Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny that the NBC report is accurate.If it were true, this would mean that those worried that the new Justice will radically depart from Kennedy's own line of thinking could reassure themselves. Rather than Donald Trump, bomb-thrower, having appointed Kennedy's replacement, Kennedy himself would have chosen someone in whom he had confidence to preserve his legacy.
I'd think this would be pleasing news.
I confess I don't understand why this theory would be alarming even if it's true. Are we supposed to think that no S. Ct justice has ever stepped down after receiving assurances about who was likely to replace him? If it did happen, it would show that Kennedy had an awful lot of trust in Trump's good faith. Any time a S. Ct. justice steps down, he presumably takes the political climate into account. Does anyone think Justice Ginsberg was serenely indifferent to whether Obama was likely to give her a better replacement than the President Clinton she obviously hoped for, and that her hopes didn't influence her schedule? (Even if her calculations turned out to be disastrously wrong) I don't get at all why this is a big deal.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. So a Supreme Court Justice made inquiries to the President about who would be nominated to replace him (or her)? The thing still has to go before the Senate.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we be alarmed to learn that all three branches of the government have been consulted on a matter of such importance, instead of just two of them?
Texan, I now wonder if RBG was possibly waiting for a Democrat controlled Senate more than for a Clinton presidency.
ReplyDeleteTrue, I was speaking loosely. It's not so much that she'd have preferred a pick from Clinton over one from Obama, but that she might have thought Clinton would have a freer hand nominating the same sort of justice. As hard as the press took the 2016 election, I suspect she took it even harder. I'm kind of impressed she's still hanging in there--maybe still hoping he'll be impeached? But Pence wouldn't be any improvement. Will she try to last until 2020? 2024?
ReplyDeleteShe might have preferred Clinton over Obama on feminist grounds. Obama's picks were great choices from that perspective, but she might have just wanted to have a woman President choose her successor.
ReplyDeleteNow, I suppose she's hoping to last until next year, when a Democrat-run Senate will guarantee that her replacement won't be too radical. So it's quite important that Republicans hold onto the Senate this fall.
The SC would be a toothless bunch of elderly Counsel of 9 so long as the feds lacked money and authority.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations needs some critical things to project and enforce power. Without those necessities, it doesn't really matter who the leader are.
Americans keep pumping their power into DC and then wondering why bad stuff happens...
Grim, I predict RBG's going to have to wait longer than a year, possibly well longer.
ReplyDeleteThis story is feeling like an own goal to me. I guess I can understand why the Progressives are going gaga because they just threw Anthony Kennedy under the bus over the travel ban, et al (one thousand attaboys from Obergefell canceled by one awshit). I just wonder if they ever considered the AK supporters who are going to defend HIM even if they hate Trump, and by extension are endorsing Trump's selection even if they might have wanted to oppose it or stay silent.