Clarence Thomas mulls retirement

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317

Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.

Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.

His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president. If it's Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Lol

[Angel of Death]

according to court watchers.

Are those like Kremlinologists?

[Ljube]

It is now absolutely imperative for Trump to become the next president to avoid the dire and irreversible consequences of a majority Democrat activist Supreme Court.

[Ljube]

They don't know anything special.  They are just trying to get hesitant high info Republicans to come out for Trump.  Besides, all Thomas has to do is wait until 2019 and he is statistically ensured of an R senate to block anyone too liberal (and possibly block literally anyone until 2021).

What's the guarantee that the Republicans will win the 2020 presidential election?

To protect from a Hillary Court, the Republicans would have to retain the Senate for as long as the Democrats are in the White House and simply leave the vacant Supreme Court seats vacant.

[ElectionsGuy]

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

[Ljube]

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

[LLR]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

[Mr. Reactionary]

Washington Examiner. Check
No Source. Check.

All we need is Dick Morris to agree.

[ElectionsGuy]

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

lol

[Landslide Lyndon]

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

[Ljube]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

That's not progress. That's tyranny.

[LLR]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

That's not progress. That's tyranny.

So going through the Constitutional process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is tyranny? Mhm, I understand now.

[IceSpear]

Yeah right. Over his dead body would he let a Democrat replace him.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah right. Over his dead body would he let a Democrat replace him.

Is that guy Obama hired to snuff out Scalia still around?

[IceSpear]

Yeah right. Over his dead body would he let a Democrat replace him.

Is that guy Obama hired to snuff out Scalia still around?

LOL

My guess is that this is either entirely fabricated to try to get hesitant Republicans to rally around Trump, or even a leak from Thomas himself to try to get hesitant Republicans to rally around Trump. Most likely the former.

[Ljube]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

That's not progress. That's tyranny.

So going through the Constitutional process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is tyranny? Mhm, I understand now.

Don't play dumb! You know damn well what tyranny means!

Tyranny is an unbalanced, politically activist Supreme Court rubber stumping decrees of a tyrannical Emperor.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

That's not progress. That's tyranny.

So going through the Constitutional process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is tyranny? Mhm, I understand now.

Don't play dumb! You know damn well what tyranny means!

Tyranny is an unbalanced, politically activist Supreme Court rubber stumping decrees of a tyrannical Emperor.

Aren't activist judges normally accused of legislating from the bench (i.e. disagreeing with elected officials too much)? You are describing an overly passive bench.

[Ljube]

Aren't activist judges normally accused of legislating from the bench (i.e. disagreeing with elected officials too much)? You are describing an overly passive bench.

Disagreeing with elected officials whose sole duty is to legislate, but agreeing with power grabbing tyrants pretending to be presidents.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Aren't activist judges normally accused of legislating from the bench (i.e. disagreeing with elected officials too much)? You are describing an overly passive bench.

Disagreeing with elected officials whose sole duty is to legislate, but agreeing with power grabbing tyrants pretending to be presidents.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

So now we're going to have a 6-3 D court? Awesome.

How's that awesome? That would be a disaster. The US would never recover from that calamity.

Looks like poor Ljube is afraid of progress

That's not progress. That's tyranny.

So going through the Constitutional process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is tyranny? Mhm, I understand now.

Was it tyranny when Republican Presidents filled almost the entire court in 70s and 80s?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

He never should have been confirmed in the first place.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He never should have been confirmed in the first place.

Thanks to moderate heroes Chuck Robb and David Boren.

[Heisenberg]

This is really scary. If Clinton replaces Scalia's seat, Thomas retires, and Kennedy does or retires, that's a 7-2 radical leftist activist court.

[Virginiá]

Was it tyranny when Republican Presidents filled almost the entire court in 70s and 80s?

His hyperbole about tyranny is pretty funny when you consider that it's the conservative SCOTUS majority that has further dismantled campaign finance restrictions and voting rights in only the past 6 years. It's pretty clear that conservative groups have been pursuing cases specifically designed to make their way to the USSC, so they could get their conservative majority to deliver policy victories - Campaign finance, voting rights, public union, abortion, redistricting and more were all issues they were trying to get their fellow conservative justices to rule favorably on. Hell, the redistricting case was about trying to get states to be forced to not factor in children, felons and undocumented immigrants when drawing districts, which would have made state legislatures and Congress even more white.

With that in mind, his whining is definitely amusing as it has been conservatives recently who are trying to use the court to rig the system for their party.

This is really scary. If Clinton replaces Scalia's seat, Thomas retires, and Kennedy does or retires, that's a 7-2 radical leftist activist court.

How do you even know the new justices would be 'radical leftists'?