SCOTUS rumor causes moonbat melt down
 

Chris Hayes of PMS-MSNBC tweeted a rumor that at the end of the current SCOTUS session next week, Justice Kennedy would announce his retirement, giving Trump another appointment.

The snowflake pro-lifers are on suicide watch. :popcorn:

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/06/22/pass-the-popcorn-chris-hayes-scotus-rumor-is-freaking-out-pro-aborts/

and then when Ruth Ginsberg gets deported to New Zealand as per her campaign time promise, it will be 2 more.

Correction to my original post, I meant pro-choicers. Saw it too late to edit.

This is really my greatest hope for a Trump Presidency.

With a little luck, we get another after Kennedy!!

If Hillary had won you can bet that Ruthie Ginsberg would have retired within minutes of the swearing in ceremony on January 20.

But Baby Ruth will hang in there until to the bitter end despite her advanced age and illness.

she'll be dead before Trump is done with his terms.

I actually disagree with you. I see her hanging on until she is 90 or older. They will be wheeling her in on a stretcher if need be. She will either die or wait til a Democrat is in office.

when trump is re-elected she will die of heart failure

I disagree with a few of you and here are the following:

1.) Few keep both physical and mental fitness at that age, I believe that she is in better physical shape than her mental state and is in early dementia stage.

2.) If HRC had won I doubt RBG would have immediately retired because it would be near impossible to get someone that liberal confirmed today.

3.) One she feels that she is no longer relevant (soon), she will want out in a big way. When the court goes opposite of her way 12345 times she will be gone.

I'm taking the "over."

I think about 4 or 5 of them are senile. Kennedy just wrote the majority opinion in yet another SCOTUS rape of the 5th Amendment in Murr V. Wisconsin.

A family in Wisconsin bought two adjoining lots on the St. Croix river in the 1960s. They built a cabin on one lot and held the other as an investment. When they tried to sell the second lot, they were told that a law passed in the 1980's prohibited them from selling either lot individually. The two lots were now considered to be one, and the only way they could split them back into two would be to sell one to the county. The county offered them $40K for a lot valued at $400K.

The family sued, arguing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees governments must compensate property owners when land is seized or otherwise made un-useful for public purposes.

SCOTUS, led by the usual suspects, ruled 5-3 against the property owners. Gorsuch did not vote because he wasn’t involved with the original hearing, but he would not have made a difference.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/su...o-property-rig

That decision is bullshit

I couldn't believe it when I read it

Neither could Chief Justice Roberts:

“Today’s decision knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation.”

The court has been an embarrassment to this country since it was created. Read the Book Men in Black and you will see that the justices are the bottom of the barrel. Not a one of them has has any integrity. They represent the worse in government.

A curse on them all.

this is why the SCOTUS justices need to be able to be held accountable by the electorate. If we could remove them at will they would be a little more diligent.