President Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late-Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court was one of the most contentious nominations in United States history. Gorsuch’s nomination resulted in Democrats engaging in the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court justice, although their filibuster failed to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.
Now that Gorsuch is officially a member of the Supreme Court, political pundits have been speculating as to which justice will likely vacate the bench next. Senator Chuck Grassley even boldly predicted that a vacancy will occur as soon as this year, stunning many in the political class.
Well, it is now being reported that conservatives are preparing for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is 80 years old and served on the Supreme Court since 1988, to retire this year.
Conservatives prepare for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement https://t.co/h9T2Xqhz9Y pic.twitter.com/FzHE0js7QK
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) May 1, 2017
From CNN:
Friends and associates believe Kennedy is seriously considering retirement. In general, the burdens of age and demands at the court weigh in one direction. His deep interest — and leading role — in America’s constitutional democracy weigh in the other.
The question appears not to be whether Kennedy will retire soon, but when — at the end of this June, or next?
—
In response to a request from CNN, Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, declined to comment on his retirement plans. He also declined to respond to questions related to any private meeting with anyone from the Trump administration.
Trump told the Washington Times this weekend he wasn’t aware of any specific plans for Kennedy to retire.
“I don’t know. I have a lot of respect for Justice Kennedy, but I just don’t know,” Trump said. “I don’t like talking about it. I’ve heard the same rumors that a lot of people have heard. And I have a lot of respect for that gentleman, a lot.”
Unlike Justice Gorsuch, who replaced a fellow conservative, Antonin Scalia, on the bench, Justice Kennedy is seen as the swing vote on the court, and his retirement could significantly alter the court’s political balance.
Democrats, who chose to pick a battle over Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, after Republicans blocked Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, may have little power in blocking President Trump’s next nominee. Republicans changed Senate rules to override a Democrat filibuster, meaning any future Supreme Court nominee would only need 50 votes for confirmation.
If Justice Kennedy does retire, President Trump should replace him with a conservative justice, ensuring that the court will have a conservative majority for decades. While Democrats will likely want President Trump to nominate a moderate to replace Kennedy, conservatives will likely want the president to select someone from the list of judges he released during the 2016 election.
Democrats overplayed their hand by filibustering Gorsuch’s nomination, and will have to play the political price with whoever President Trump nominates to fill the next vacated Supreme Court seat.
Which Supreme Court justice do you think will retire next? Should President Trump put another conservative on the court? Share your thoughts below!
Democrats, who chose to pick a battle over Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, after Republicans blocked Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, may have little power in blocking President Trump’s next nominee.
I can already feel their pain.
And Ginsberg to retire to a different locale.bless her heart.
This could turn out to be a very interesting time for the Supreme Court. Based upon the article
there is a very good chance that President Trump could very well appoint a total of THREE
Justices to the court before his first term is up. We already have Justice Gorsuch and with
two more in the wings it could very well return the court back to obeying and following the
Constitution as it was written and intended to be not as some moronic left wing liberals want
it to read to make them feel so “special” like a bunch of Snow Flakes on vacation.
The SCOTUS has become such a joke, through so many of it’s recent unconstitutional rulings, that Judge Judy and Ann Coulter would be good additions to the court these days. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that these two ladies are good people, I just can’t come to make myself buy into the idea that their experiences qualify them for the SCOTUS bench.
Thought I’d put the following except of Ann’s bio as well as the Fact that a SCOTUS does not even have to be a a judge or lawyer . I believe the actual verbiage can be found in the US Constitution. This in fact maybe easier…https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi2
She is a correspondent for “Human Events” magazine.
Honors graduate from Cornell University School of Arts and Sciences (Class of 1984) and received her J.D. from The University of Michigan Law School.
She was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter practiced law in New York City.
She worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for former Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI).
Was a litigator with The Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a law firm that says it is “dedicated to the defense of individual rights with a particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights and the freedom of religion.”.
She clerked for the Hon. Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors program for outstanding law school graduates.
She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard A. Posner in 2001. Posner, an appointee of Republican president Ronald Reagan, provoked outrage in the legal community in 1999 when, in an article in Raritan magazine, he contended that “the rule of law is an accidental and dispensable element of legal ideology”, and caused another stir in an article that put forth the argument that buying and selling babies on the free market would lead to better outcomes than the present situation of government-regulated adoption.
However, Judge Jeanine Pirro, would be an excellent choice.
I wouldn’t be surprised about Ginsberg either.She seems to be slipping, like Pelosi and Waters.
It would be a a gift to the US if that ugly little communist troll would slip off a tall building@!
Ginsberg will die on the court, before she retires.
I seriously believe that Ruth Bader Ginsberg will either voluntarily retire or possibly be medically forced to do so because of having Cancer. The Democratic Parties worst Nightmare as it would give the Conservative a flat out 6 to 3 Majority on the Court, and if the Republican Party can retain control of the Senate through the 2018 Mid Term elections which is very possible, and maybe even gain a seat the Conservatives could control the Supreme Court over the next three decades.
Ginsberg, old cadaver that she is, needs to be pickled for liberal posterity.
Find the most conservative candidate you can find and nominate him. No women just yet, You will have that opportunity later when that senile Ginsberg retires.
