Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy ofte...

Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy often the man in the middle Source: AP

There are 58 comments on the WFTV Orlando story from Jun 28, 2018, titled Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy often the man in the middle Source: AP. In it, WFTV Orlando reports that:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's decisive man in the middle on abortion, gay rights and other contentious issues, announced his retirement, giving President Donald Trump a golden chance to cement conservative control of the nation's highest court. The 81-year-old Kennedy, often a voice of moderation over three decades on the court, provided the key vote on such closely divided issues as affirmative action, guns, campaign finance and voting rights in addition to same-sex marriage and the right to abortion.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WFTV Orlando.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#1 Jun 28, 2018
Trump will appoint his second SC Justice. Ginsburg will be the third.
spud

Easton, PA

#2 Jun 28, 2018
Kennedy was on the conservative side more often than not. It's not like Trump replacing Sotomayor would be. Now Democrats are losing it because the man they irrationally hate gets to pick Kennedy's replacement. It's funny as hell watching all the socialist liberal swampers stress out. Schumer is like a little kid, already making up rules to prevent Trump from doing his job. Democrats should invest in underwear and head ache pills as a hedge against their elevating mental instability
Crypto Liberals Suk

Bronx, NY

#3 Jun 28, 2018
President Reagan's appointment of Justice Kennedy was a huge mistake for him. I hope President Trump doesn't repeat the same error.

“Watching The Snowflakes Rant”

Since: Feb 17

Location hidden

#4 Jun 28, 2018
When they heard Trump gets to pick another Supreme Court Justice they started playing Russian Roulette with an Glock.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5 Jun 28, 2018
spud wrote:
Kennedy was on the conservative side more often than not. It's not like Trump replacing Sotomayor would be. Now Democrats are losing it because the man they irrationally hate gets to pick Kennedy's replacement. It's funny as hell watching all the socialist liberal swampers stress out. Schumer is like a little kid, already making up rules to prevent Trump from doing his job. Democrats should invest in underwear and head ache pills as a hedge against their elevating mental instability
In fairness, Schumer isn't attempting anything that Mitch McConnell hasn't already done when he refused to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in an election year. That left the seat open for Trump and he nominated Neil Gorsuch.
spud

Easton, PA

#6 Jun 28, 2018
This is going to be hard on the mentally fragile Democrats but when it comes time to replace Ginsburg, then you'll see liberals sitting in the corner with blank stares strumming their lips with their fore fingers. Thorazine may be the only hope at that point.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7 Jun 28, 2018
spud wrote:
This is going to be hard on the mentally fragile Democrats but when it comes time to replace Ginsburg, then you'll see liberals sitting in the corner with blank stares strumming their lips with their fore fingers. Thorazine may be the only hope at that point.
Ginsburg may never retire. She has beaten colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, has a coronary stent and she works out twice a week.
Ginsburg Walking Dead

Patchogue, NY

#8 Jun 28, 2018
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>

Ginsburg may never retire. She has beaten colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, has a coronary stent and she works out twice a week.
I always suspected she was a zombie.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#9 Jun 28, 2018
The Democrats must do everything they possibly can to delay a SCOTUS appointment until after the congressional elections later this year. For how-to instructions, they can refer to the Mitch McConnell manual.
Cordwainer Trout

Owensboro, KY

#10 Jun 28, 2018
Wondering wrote:
In fairness, Schumer isn't attempting anything that Mitch McConnell hasn't already done when he refused to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in an election year. That left the seat open for Trump and he nominated Neil Gorsuch.
That is not fairness; it is arrogant Democrat hypocrisy and ill intent.

What you are saying is the Democrats get to impose the understanding that a Supreme Court nominee should not be considered in the last year of a Presidency (which THEY initiated), then when the last year of one of their Presidents realizes an opening, the Senate should NOT follow what Democrats initiated, then when an opposing President is not yet into his third year, the Democrats want to EXPAND their original rule to include midterm elections, which would mean Democrats get to control ALL Supreme Court Justice considerations.

It's a perfect example of your and the general Democrat imposition of tyranny without ever blushing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11 Jun 28, 2018
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>

That is not fairness; it is arrogant Democrat hypocrisy and ill intent.

What you are saying is the Democrats get to impose the understanding that a Supreme Court nominee should not be considered in the last year of a Presidency (which THEY initiated), then when the last year of one of their Presidents realizes an opening, the Senate should NOT follow what Democrats initiated, then when an opposing President is not yet into his third year, the Democrats want to EXPAND their original rule to include midterm elections, which would mean Democrats get to control ALL Supreme Court Justice considerations.

