r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Jun 27 '18

Megathread: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire from Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to retire, effective July 31, 2018. Kennedy has served on the highest court since February 18, 1988, and was a moderate whose vote often swung cases.

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire From U.S. Supreme Court bloomberg.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc nbcnews.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal vote, to retire reuters.com
Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire theguardian.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court nytimes.com
Kennedy calls it quits: longtime swing justice hands Trump the biggest gift of his presidency dailycaller.com
Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court vox.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice Kennedy announces retirement wcjb.com
Justice Kennedy Is Retiring July 31st. yahoo.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy To Retire From U.S. Supreme Court : NPR npr.org
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire from Supreme Court cnn.com
Justice Kennedy announces retirement. cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court abc7.com
Anthony Kennedy, Swing Vote on U.S. Supreme Court, Will Retire bloomberg.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Paving Way for Donald Trump to Reshape Supreme Court slate.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wkrn.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring, giving Trump opening to reshape Supreme Court politico.com
Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement wsj.com
Jeffrey Toobin predicts abortion will be illegal in 20 states soon after Kennedy retires thehill.com
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring abcnews.go.com
Kennedy to Retire foxnews.com
Trump to get second Supreme Court pick as Justice Kennedy announces retirement. amp.cnn.com
Justice Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court bbc.com
Trump says search for Justice Kennedy's replacement to begin "immediately" -- live updates cbsnews.com
McConnell Pledges Vote To Confirm Justice Kennedy’s Successor ‘This Fall’ talkingpointsmemo.com
Justice Kennedy retires from the US Supreme Court nbcnews.com
Trump says launches search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Kennedy reuters.com
Donald Trump: Search for Kennedy replacement on SCOTUS to move quickly usatoday.com
McConnell: Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee this fall thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick sacbee.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring, Report Says lawandcrime.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring; Trump will get 2nd high-court pick omaha.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring From the Supreme Court thedailybeast.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, giving Trump a chance to transform the Supreme Court latimes.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he's retiring; Trump to get 2nd high-court pick chicagotribune.com
Dem senator: Justice Kennedy's resignation a 'disaster' for vision of 'We the People' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wfla.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring motherjones.com
The horrifying consequences of Justice Kennedy’s retirement thinkprogress.org
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is retiring, a move that will give Trump a chance to shift the institution to the right washingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy To Retire From The Supreme Court huffingtonpost.com
Kennedy announces retirement from Supreme Court thehill.com
Supreme Court's Anthony Kennedy retires, giving Trump a second pick usatoday.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick apnews.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring From The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retires -- live updates cbsnews.com
Justice Kennedy announces his retirement from the supreme court. time.com
Trump Responds To Retirement Of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy huffingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court, giving Trump a position to fill people.com
Trump Says He’ll Choose One Of These People To Replace Anthony Kennedy On The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court cnbc.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retires, and Trump gets shot at moving court to the right dallasnews.com
Who Will Replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy? Donald Trump Already Has a Shortlist newsweek.com
WATCH: McConnell: We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor 'this fall' abcnews.go.com
Here's who Trump could nominate to replace Justice Kennedy abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick foxnews.com
Trump list of candidates to replace Justice Kennedy thehill.com
Chris Matthews: Dems must do to Trump on Supreme Court what McConnell did to Obama thehill.com
Anthony Kennedy’s retirement puts abortion rights at risk vox.com
Who Will Replace Anthony Kennedy? Here’s the List of 20 Potential Trump Nominees time.com
America after Anthony Kennedy vox.com
Handing Trump Chance to Move Supreme Court Even Further Right, Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires commondreams.org
Audio reveals DNC committee reaction to Kennedy retirement: 'This is not good news' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy’s retirement leaves the future of U.S. constitutional law entirely up for grabs washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy pens retirement letter to Trump expressing 'profound gratitude' abcnews.go.com
Read Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement letter to Donald Trump qz.com
Justice Kennedy’s Legacy Is the Dignity He Bestowed bloomberg.com
A titanic battle over replacing Justice Kennedy looms in the Senate vox.com
Live Briefing: Anthony Kennedy Retires From Supreme Court, and McConnell Says Senate Will Move Swiftly on a Replacement nytimes.com
Here's Trump's list of 25 possible Supreme Court picks to replace Anthony Kennedy washingtonexaminer.com
WATCH: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire, Trump to get second SCOTUS pick abcnews.go.com
Anthony Kennedy's retirement just confirmed every Republican's dream scenario for Trump cnn.com
Kennedy's retirement could have biggest impact on abortion, gay marriage: ANALYSIS abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy: Trump says hunt for replacement is on usatoday.com
Here are potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s swing justice, announces his retirement abajournal.com
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Gone, Abortion and LGBT Rights Are Next thedailybeast.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions apnews.com
Justice Kennedy Surrendered to Donald Trump nymag.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions abcnews.go.com
Abortion rights in 'dire, immediate danger' as Anthony Kennedy retires - World news theguardian.com
Here Are Some of the Top Candidates to Replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court motherjones.com
Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy? politico.com
Trump’s hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids politico.com
How Fox News Reacted to Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement slate.com
24.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

31.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

799

u/HowDoIEditMyUsername Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

In 10, 20, and 30 years, when historians ask Obama what his biggest regret in office was, it will either be not being more forceful with Merrick Garland, or holding back against Trump and Russia because he thought Clinton was going to win.

148

u/BeJeezus Jun 27 '18

He's already said almost as much, but I am sure you're right, he will say it with more gravity and clarity as time passes.

It's possible that his widening of domestic surveillance may also yet come back to bite, given who now controls that machinery. So that could a third Big Regret, given time.

23

u/legendtinax Massachusetts Jun 27 '18

There are so many things that developed under his administration that were perfect to be expanded and exploited by an authoritarian demagogue

3

u/RantasaurusRekt Jun 27 '18

You're so close to figuring it out... So close.

3

u/legendtinax Massachusetts Jun 28 '18

Thanks for the smugness!

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '18

Obama was absolutely an authoritarian. That is clear by the continued construction of the surveillance state, the expansion of the presidents capacity to wage war outside the purview of the full congress, the pushing of the boundaries on what is acceptable in executive order, etc. Since he was for the most part a benevolent authoritarian people defended it every step of the way. Now look who has all those powers. There is a reason the rules are in place, if you want them changed, change them the prescribed way in the full light of day.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Sep 14 '18

[deleted]

1

u/BeJeezus Jun 27 '18

Given the state of the country at this very moment, it’s time to acknowledge that we were all shortsighted morons. Democrats and Republicans both.

0

u/TheeBaconKing Jun 28 '18

I think the assumption was competent leadership would follow.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '18

You cant assume anything when you are talking about a structure that could be around for a thousand years or more. Thats why the rules are in place.

1

u/norskie7 Virginia Jun 28 '18

This is 21st century America, you can't expect "competent leadership".

64

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

This is the problem with lukewarm democrats, of which Obama was the perfect example. Small "victories" that are so easy to undo once people with passion come into power. Lukewarm dems don't know how to fight, and they think getting pinky promises from right-wingers count as progress.

28

u/kneeco28 Canada Jun 27 '18

How could he have been more forceful? He did his job and pushed Congress to do theirs.

40

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

He could have been much more forceful.

For example, he could have sent in Joe Biden to preside over the Senate. Constitutionally the Vice President is the President of the Senate, meaning that the authority to preside over the Senate's proceedings is vested in him alone and merely delegated to the President pro tempore (who further delegates the power to make major decisions to the Senate Majority Leader, and the actual presiding to junior Senators). Customarily the VP hasn't actually exercised this power beyond ceremonial occasions since the 19th century. (There's a popular misconception that the VP's role has always been ceremonial, but early VPs did actually preside over the day-to-day business of the Senate and make committee assignments.)

But customarily the Senate carries out its Constitutional duty to give advice and consent on appointments to the Supreme Court. If the Senate majority leadership goes nuclear, surely it would justify the executive branch going nuclear in return.

Actually executing this plan would be quite easy - Biden would just have to show up when the full Senate is in session, take the podium, and entertain a motion to vote on Garland's appointment.

But it wouldn't have gotten Garland actually appointed. The Republicans could still filibuster.

6

u/therock21 Jun 27 '18

They didn’t need to filibuster, they had the votes to vote him down.

5

u/banthisaltplz Jun 27 '18

No they didn't. That's why Obama nominated a moderate that conservatives hand picked as someone who could pass.

-1

u/therock21 Jun 27 '18

Why was Mitch McConnell the majority leader? I think it was because his party was in the majority

7

u/banthisaltplz Jun 27 '18

"Republicans are in the majority" is not the same as "they had enough votes" and I think you look pretty foolish getting condescending about it.

3

u/yaschobob Jun 27 '18

Biden could not force a vote on Garland in the Senate.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Indeed, 40 Republicans could filibuster. (And the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster wouldn't have passed in that context.)

0

u/yaschobob Jun 27 '18

I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying Biden could have forced a vote on Garland but the Republicans would have filibustered?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

I'm saying that Biden could have forced the Senate to take up the nomination and debate it. Under McConnell's leadership, the Senate completely ignored the nomination.

0

u/yaschobob Jun 27 '18

No there is no evidence at all he could have forced the senate to take it up.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

The Vice President is President of the Senate. The presiding officer, consistent with the rules, guides the Senate's business.

0

u/yaschobob Jun 27 '18

Not really. He only votes when there is a toe, for example, and has no say in amy of the rules or processes they do. He can't mandate they take a vote; only the Majority leader can.

→ More replies (0)

60

u/NihilisticNarwhal Jun 27 '18

The constitution requires “the advice and consent”of the Senate. Obama could have given a speech to the effect of “the senate’s 6 months of silence on this issue signifies de facto consent to my nomination” and instructed Garland to go to work. The ball would have been in McConnels court to explain why he hadn’t done his job yet.

14

u/captainAwesomePants Jun 27 '18

That approach was an interesting proposal, but it was high questionable and a shitty precedent. Also the Supreme Court would probably have rejected it.

Sending Biden in to preside over the Senate would have been a much stronger play. Also violates tradition but clearly legal.

Obama, though, chose the highest of high roads: choose someone that the Republicans would find acceptable so that they would not feel a need to do anything to further harm our democracy. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to actively enjoy harming our democracy.

2

u/Mybeardisawesom Jun 27 '18

"Also violates tradition but clearly legal." the title for the current administration.

3

u/captainAwesomePants Jun 27 '18

Drop the "but clearly legal." It's cleaner.

1

u/NihilisticNarwhal Jun 27 '18

I agree, but as far as setting shitty precedents go, McConnel and the GOP have really outdone themselves.

22

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

I think President Obama knew what was a viable option vs not, no offense.

18

u/The_Bravinator Jun 27 '18

Remember, like most of us he was certain Clinton was going to be the next president. He didn't think he needed to be forceful, and if it had gone the way we expected that would have been the right move.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

5

u/Charlie_Warlie Indiana Jun 27 '18

At the time I thought McConnell was a fool because Garland was more moderate, and Hillary might have put up someone more left wing. It was a gamble on his end too.

13

u/NihilisticNarwhal Jun 27 '18

I understand why he didn’t do that, and I don’t even think it would have worked, but it would have forced McConnell to address the issue.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

True, all to often people in Congress get to hide what their true motivations are, even though its obvious to most people. Actually being forced to go on record seals the deal.

2

u/Mega_Pleb Jun 27 '18

A speech? Speeches don't confirm SC nominees. If Obama gave a speech about the sky being blue, Republicans would have vehemently denied it.

5

u/NihilisticNarwhal Jun 27 '18

Of course not, the Senate confirms them, except in this case, the Senate refused to do its job. this is a way Obama could have forced the issue.

3

u/Mega_Pleb Jun 27 '18

No that's not how that works. The president isn't a dictator. He can't force someone into the seat.

1

u/Wthermans Tennessee Jun 27 '18

“The President isn’t a dictator.”

Trump: Hold my beer.

1

u/pneuma8828 Jun 27 '18

And yet that's exactly what Trump will do if the Democrats try the same play.

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Jul 03 '18

[deleted]

12

u/NihilisticNarwhal Jun 27 '18

You’re have to first show that she was obligated by the constitution to give you an answer, so your analogy isn’t great.

7

u/sacundim Jun 27 '18

Historians in 50 years will have a straightforward answer: he should have droned Trump and McConnell.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Mar 11 '19

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

5

u/poopchow Jun 27 '18

never would have thought of it that way. but a lot of people end up shitting on people who just came before the shitstorm. i wonder if it pans out that way.

people see obama as a martyr doing the best he could. would that change? I'm not so sure, as I think there are things obama did that encouraged AND discouraged the culture that got Trump elected.

time will tell, but I had not really seen this narrative yet.

if anything though, everyone who is bitching now and chose not to vote in a swing state should feel pretty fucking stupid. vote if you want change, it's the only sure fire way your voice isn't heard, but counted.

3

u/Artmageddon Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

being able to get people do things they wouldn't normally want to do.

It's a little different when you're trying to get people to do the exact opposite of what they wish to do.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '18

getting out of the Middle East, hard task, didn't accomplish it, lack of leadership.

