Herman Munster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 12:56 AM
Original message |
I think what Edwards wants is a guarantee of a Supreme Court nomination |
|
He'll play hard ball with his delegates.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 12:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. As president he'll be able to make all the appointments he wants to |
|
the Supreme Court.
Which will be damned good for America.
|
avaistheone1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 12:59 AM
Response to Original message |
2. What put that in your pipe? |
|
I have never heard of such a thing.
But, I must say I like the idea of John Edwards, the lion for economic justice, on the Supremes. I just don't know that this would be something Edwards would be interested in at all.
|
Herman Munster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. if he is to play kingmaker in a brokered convention might as well shoot for the moon |
|
It's the most prestigious job he can negotiate for.
|
southern_dem
(587 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message |
3. If he's not picking SC nominees |
|
that would be the 2nd best thing in my book. :D
|
flyarm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message |
4. bullshit..what magic ball told you that????????..nonsense!!.. |
|
Edwards is in it to become pres..end of story.............
fly
|
JI7
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |
6. what if he beats Hillary in South Carolina |
Hieronymus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Just bought a mansion in NC and his wife is sick; I doubt it. |
|
Not to mention he's ridiculously underqualified.
|
EffieBlack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. How is he underqualified? |
|
He has more legal experience than most of the Justices on the Court.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. He certainly is not underqualified. You obviously know nothing about the |
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. I graduate from law school in 3 months. Thanks |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 01:31 AM by Unsane
Someone who has only worked as a civil plaintiff's attorney his whole life has NEVER been elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any assertion otherwise is ridiculous. Has he ever worked for DOJ? Ever worked in the federal system at all? The state criminal system? Any judicial experience? Hell, ever clerked for a federal judge?
|
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. According to Wikipedia: |
|
"Because the Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court."
That sounds conceivably like a justice wouldn't even need to be a lawyer at all, much less have federal court experience.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. I didn't say it was Constitutionally impermissible, but |
|
in this day in age, SCOTUS nominees are supremely qualified (no pun intended). It has been many years since a nominee hasn't at least served some time as a federal judge. If no prior judicial experiene, nominees assumedly are well-experienced practitioners in the federal system. Elena Kagan, who many believe a president Hillary would elevate to the federal bench, is currently the Dean of Harvard Law School and a constitutional law scholar. Many have brought up that she is underqualified too.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. My Dad, who has a double doctorate in law, wrote his doctoral thesis on the Supreme Court . |
|
and part of it dealt with the this question of qualification.Edwards background and "practical experience"in the application of law would make him a valuable asset to the Court.That being said, I don't think this would be anything he wants. It would cage him up.AG might do but this election is far from over and it is indeed still possible that he could win.He is INMHO, far more worthy of the job of POTUS, than either of his primary opposition.
|
lutefisk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. I agree on all points. Thank you.....n/t |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. Then you must be aware that the Constitution stipulates NO qualifications for a Supreme Court |
|
Justice? He wouldn't even have to be a lawyer technically! And I believe there have been justices who have not been judges.I would have to research which those were.
"Because the Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court."
|
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. Great minds think alike, Saracat. |
JDPriestly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
28. He is qualified, but I think he is focused on getting his message |
|
out to the American people right now.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
22. Order of the Coif in law school |
|
That means he graduated at or near the top of his class. Plus high honors ungergraduate. Twenty years of practice after clerking for a federal judge. I don't think he would even want the job but he is clearly not underqualified.
|
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
27. Spending one's career as a civil plaintiff's atty is not the kind of experience 99% of SC nominees |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:31 AM by Unsane
have. I'm actually of the opinion that he isn't really even qualified enough to serve as USAG, as he has no experience working for the DOJ or in the federal court system. Has Edwards ever argued a federal case?
And please, don't take this as me disliking Edwards. I actually believe he could be a very good president. I just feel that jobs such as SC justice and AG are "skill" positions that require very good expertise in a narrow area.
|
Kucinich4America
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
No, that would be John Roberts. Who went from zero to Chief Justice in 5 years.
|
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. Spending his career arguing before the SCOTUS, working in DOJ, and serving as a fed. judge is zero? |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:21 AM by Unsane
:crazy:
Roberts, by all accounts, is brilliant, and prior to his elevation to the DC Circuit was one of the preeminent advocates before the Supreme Court. Does it mean I disagree with his judicial philosphy? No, but the man is brilliant and qualified for the job.
|
DiamondJay
(484 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:33 AM
Response to Original message |
13. good luck getting thru the senate |
|
yea, a hardened socialist-sounding partisan, i mean yea there was scalia and thomas but they never campaigned for President twice, and made a VP ticket. I think he's goin for Hillary's running mate, and he'd be a good one. He's gotten his attack dog skills us from where they were in 2004, and because they will be goin against a mormon this year, he will be able to get southern votes for her. We seem to forget how unique Bush's appeal to evangelicals was. his father could not match it, only Reagan could
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 01:34 AM
Response to Original message |
14. Edwards would be a good choice, he's young and was a Senator making it easier for confirmation |
Lucinda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 02:12 AM
Response to Original message |
21. Nah. Not active enough. |
|
Lots of more "hands on" things he could do if he's not POTUS or VEEP.
|
hooraydems06
(183 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 02:47 AM
Response to Original message |
24. They should give it to him... |
|
... he'd make an excellent Supreme Court Justice.
|
Seabiscuit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-25-08 04:36 AM
Response to Original message |
29. Oh damn! That would be excellent! I'm with John all the way to the convention! |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |