arnie · Jun 28, 2018

Tom B said:
Actually, only 50 votes are required. Vice President Pence, who is the President of the Senate, would cast the tie-breaking vote. I think there is a lot of fear-mongering going on by the Democrats. We don't know how Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Gorsuch will vote on a challenge to Roe v. Wade. We also don't know how the new nominee to the court will vote. I'm sure precedence and "settled law" will be factors in the decision making process.

That's a dem talking point to scare people. Roe vs Wade is decided law that will not be over turned. But there may be some limitations on late term abortions as supported by the science since the original decision.

Slartibartfast · Jun 28, 2018

Arnie said:
That's a dem talking point to scare people. Roe vs Wade is decided law that will not be over turned. But there may be some limitations on late term abortions as supported by the science since the original decision.

Nope.

CaptainObvious · Jun 28, 2018

Arnie said:
That's a dem talking point to scare people. Roe vs Wade is decided law that will not be over turned. But there may be some limitations on late term abortions as supported by the science since the original decision.

Roe is the big time talking point for leftists. A more center right court keeps Roe in check with some limitations. Times have changed and there is support across all political spectrum's for some kind of abortion to be available when it's a suitable alternative. A leftist court gives us abortion on demand, no questions asked, all the up to full term birth. This is not acceptable to any rational person.

AAAintheBeltway · Jun 28, 2018

Arnie said:
That's a dem talking point to scare people. Roe vs Wade is decided law that will not be over turned. But there may be some limitations on late term abortions as supported by the science since the original decision.

I suspect we will see more of an erosion than an immediate repeal. Roe v. Wade, while "settled law" in the sense that the Court ruled on it 40 years ago, sits on constitutional quicksand. It is pretty much the high water mark for judicial legislating. The opinion is regarded as basically a joke, even among leftwing constitutional lawyers, to the extent they are honest.

Roe is a notorious example of Obama-style constitutional law. Obama famously justified illegal executive orders on the grounds that congress hadn't acted, ie done what he wanted. Roe is based on the premise that the wise justices would have to take over an issue because backward state legislators weren't doing what they felt best. The opinion itself is bereft of any actual constitutional doctrine to support it. It "settled" a hot button social issue, and there is some value to that, but it did so in a fundamentally dishonest way.

vanzandt · Jun 28, 2018

AAAintheBeltway said:
I suspect we will see more of an erosion than an immediate repeal. Roe v. Wade, while "settled law" in the sense that the Court ruled on it 40 years ago, sits on constitutional quicksand. It is pretty much the high water mark for judicial legislating. The opinion is regarded as basically a joke, even among leftwing constitutional lawyers, to the extent they are honest.

Roe is a notorious example of Obama-style constitutional law. Obama famously justified illegal executive orders on the grounds that congress hadn't acted, ie done what he wanted. Roe is based on the premise that the wise justices would have to take over an issue because backward state legislators weren't doing what they felt best. The opinion itself is bereft of any actual constitutional doctrine to support it. It "settled" a hot button social issue, and there is some value to that, but it did so in a fundamentally dishonest way.

I think whats more important here is the way the MSM will use Roe.

They will (actually starting yesterday) launch a complete and utter fear campaign based on the prospect of Roe being overturned to energize the left into the voting-booths this November. Most voters aren't sophisticated enough to understand anything more than that which gets rammed into their heads.

TreeFrogTrader · Jun 28, 2018

vanzandt said:
From Wiki:

Susan Collins is a pro-choice Republican.[49] The Republican Majority for Choice, a pro-choice Republican PAC, supports Senator Collins.[50] On October 21, 2003, with Senate Democrats, Collins was one of the three Republican Senators to oppose the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. She did however join the majority of Republicans in voting for Laci and Conner's Law to increase penalties for killing the fetus while committing a violent crime against the mother. On March 30, 2017, Collins would again join Lisa Murkowski to break party lines on a vote; this time against a bill allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood. As in that case, Vice President Pence was forced to break a 50–50 tie in favor of the bill.[51] In 2018, Collins voted with the majority of Senate Democrats against a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.[52]

The Trump camp is proceeding on the assumption that if the vote is for someone who is not Attila the Hun but still conservative- ie. the Gorsuch Model- that they can get there. And that is probably true.

Susan Collins is a RINO and so is Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. But they both voted for Gorsuch.

Since I have mentioned it twice yesterday, I will not replay the point that ten dems are up for re-election in states that Trump won. But I will add to that comment by offering up the reminder that three democrats also voted for Gorsuch: Heitcamp, Donnelly, and who the frig else.....Manchin I guess. So, there are a couple unreliable republicans but also a couple - actually way more for the reasons I cited- unreliable dems.

Just get going and start the process and we will see who wants to get re-elected in the fall and who does not.

It would help marginally if Trump nominated a woman. And in tight elections, "marginally" can have a yuge impact.

LacesOut · Jun 28, 2018

Candace Owens?