janx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:29 PM
Original message |
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court Justice |
|
I know some of you have heard of this before--in the cable media or something. But I think that Hillary Clinton would make a marvelous addition to the US Supreme Court! She clearly has the brains for it, and she has a passion for justice...
|
Diane R
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I want a Supreme Court Justice who passed the bar the first time. Sorry, Hillary; it's not you. |
msallied
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. I want a Supreme Court Justice who spent time as a JUDGE. |
Muttocracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. yeah, I used to think she might be a good match because I hate seeing her in politics |
|
but really she hasn't even been a lawyer for years, much less a judge.
|
greguganus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. I want a SCJ that doesn't dodge imaginary sniper fire. n/t |
SeattleGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
28. With all due respect, a lot of law students don't pass the bar the first time. |
|
And yet they go on to be fine attorneys.
Sorry, but I can't use that as any reason to not consider her for the SCOTUS.
|
w13rd0
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. But could that be leveraged into jobs... |
|
...for Bill and her campaign staff?
|
Beregond2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message |
|
but don't you have to have been a judge at some point?
|
mountainvue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
msallied
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Yuck. No politicians on the Supreme Court! JEEZ! |
|
I am astounded at the ignorance and naivety of people who suggest shit like this.
|
newmajority
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. What would you call the 5 Bush Crime Family appointees who stole Florida? |
|
Or the three of them that still remain and the 2 that Chimpy replaced them with, for that matter.
|
msallied
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
21. EXACTLY! This is why we need to further shield the SCOTUS from political winds! |
|
Not merely ADD to it. Just because a politician of a Democrat's choosing would do Democratic bidding doesn't make it any better for the court itself that there are politicians sitting on that bench. That is antithetical to the very idea of separation of powers, checks and balances, and all that. Keep politicians out of the court. What we see now is a direct result of ignoring that wisdom.
|
terrya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
30. Earl Warren was Governor of California when Eisenhower chose him as Chief Justice. |
|
Warren had no judicial experience whatsoever. Warren was a politician. And I think that worked out pretty well, don't you?
We've had politicians on the Court in the past.
|
marimour
(696 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message |
8. no experience as a judge, obama as a con law prof. is more qualified than her |
|
It would be stupid to nominate someone with no judicial experience who hasn't even practiced law lately (in decades) to the supreme ct.
|
marimour
(696 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. this is not a dig against her....... |
|
I'm sure she would actually be on the side of the issues that I would want her to be, but she has to interpret the law and thats something she probably hasn't done in years. Ask any lawyer or law student, it just doesn't make sense to nominate someone who doesn't even practice over competent and experienced judges.
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message |
9. not qualified. what a ludicrous idea |
jsmirman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message |
10. No FREAKING Way. Her ethics are a disaster. |
|
As a future juris doctorate, I can tell you that whether what happened wrt Whitewater was illegal or not, her role was surely unethical.
She would NEVER pass through the nomination process.
|
hendo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message |
13. she is not even remotely qualified n/t |
NYC_SKP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Hello?, Integrity and judgement are required, few are qualified. n/t |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Her speech tonight. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton" Andrew Sullivan |
book_worm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message |
17. She isn't even qualified to be head dog catcher |
Kitsune
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message |
18. Hillary Clinton is in no way qualified for that. |
|
Personally, I'd like to see Obama, the constitutional expert, on the court after his 8 years as president. Used to be that one's political career wasn't essentially over after holding the presidency, and if nothing else I think it's an idea worthy of consideration.
|
Ikonoklast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message |
19. Not if I could help it |
|
We already have a court packed with sadly delusional people and sure as hell don't need another.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Well, that'd be one way to get TV cameras in the SCOTUS. She'd insist. |
Crunchy Frog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 02:09 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Frankly, I hope Obama picks a 35 year old who can sit there for the next 50 years. |
JMDEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 02:25 AM
Response to Original message |
|
She couldn't wear pantsuits as a justice.
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-04-08 05:14 AM by bowens43
I would like a Supreme Court justice who not only understands the Constitution but also respects it. That isn't hillary. She would be a nightmare.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:15 AM
Response to Original message |
25. She lacks the integrity integral to that position. |
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:21 AM
Response to Original message |
26. NO! I don't want her or her husband anywhere near Political Power again. n/t |
ladjf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:40 AM
Response to Original message |
terrya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 05:55 AM
Response to Original message |
29. I agree. She would make a terrific Supreme Court Justice. |
|
On the Court, she would be a reliable vote for legalized abortion, GLBT rights, individual rights. I'd love to hear her give and take with the likes of Scalia and Alito. She's relatively young...she could be on the Court for decades. She would be a moderate...dare I say...liberal voice on the Court. If Justice Stevens decided he wanted to step down from the Court after Obama is inaugurated, I can't think of a more worthy choice than Hillary. Plus, I think she would have a relatively easy confirmation by the Senate...she is one of their own, after all.
|
salguine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 06:00 AM
Response to Original message |
31. But if you make her a Supreme Court Justice, |
|
then she doesn't go away. And go away is all I want her to do.
|
Asgaya Dihi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 06:03 AM
Response to Original message |
32. A passion for justice? |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-04-08 06:05 AM by Asgaya Dihi
Given the fluid logic and arguments that it's wrong to disenfranchise two States, and only after she needed them, but it's at the same time fine to override the will of all 50 States through the Supers and the pledged delegates directly resulting from our votes can defect at will as well, I see the passion but not the justice.
A passion for justice? Not that I've seen. She's skilled and knows her way around DC so could certainly be useful somewhere, perhaps in health care reform, but I don't want her anywhere near a job she can't be fired from if she behaves badly and she hasn't shown the judgment or urge for fairness in this campaign which that job requires.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-04-08 06:14 AM
Response to Original message |
33. That's what I've been pushing. It's much more meaningful than VP. |
|
No graft available though.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message |