Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave
The Washington Examiner ^ | June 19, 2016 | Paul Bedard

Posted on 06/19/2016 12:51:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: Sarah Barracuda
If that is the case, I wonder, for the Never Trumpers, do they want Hillary Clinton picking TWO Supreme Court justices

The next president will almost certainly have a chance to nominate more than two SC justices - in addition to Scalia's seat and Thomas's seat, both Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Anthony Kennedy are aged and very reasonable shots to step down.

The next president can set the direction of the Supreme Court for decades to come. The stakes for the November election couldn't be higher.
41 posted on 06/19/2016 2:33:46 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

And yet here we are with supposed Republicans doing EVERYTHING in their power to get Hillary Clinton elected..now tell me again why the Republican Party sucks monkey balls..we wont have a country anymore if Clinton is elected..it will make the Obama years look like the good ol days, seriously..this could end up being an ALL liberal Supreme Court..bye bye 2nd Amendment, hello Sharia Law, open borders, amnesty for 20 million illegals, all sprouting around all of the red states so those red states become blue states, we wont have a country anymore or a Republican party, it will be a one party rule system


42 posted on 06/19/2016 2:39:12 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nero tunes fiddle.


43 posted on 06/19/2016 2:39:39 PM PDT by Vaduz (women and children to be impacted the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Why didn’t he resign in 2008 or 2012 when Obama really “disheartened” conservatives?


44 posted on 06/19/2016 2:44:58 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal (Ismael's descendants have been murdering since 1900 BC - it's "racist" to acknowledge that fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

One of the relentless fantasies that continues to endure is that SCOTUS is, by nature, a conservative institution; a notion so beyond ridiculous, as to leave one speechless.
Since John Marshall, it has been a force for change and disruption rather than a bulwark of reason and tradition.
Having worked in Europe for many years, I am continually astonished that Americans tolerate a judicial system that can and does overrule legislation that was enacted in response to the will of ordinary citizens through the efforts of their elected representatives.
No European nation permits the will of their people and parliamentary members to be overruled via activist judges needy of attention.
The core reason the vision of our Founders has become invisible in our public life is because of the destruction of the primacy of States Rights; the handiwork of SCOTUS commencing in 1865 to the present; a period during which the GOP was politically ascendant.
So much for their strict constructionist malarkey.


45 posted on 06/19/2016 2:46:35 PM PDT by Arrian (How predictab)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The #NeverTrump are willing to sacrifice our court because their candidate of choice didn’t win. One guy, a Cruz supporter, told me to let Hillary have 4 years. She’ll only make 2 picks, and then we can get Cruz. This is ridiculous. If Hillary gets it, she could stack the court for many years! The article speculates up to 30 years.


46 posted on 06/19/2016 3:05:58 PM PDT by Pinkbell (Liberal tolerance only extends to people they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

I’d be tired of serving on the ultimate “Ministry of Truth” too.


47 posted on 06/19/2016 3:09:13 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

“The next president could appoint up to 4 justices in his first term.” Good news, if it, really, is HIS TERM!


48 posted on 06/19/2016 3:12:13 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Big Cruz supporting crybabies like her and those here can kiss my ass

I’m sick of their self righteous crap

They are now openly helping Hillary beat Trump

It’s disgusting

To hell with every single one


49 posted on 06/19/2016 3:14:38 PM PDT by wardaddy (No wobbly Donald....full steam ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda
If that is the case, I wonder, for the Never Trumpers, do they want Hillary Clinton picking TWO Supreme Court justices..if that is the case, Conservatives will NO longer have the majority, prepare for open borders and sharia law will be the religion of the land

The Never Trumpers have absolutely no problem with Hillary occupying the White House. They are fine with her picking as many Supreme Court members as suits her. Open borders and living under sharia law are fine with them.

The only thing that matters to them is that they get to keep their ill gotten gains [money that they stole from the taxpayers]. They see Donald Trump as a threat to all this. For reasons known only to them they believe that Hillary will allow them to keep what they have stolen. What will actually happen is that they will be the first to be rounded up and executed by Hillary. While Hillary is a thief without peer, she hates competition. Hillary's motto is that there is room for only one thief : Her.

Back to the Never Trumpers: they would gladly see Satan rule than Donald. In fact, they would be happy to see anyone, no matter how evil, no matter how degenerate, no matter how perverse. Anyone but Donald.

50 posted on 06/19/2016 3:37:48 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

if Trump wins, i fully expect Obama to try and steamroll an appointment to the SCOTUS between election day and inauguration day. he’ll probably try some sort of recess-type appointment (is that possible at the SCOTUS level?) or will round up enough squishy RINO’s to put a leftist on the court to replace Scalia before Trump is inaugurated. there will be many squishy RINO’s willing to do this because they will get good press for a couple of weeks on MSNBC/WaPo/NYT/ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN for doing it, and they’ll get to deprive Trump of the ability to do it. for them it’s a win-win. for the country, it’s a lose-lose. something will certainly go down like this if Trump gets elected though. be ready for it. probably under the guise of protecting the SCOTUS from the likes of Trump.


51 posted on 06/19/2016 3:58:28 PM PDT by TangibleDisgust ("To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

No matter the math, so many in the USA, even “Republicans”, still like Mrs. Bill. What can we do?


52 posted on 06/20/2016 3:05:08 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Trump-Santorum and Paul Nehlen 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sport
Back to the Never Trumpers: they would gladly see Satan rule than Donald. In fact, they would be happy to see anyone, no matter how evil, no matter how degenerate, no matter how perverse. Anyone but Donald.

I'm afraid you are right; we have so many "nervous Nellie" Republicans.

53 posted on 06/20/2016 3:06:11 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Trump-Santorum and Paul Nehlen 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Did you see comment 4? It was a member of your Cruz cult that brought Lying Ted into the conversation. Lying Ted is perfectly happy to see the beast elected since he (mistakenly) thinks that would help him in 2020.


54 posted on 06/20/2016 3:46:11 AM PDT by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Good News!
She said on her facebook & twitter account that her husband is not planning to retire.


55 posted on 06/20/2016 4:43:04 AM PDT by FR_addict (Ryan needs to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

Thank you so much for the update. I guess rumors got out of hand.


56 posted on 06/20/2016 4:55:56 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: With my own people alone I should like to drive away the Muslims)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

All these plugged in news writers aren’t as they seem.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442082/posts

In a Facebook post, Ginni Thomas called an article in The Washington Examiner “bogus.”
“For all those contacting me about the possibility of my husband retiring, I say -—
unsubscribe from those false news sources and carry on with your busy lives.”


57 posted on 06/20/2016 2:45:12 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: deport

Good! FR is a clearing house; and I appreciate you for helping to clear it up.


58 posted on 06/20/2016 2:49:24 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: With my own people alone I should like to drive away the Muslims)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson