Disaster! (Justice Kennedy Resigns)

[Dave_LF]

The situation is similar to the iterated prisoner's dilemma, which has been studied extensively. A good strategy is "tit for tat with forgiveness":

1) Start out by presuming the other player will cooperate
2) If they advantage of you, sometimes give them another chance, sometimes don't. Don't let them know what to expect in advance.
3) If they blow their second chance (or if you choose not to give them one), stop cooperating and retaliate
3) When and if the other player resumes (or assume) cooperation, forgive them and move on
4) If they start cheating again, go back to (2)

This is reasonably good advice for life in general.

Of course, ineffective retaliation just makes you look weak. So if they can't succeed, or at least make enough trouble to give the GOP second thoughts next time, they should choose a different approach.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's a moot point because the Democrats simply don't have the power to prevent a vote. I'm seen some suggestions that they could do so by denying a quorum by not showing up for the vote, but I'm pretty sure that McConnell could swat away such a tactic with both hands tied behind his back.

That having been said, philosophically-speaking you raise a good point, Cerin, and one which I have a hard time answering. My general feeling is that two wrongs do no not make a right, and lowering down to the other side's level simply lowers the bar further. But we are talking about decades of rigid conservative control of perhaps the most powerful institution in the country. That is a scary prospect to me.

[Frelga]

My take is that women will die if the abortion is made inaccessible. That, to me, is more important than playing nicely.

[yovargas]

My take is that having a properly functioning gov trumps nearly all concerns as without that, you have nothing. So I see it as something much bigger than a matter of "playing nicely". The slippery slope of where our hyper-partisan politics could take us feels increasingly frightening to me.

That said, to my mind, the Republicans cheated in denying Obama his pick. If the Democrats could block Trump's pick (which they can't), that would not so much be a "two wrongs" situation, so much as compensating for the harm of the last wrong, in my eyes.

[Sunsilver]

My take is that women will die if the abortion is made inaccessible. That, to me, is more important than playing nicely.

I have a friend in Michigan whose father is a retired doctor, a surgeon. When Roe vs. Wade was passed, his reaction was "Thank goodness! I won't have to repair the liquefied inside of women who've had 'back room' abortions any more!"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yesterdays horrific (yet all too common) mass shooting in Annapolis is a reminder that Kennedy's retirement will not change much on most issues. For every vote that he made siding with the more progressive justices on issues like reproductive choice and same-sex marriage, he probably made ten votes siding with conservatives, including on issues like gun control. People asked why he retired now rather than when Obama was president. Beyond the fact that like anyone else he should be able to determine when he is ready to retire, he is more in line with a GOP president (even Trump) then with a Democratic one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But then there is this ...

Trump's business career is more connected to retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy than we ever knew

The son of recently retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly gave President Donald Trump over a billion dollars in loans to finance his real estate projects when other banks wouldn't, according to The New York Times.

Justin Kennedy, the former global head of Deutsche Bank's real estate capital markets division, was reportedly one of Trump's closest business associates and most important lenders.

Because of Trump's inconsistent track record in business, which included filing for bankruptcy multiple times and being frequently sued, most other major banks would not lend to him.

Deutsche loaned Trump the funds he needed to construct and renovate skyscrapers and other developments in both New York City and Chicago, sources familiar with the matter told The Times.

After Trump's first address to Congress in February 2017, he reportedly stopped to chat with Justice Kennedy afterwards, saying, "Say hello to your boy... special guy."

The Times article describes an unusually close relationship between Justice Kennedy and Trump and a "quiet campaign" from the White House to encourage Kennedy to retire. Trump praised Kennedy and his work, even though he had handed down decisions on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty that many conservatives in Trump's party disagreed with.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

In a previous thread, I mentioned how lucky the pro-choice side had been, given that for a long time there have been more Republican appointees than Democrat appointees yet RvW has held in spite of that. How lucky the pro-life side had been that some of the Republican appointees had gone pro-choice in spite of being Republican appointees. I also made the point that I do not believe in luck, I believe luck will always turn.

Unless Trump surprises us, luck will turn.

People told me I was crazy for thinking that. I guess I'm crazy for thinking luck turns, even now that evidence has shown that luck turns.

Now let us suppose this does happens, that we get a judge that will tip the balance into overturning RvW. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Send it back to the states
2. National pro-life

Some people who are pro-choice are so wedded to it being a national issue that they think option 2 is the better option. Others recognize the obvious truth that option 1 is the lest bad option.

[yovargas]

I don't really understand what your post means. I do think any national pro-life laws would be extremely unlikely.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

National Pro-Life means that the court rules against abortion and this ruling is instituted at the federal level. That means no state can really make any exceptions since nullification was settled over a century and a half ago.

Sending it back to the states means California can be pro-choice while Utah is pro-life.

If we are certain that RvW is doomed, those really are the two alternatives.

[yovargas]

No comments about our upcoming new SCOTUS overlord?

[Primula Baggins]

It’s an amazing coincidence that he doesn’t believe a sitting president can be indicted. Bet Trump was just bowled over to hear about that one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Kavanaugh is very smart and highly qualified. He certainly isn't the justice that I would appoint, but there really isn't anything in his background, including his history with the Starr investigation or subsequent comments about whether a sitting president should be investigated (which were pretty ironic given his role with the Starr investigation), that should disqualify him. I doubt that there is an realistic chance that he will not be confirmed.

Honestly, I expected that Trump would make a much worse pick. Of those he was considering, I think Kavanaugh probably is the least likely to be completely on the extreme fringe. He even has written in opinions about climate change being real and being caused by humans. That alone sets him apart from most on the far right (even if his confirmation will ultimately tip the court to the far right).

[Inanna]

Oh, good!

[yovargas]

That is some comfort to hear, V-man. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's not to say that I think his nomination is not a total disaster. In fact, it could be worse than nominating a more obviously far right candidate who might have a slightly better chance at being rejected. Kavanaugh is likely to be, like Gorsuch, a more genteel version of Scalia.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Inanna]

But a sensible candidate will likely not overturn established cases, no?

[Primula Baggins]

A sensible court doesn’t. But with this additional solid conservative vote, the majority would take every opportunity (and create some—the Court decides what it’s going to hear) to revisit decisions like Roe and gay marriage.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sense is what you make of it.

Gorsuch, who has a very similar background to Kavanaugh, including having been a clerk for Justice Kennedy, just voted (along with Kennedy himself) to reverse a very solid precedent decided just a couple of years after Roe v. Wade in the Janus public union case. Undoubtable each of the justices who voted to overturn that precedent thought it was the sensible thing to do.

We'll have to see what happens. I actually think there is a reasonable chance that John Roberts himself is wary of flat out reversing Roe on his watch, and suspect that he may try to find a path that weakens but doesn't completely reverse Roe. I'm pretty sure we will find out soon.

[Frelga]

Oh, good!

It isn't. It possibly could be worse.

There could be snakes*.