Grassley: "I would expect a resignation (SCOTUS) this summer."

[moderatevoter]

Rumor has it it's Kennedy and Grassley said were looking at some "great women" for a replacement

Diane Sykes?

Too old. She's already 59. Republicans like to pick young justices, so Joan Larsen seems more likely? I figure a Midwestern woman would be a good pick for Trump.

As for Kennedy's replacement (should a vacancy occur), the administration apparently is considering Brett Kavanaugh or Raymond Kethledge, both of whom are former Kennedy clerks and substantially less moderate than Kennedy.

Given that Brett Kavanaugh is a protege of Kenneth Starr, was involved in drafting the Starr report, and was involved in investigating Vince Foster's suicide... just imagine how the Clintons would feel.

[RFayette]

[Kingpoleon]

Rumor has it it's Kennedy and Grassley said were looking at some "great women" for a replacement

Diane Sykes?

Too old. She's already 59. Republicans like to pick young justices, so Joan Larsen seems more likely? I figure a Midwestern woman would be a good pick for Trump.

As for Kennedy's replacement (should a vacancy occur), the administration apparently is considering Brett Kavanaugh or Raymond Kethledge, both of whom are former Kennedy clerks and substantially less moderate than Kennedy.

Given that Brett Kavanaugh is a protege of Kenneth Starr, was involved in drafting the Starr report, and was involved in investigating Vince Foster's suicide... just imagine how the Clintons would feel.

The story of the Clintons doesn't need embelishment with stuff like Foster. Their evil nature is rather apparent to those whose family and friends have suffered at the hands of Raping Bill.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are we really taking this at face value?

I mean I'm usually pessimistic but come on. Grassley talks out of his ass all the time.

[moderatevoter]

Are we really taking this at face value?

I mean I'm usually pessimistic but come on. Grassley talks out of his ass all the time.

Sometimes retiring justices will tip off the Sen. Judiciary Committee chairman before time. But putting that aside, there have been plenty of swirling rumors of another retirement for months now.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't know if I'd trust Chuck Grassley's knowledge of SCOTUS affairs.

[moderatevoter]

I don't know if I'd trust Chuck Grassley's knowledge of SCOTUS affairs.

Easy there, Senator Scott. Remember what happened the last time someone questioned Grassley's qualifications for the Judiciary Committee? Joni Ernst got elected.

[Rjjr77]

Someone NOT from the Ivy League would be nice.

[7,052,770]

Someone NOT from the Ivy League would be nice.

What difference does that make?

[Lincoln Republican]

The nation will be well served by replacing a liberal judge who falls asleep during court sessions and during the State of the Union, by a competent conservative judge who respects the constitution.

My hope is that Trump succeeds in securing a generation of conservative judges on the high court.

[Indy Texas]

If this is true, I really hope it's not Kennedy. Replacing Kennedy with a Trumpist would make the SCOTUS virtually never rule left, aside from unlikely cases like Roberts' vote on Obamacare.

As for Ginsburg, IIRC she considered retirement in 2012-4 when Dems had the Senate, but she thought Obama couldn't get an ideologically similar justice past the Republican obstructions in the Senate. Also, while no one would have expected Trump to win, there is a history of the Presidency alternating two terms for each party.

...and did she think that was ever not going to be the case during the remainder of her life?!

[Rjjr77]

Someone NOT from the Ivy League would be nice.

What difference does that make?

A lot in my mind. There are quite a few excellent law schools in the US and only choosing our top judges from a handful of them limits the intellectual diversity and different point of views I'd like to see in the courts.

[MarkD]

Someone NOT from the Ivy League would be nice.

What difference does that make?

A lot in my mind. There are quite a few excellent law schools in the US and only choosing our top judges from a handful of them limits the intellectual diversity and different point of views I'd like to see in the courts.

Once, many years ago, I saw somebody else on the internet say that they think we need greater "diversity" on the Supreme Court, and that person also meant that not all of the Justices should be from the Ivy League schools. But I agree with Damar; which law school they attended should not make any difference. What should all nine members of the Court be? The one most important quality we need among all Justices is the quality of objectivity. The Supreme Court should be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that we can find in the country. They should set aside their own views of what the laws ought to be and just strictly interpret what the laws were intended to be. Which law school they attended is not the slightest bit important, so long as wherever they did go to school, their teachers taught them that the ultimate virtue in being a great judge is a commitment to objectivity. We don't need more Antonin Scalias, or more Ruth B. Ginsburgs, or even more Anthony Kennedys. Instead we need more people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black, and Learned Hand -- jurists who clearly had a commitment to interpreting the laws and the U.S. Constitution objectively.