The removal and replacement of Kennedy is nothing short of obstruction of justice.

[deminks]

I demand a thorough investigation, and no confirmation process of any kind take place until that investigation is completed.

For those that are about to tell me it won't, can't happen, thank you for your concern.

Link to tweet

Inside the campaign to get Justice Kennedy to retire: strategic praise, assurances his legacy would remain intact and personal ties to the Trumps

No one is above the law. Not a president, not a supreme court justice.

[Ninga]

1. I've been following this unfolding story. As far as I am concerned, this and this alone

is enough to stall the process. Dems must demand a full investigation.

[Cha]

3. Really.

[FBaggins]

4. Once again... how?

I know... my concern is noted... but yet again I ask HOW are Democrats supposed to "stall the process"?

"Didn't you see that deminks DEMANDED it???"

I'm sure that's just what Senate Democrats have been waiting for.

[The Mouth]

30. I think a unicorn in Ferrari is supposed to deliver the warrant

I can imagine exactly the size of the flying fuck I would give if the Republicans were freaking out and threatening revolution over Hillary's SCOTUS pick (assuming we had congress and could confirm whoever the fuck we wanted).

Might as well expect mercy from a great white shark or try to argue with a clump of cancer cells.

[olegramps]

33. There is no need for a conspiracy. He did what a good Republican would do. Great timing.

He chose his retirement time solely for the benefit of the party. You know a good soldier. People are making far to much of his few and far between swing votes and neglect that he was an enemy of labor and everything the Democrats stood for. I wonder if his decisions were based on cases that he saw as clearly affecting Republicans as well Democrats, such as abortion, gay rights … I wonder what others think.

[Cha]

2. Here's to you getting your demands, deminks..

Link to tweet

Soph https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10807918

[deminks]

5. love the pic, and after he hired 4 new clerks.

[Cha]

8. So something strongly

made him do a 180.

[Cirroc]

10. He must have gotten an offer from Walmart

that was too good to refuse.

[Cha]

12. Sounds like it.

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

25. Sly and dry. :) And shockingly plausible.

[Hortensis]

6. No one is above the law? Where's the illegality?

At some point this happens with all justices who didn't surprise everyone by retiring early. It's totally reasonable and totally legal. Is there more to it?

I'm interested in knowing how deeply the connections between Trump, Deutsche Bank, Justin Kennedy, and Justice Kennedy were investigated, though. Every detail should be known and seen to be squeaky clean.

Btw, WHO were those almost 40 still-anonymous people Justice Scalia met with at that remote, private resort? Why were they all there and what were they doing? Only one of many questionable meetings, of course.

[watoos]

13. You nailed it,

The M$M should be covering Kennedy's son's involvement in giving Trump a billion dollars of loans when no other bank would lend him a nickel.

Kennedy retired to protect his son, to keep the spotlight off of him. Instead of pushing for using the argument of the McConnell rule, we all need to push the Russia rule instead. No new SC appointment until we know what the hell is going on with Trump and Russia.

The problem is that I don't expect the M$M to even cover the Kennedy son Trump connection. So far I have only seen coverage on DKos.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gave Kennedy an offer he couldn't refuse to resign.

[Hortensis]

22. It's outrageously scurrilous, but me neither.

Not in this environment of intense right wing corruption.

[bigtree]

7. k&r

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Here's my proof of presumption of corruption:

Kennedy had hired his law clerks in January of this year, six months ago.

Consider that the hired clerks were in the top of their class in law school, who turned down stellar offers from companies and other judges to clerk with a Supreme Court justice. Not only are they without a position in October, the other alternatives are nearly gone by now.

Kennedy planned to be on The Bench next October and now he's not, without warning.

[FBaggins]

14. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit

First of all... there are plenty of top students who would line up as clerks even if they knew it would only be for a few months.

Second - they don't usually get laid off. Retired justices retain a clerk and the other justices usually go out of their way to hire any remaining clerks themselves. Alito and Thomas picked up Scalia's clerks when he passed away.

One former Kennedy clerk put it this way: "The court takes care of its own"

[Exotica]

20. Thanks for this info

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

26. Yep

Hiring clerks means absolutely nothing. Its not a tell, either way, in regards to whether a Justice will stay or retire.

[watoos]

15. Yes, there is something rotten in Denmark.

Will the M$M cover this possible scandal? The Deutche bank loan to Trump needs to be investigated. Was Kennedy's son instrumental in Trump getting a billion dollar loan from them? If Kennedy stayed on would he have to recuse himself regarding any Trump decisions?

I'm praying we get one patriot M$M news organization to bring light to all of this, but I don't see it happening, they are all complicit.

[onenote]

17. It is not uncommon for a justice to hire clerks and then announce retirement

Has happened before and will happen again. By the way, he hired them back before the end of last year.

[mythology]

34. He specifically told at least one of them he was considering retirement

Also the clerks will likely be picked up by another justice.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Cory Booker: People under investigation by FBI do not get to pick judges to judge themselves.

Senator Cory Booker: "The president of the United States is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation...that could end up before the Supreme Court," so any Trump SCOTUS nomination should be "delayed until the Mueller investigation is concluded."

[watoos]

18. Yes, you got it

This needs to be the argument for no new justice. Using the McConnell rule will be a waste of time.
Also, Kennedy's son's Deutche bank involvement in Trump's billion dollar loan needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Imagine, no other bank would loan Trump a nickel because they all knew he wouldn't pay back the loan. Why did Deutche bank loan him a billion dollars and was Kennedy's son involved?

[dlk]

16. The Fix is In

[Timmygoat]

19. Just thinking

I think Joe Manchin is a traitor!

[onenote]

21. Well, you better pray he gets re-elected.

Yeah, it would be nice if Manchin would stand with the rest of the party in opposing a Trump nomination. But in the grand scheme of things, his getting re-elected likely is more important than his vote on a SCOTUS nominee.

Why? First and foremost, because that nominee is almost certain to be confirmed with or without Manchin's vote. Second, if Manchin is defeated, the odds of the Democrats capturing the Senate in November go down substantially and that's enormously significant. Because if the Democrats can capture the Senate, and only if they capture the Senate, they can block a lot of things that Trump would try over the next two years, including judicial nominations and other appointments. Consider the possibility that in the next two years one of the liberals leaves the Supreme Court or Thomas retires in order to give Trump a chance to name a younger replacement. McConnell won't do anything to stop Trump's nominations. But if the Democrats control the Senate, they can pull a "Garland" on Trump's nominations.

So, as far as I'm concerned, any Democrat that doesn't vote for Manchin, or Heitkamp, or Donnelly is no better than the Democrats that didn't vote for Hillary.

[notdarkyet]

23. Kennedy, your reputation is in tatters one week after retiring. Because of trump?

Blackmail? The ugly truth comes out.

[Lonestarblue]

24. Kennedy would most likely have voted with Trump anyway.

We are all frustrated because we see the Court turning into an arm of the Republican Party. But Kennedy has always been an unpredictable vote, and recently he has swung to the right. Given what we know now about the very close family connection to Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans and the likely compromat that Russia has given Trump on Kennedy’s son, what is the likelihood that Kennedy would have voted against Trump in the future. i hate to be defeatist, but Democrats simply do not have the votes to stop a new confirmation. They may delay it a bit, but McConnell will run roughshod over their efforts. Relying on a sitting Republican senator like Collins or Murkowski to vote with Democrats is dreaming. Their careers would be over. Jeff Flake has already said he would support Trump’s nominee. Corker is only 65 and I doubt that he just plans to sit in his rocking chair. He would be risking Republican retaliation that could prevent him from consulting or doing anything to use his influence in any business or political way. Which leaves McCain. Even if he could get back to DC to vote and all 49 Democrats held to the party line, that’s still a 50-50 vote and Pence can break the tie. Most likely, the best we can do is to extract a promise that the nominee will recuse himself from any appeals involving the Trump-Russia investigation. The only other possibility I can think of is that investigative reporters dig up enough dirt—and right-wing extremist religious types tend to have dirt like racist remarks that could derail a nominee’s hearings.

[kentuck]

27. Definitely something very fishy about this....

....and his son was responsible for loans from Deutsche Bank of more than $1 billion dollars to Trump .

[duforsure]

28. Could it be

Kennedy knows his son was giving him sweetheart loans when nobody else would go near him, and the trump kids gave back to Justice Kennedy? He is leaving because they're being exposed now?

[Civic Justice]

29. I agree!!! Indite and Prosecute Justice Kennedy, the minute he steps away from the Court!!!

and let's look at other SCOTUS who have a history of voting to promote the agenda of the wealthy !!!


---------------------

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210808173

[sweetapogee]

31. Indite? (sp)

A Supreme Court Justice for retiring at age 81?

[Civic Justice]

35. it for "the details behind his motive" for retiring.

there's always a trail when it concerns money in the spin and mix to promote ideology, that tells a broader story. When we look at what "Right Conservative Agenda" is, then the picture become into focus...

One thing for certain that any Supreme Court Justice understands is "Timing".... and its relevancy to promoted agenda.

[sweetapogee]

36. OK then....

run with this.

Run like the wind. Should yield great results!

[tritsofme]

38. Are there any other agendas one might promote, that would warrant indictment and prosecution?

Just anyone who disagrees with you?

[Civic Justice]

39. anyone is free to write out what ever they think.... as will I too...

I don't have a need to stop another from having their own disposition of agreement or disagreement, I state my view, and if you note, I continue to do so. Its up to others to state their view...

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

32. CAN SOMEONE give me a reality check - yesterdays trump quote was just his usual

self congratulatory blathering about what a good guy Kennedy is for retiring now so that he (trump) can pick successor.

"I am very honored that he chose to do it during my term in office because he felt confident in me, to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy. That is why he did it."

Now this am I heard a rush limbaugh commentary on the radio - saying that KENNEDY said that he wanted to retire now so Trump can pick the successor.

Nowhere on the interenets is there a direct Kennedy quote saying anything of the sort.

FWIW

[UTUSN]

37. K&R

[cbdo2007]

40. The Dems should filibuster with the demand that...

The nominee promises to recuse themself on any case regarding the Trump administration.

[pintobean]

41. What laws do you believe were broken?

We can't force anyone to remain in that job. It's not a crime to encourage someone to retire.

I understand the frustration, but I don't get what laws may have been broken.