It's a perfect example of your and the general Democrat imposition of tyranny without ever blushing.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I simply pointed out that the republicans already delayed an appointee and now the democrats want to. I think the hypocrisy lies with McConnell.

"On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office."

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#12 Jun 28, 2018
Ginsburg Walking Dead wrote:
<quoted text>

I always suspected she was a zombie.
I always suspected you're and idiot. I was right!

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#13 Jun 28, 2018
an*
Anonymous Y

United States

#14 Jun 28, 2018
CodeTalker wrote:
When they heard Trump gets to pick another Supreme Court Justice they started playing Russian Roulette with an Glock.
Who, the gays? That is typical.
Anonymous Y

United States

#15 Jun 28, 2018
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
The Democrats must do everything they possibly can to delay a SCOTUS appointment until after the congressional elections later this year. For how-to instructions, they can refer to the Mitch McConnell manual.
Yeah, if only they had a Senate majority leader.

Imagine stupid liberals asking Republicans to wait until tgey might gave an advantage, when they are tried to Stone wall all of Trump's appointments.

They murdered Scalia and then whined about not being able to replace him. Besides, Obama lied about his two justice appointments.

Happy SCOTUS Pride month
Anonymous Y

United States

#16 Jun 28, 2018
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>I always suspected you're and idiot. I was right!
But, you wrote and instead of an. That always happens when idiots talk about idiot.

Happy SCOTUS Pride month
Anonymous Y

United States

#17 Jun 28, 2018
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>

That's not at all what I'm saying. I simply pointed out that the republicans already delayed an appointee and now the democrats want to. I think the hypocrisy lies with McConnell.

"On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office."
That is not true. There was pkenty of precedents to delay rhe sppintment by a sitting duck President. The 2016 presidential campaign has started.

There is no sense in delay it until after midterms. The siristiins are different. The first had to do with who would appoint the justice to replace the justice that the Democrats murdered.

McConnell is the Republican Senate Majority leader, and that is the benefit that the people have to the Republicans.

It is moronic for Democrats to ask for some type of cooperation, and this one is nonsensical.
Anonymous Y

United States

#18 Jun 28, 2018
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>

That is not fairness; it is arrogant Democrat hypocrisy and ill intent.

What you are saying is the Democrats get to impose the understanding that a Supreme Court nominee should not be considered in the last year of a Presidency (which THEY initiated), then when the last year of one of their Presidents realizes an opening, the Senate should NOT follow what Democrats initiated, then when an opposing President is not yet into his third year, the Democrats want to EXPAND their original rule to include midterm elections, which would mean Democrats get to control ALL Supreme Court Justice considerations.

It's a perfect example of your and the general Democrat imposition of tyranny without ever blushing.
You nailed it. Democrats are insane. They are intolerant of those rhey call intolerant. The insanity is so perverse that the media plays along, and refused to do any investigative journalism into Scalia's murder. Even though, rhey cremated him without an autopsy and family consent.

The Nazis would be proud of Democrats, since the Nazis were trained off shoots of our Democrat party.
Anonymous Y

United States

#19 Jun 28, 2018
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>

Ginsburg may never retire. She has beaten colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, has a coronary stent and she works out twice a week.
Satan preserves his own. But Satan is now down to two and three at best.
Cordwainer Trout

Owensboro, KY

#20 Jun 28, 2018
Wondering wrote:
That's not at all what I'm saying. I simply pointed out that the republicans already delayed an appointee and now the democrats want to. I think the hypocrisy lies with McConnell.
"On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office."
You seem to need a sledgehammer upside your head to stop your dishonesty.

Republicans did ONLY what the Democrats had initiated in another administration in the instance you reference. Now, when none of the attributes of THEIR rules apply, and after they have tried to disregard their own rule, they want to expand the initial rule to include midterm elections. Democrats want to delay only because Trump is President. Trump was elected specifically to deal with future Supreme Court appointees. America has spoken. They don't want political appointees; they want Constitutionalist appointees. They are sick and tired of the depravity, deviance and abuse of jurisprudence you idiots have imposed for decades.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stephen Breyer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Do Native American land borders have limits? Nov 28 eastboundNdown 1
News Trump apologises to Kavanaugh during swearing-i... Oct '18 Lawrence Wolf 183
News Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-... (Jun '13) Jul '18 Jeb 19
News Trump announcing his high court 'reveal' in pri... Jul '18 DR X 3
News Justice Ginsburg bemoans partisan divide in Con... Jul '18 Annie Oakly 43
News Pregnancy center ruling a blow for abortion-rig... Jun '18 fish and poi 7
News Supreme Court: Law enforcement needs warrant fo... Jun '18 Llon Lagarde 3