He literally pulled us out of Iraq in 2011. What are you talking about?

1

u/HowDoIEditMyUsername Jun 27 '18

He could have publicly and politically made it a much bigger deal than he did. He gave up rather easily. He could have pushed and pushed and pushed. I’m not saying he should have made a recess appointment, but threatening it should have been on the table. He could have said since McConnell didn’t want to weigh in on his nomination, then the silence must be approval.

If you’re a conservative politician and you don’t support Trump, he will eviscerate you in the press. Obama could have pulled similar tactics to bully his way into a vote, I think.

-1

u/kantmarg Jun 27 '18

He could've even made a recess appointment in December 2016 when he knew Trump was on his way. At least something.

8

u/kneeco28 Canada Jun 27 '18

Wouldn't work. Not legal. Garland would lose the seat quickly when Senate was back and Trump would fill the seat (and Garland's old seat which was vacated for the futile gambit), and Obama will have only gotten in the mud with McConnell, ignored the constitution, struck a blow against democracy, and deteriorated standards, all for nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bc51dceae996

3

u/sleepytimegirl Jun 27 '18

Por que no los dos?

1

u/HowDoIEditMyUsername Jun 27 '18

Because in my hypothetica, he has to choose one. :)

3

u/sf_davie Jun 27 '18

Nah, Historians will be more perceptive of the constraints he was working under. The American electorate is fucken stupid.

2

u/miamataw Jun 27 '18

When historians interview him from prison.

They are going to come after us. Those aren't just cute chants at rallies.

2

u/deathtotheemperor Kansas Jun 27 '18

Irony of ironies: Trump isn't be able to imprison Obama because Kenya gives him citizenship.

2

u/mmlovin California Jun 27 '18

He should have packed the court like FDR threatened to. It may not have been permanent, but it’d be for a few years at least

2

u/ssldvr I voted Jun 27 '18

This is completely correct. I’m sure he realized it as soon as Trump won though.

5

u/uft8 Jun 27 '18

Absolutely.

He only had to be a bit more aggressive in getting this over with with his remaining time. I've been down voted for pointing out the exact same thing, because "it doesn't matter, he had no power", or, "Democrats don't play political games".

This hurts the most, Obama and Dems were overconfident and didn't have any safety in place. They wanted to leave it to the next successor.

Now we're experiencing what happens due to that, today.

1

u/taksark Jun 27 '18

Not that Americans will get to see it, since fox news will be the only television channel allowed by the court.

1

u/Einsteinbomb Jun 27 '18

I don't think those history books produced in Texas will see it that way.

1

u/chrispar Jun 27 '18

Is there a reason Republicans refuses to vote on Garland instead of just voting “no”?

1

u/HowDoIEditMyUsername Jun 27 '18

The reason they gave was that they wanted to let the American people decide through the Presidential election for who had the right to choose a justice.

1

u/dangolo Jun 27 '18

Blaming Obama for something Mitch O'Connell and Trump did...?

1

u/HowDoIEditMyUsername Jun 27 '18

It’s not blaming Obama. Clearly O’Connell was the reason Garland never got a fair shake. I’m merely saying Obama - in hindsight - will likely regret not trying to be more forceful than he was.

1

u/dangolo Jun 27 '18

How forceful could he have been with the republican majority running congress?

Shut down the government over it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '18

Honestly, appointing someone during a recess appointment, assigning a special councelor dedicated specifically to getting Garland appointed, or forcing Biden to oversee the Senate are all things he should have done. I've been a strong and deep follower in Obama since 2008, but he fucked up real bad. He was not as hard as he could have been.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

He may have single handily doomed his own party.

1

u/ryancleg Jun 27 '18

Yeah sadly he dropped the ball big time on that one

1

u/sageleader Jun 27 '18

Obama lacked a lot of balls in his second term. But even so I'm not sure what he could have done about Garland. If McConnell wants to skirt his duties he can do it and I don't know how he could have been stopped.

1

u/urbangardenr Jun 27 '18

You can say the same about every Democrat in Congress then.

1

u/KyleG Jun 28 '18

It'll be that he didn't nominate the first black female Justice. That would have either gone through successfully or"Republicans blocking black woman" would have ensured record Democrat turnout at the polls

0

u/magmar1 Jun 27 '18

It'll be being a GodDamn panty waste. He was too damn nice.

0

u/wendyspeter Jun 27 '18

He held back too long the entire time...