Ted Cruz would be a pit-bull when it came to defending the Constitution. Trey Gowdy would be outstanding, but we need him to lead the swamp clean-up crew in the House.
Susan, I would be delighted to have either of those two gentlemen on the court bench, but as you said they are badly needed in the congress to help drain the swamp
That is true although Ted Cruz’s replacement would very well be conservative as well seeing He is from Texas not California, just saying.
Susan no disrespect to you but I love the way you “talk dirty”!
The old dilapidated witch needs to retire!!
We’ve never had a strong fifth vote. Sandra Day O’Connor went squish; that was decades ago. She became the “conscience of the court”; she was always a swing vote whenever the case would set a substantive precedent. And she always swung the wrong way. Casey v Planned Parenthood is her greatest shame. Grutter v Bollinger is her greatest missed opportunity.
Anthony Kennedy went squish very early on too. He’s never been granted that “surprising new respect” by the always even-handed NYT. He’s not the conscience of the court. But he has firmly entrenched the right to sexual privacy in the law: He wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas and in Obergefell v Hodges (and related cases) and was the deciding vote in each.
If Trump nominates a strong conservative with qualifications and charm similar to the smarmy Neil Gorsuch, he’s got a strong fifth, EXCEPT that the Chief Justice would probably go squish, if he thinks he can get away with it. The Chief Justice has a larger role. It is his job to keep the court’s proceedings and the other justices in good order, so that debate can proceed in civilized and even friendly manner, and the court’s decisions do not unnecessarily disrupt the lives of Americans or the sturdiness of the Republic. So that may prevent him squishing, except on sexual privacy and affirmative action.
Does Ruth yet hear the flapping of wings above her bed in the deep dark night?
Esau, I have lingering doubts about John Roberts. That Obamacare vote is still gravel in my craw.
How about Ted Cruz??
Ginsberg, any one over 65 should retire.
Napolitano and Pierro are interesting suggestions but both are too old (60s). I would rather see a TRUE CONSERVATIVE who is perhaps in his/her 40s. Trey Gowdy comes to mind as a deeply analytical constitutionalist who, I believe, is still in his 40s.
Ginsburg is the next up in God’s waiting room…
Are you sure she won’t go down,rather than up?
It is scary when Republicans pick conservative judges because many turn liberal on the court. Oddly, as far as I know, no liberal ever turned conservative on the bench.
@ Duane. It isn’t odd that liberal judges don’t swing the other way. First, a person whose entire life centers around reading books and engaging in intellectual discourse is not normal. We get judges like Scalia and Thomas once or twice in lifetime, at best. Conservative ideologues are not much different than any kind of ideologue. They usually embrace an ideology AFTER they have lost their common sense. Conservative ideology and ideologues can appear to look like real conservative people. President Reagan was a real conservative person. Rush Limbaugh is just a conservative ideologue, a phony. People are made conservative at the point of conception, with the common decency God gifts everyone with. What they twist it into or if they remain ‘faithful’ to it is a matter of what they are attracted to. Once attracted to something else and once they believe lies OVER their wordless, intuitive, calm common sense their inner worlds collapse and go dark. They are then referred to a powerful Godless outside world where they are helpless victims of their own debauchery. They become loyal an ‘other’ Intelligence. Without a conscience to modify their intellects, like a good father’s presence in his home, they become intellectually derelict. They think that their dark puny intellects without the huge overwhelming consciousness of Morality makes them ‘smarter’. Evil intent and derelict intellectualism is not wisdom. They live in a world where the Truth becomes like dream and they live a lie. They become blocked to believing anything true. Books and education just make it worse for them. Bad people do not benefit from education. They become even more useless and dangerous. The 3 women on our Supreme Court are a complete disgrace to our country, our Constitution and to decent women everywhere.
Andrew Napolitano would be an interesting choice. Time to drove the dagger into the heart of the DemoCRAPS with another conservative SCOTUS judge. Give the obstructionist DemoCRAPS no say in the matter.
The only problem with Napolitano may be age. They have a chance to fill the court with younger justices who will be around for decades to come.
Before all you liberals get their panties in a twist about the filibuster – let me refresh your memory about something you cheered for:
“We need to call out these filibusters for what they are: Naked attempts to nullify the results of the last presidential election… Senators not only have the right to change the filibuster rules, senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules.” – Elizabeth Warren 2013
Don’t you just hate it when your ideas come back to bite you in the ass?
If Kennedy does resign, Ruth Badass Ginsburg won’t be far behind. That will give President Trump three, count ’em, THREE SCOTUS picks and a pro-Constitution majority. Suck it up, liberal cupcakes….
The Grim Reaper has had his eye on her for a while now. The buzzards are circling too.
what about judge Janine pirro a possible outsider
Alan, right you are! I’d love to see Judge Jeanine Pirro on the supreme court bench!!
She would be great. Jeanine PIRRO WOMAN. Italian descent, CONSERVATIVE, SMART, STILL YOUNG AND EXPERIENCED! NOT LIKE THE TWO FOOLS IN THERE CALLED FEMALES.
This would just drive liberal Democrats to desperation, maybe even suicides.