Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Put Palin on the Supreme Court?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 02:39 PM
Original message
Put Palin on the Supreme Court?
Edited on Sat Sep-13-08 02:44 PM by andym
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158748

Put Palin on the Supreme Court
by Dahlia Lithwick
snip....

It's not just that Palin would be great for the ever more stuffy Supreme Court. Closer scrutiny suggests that the Supreme Court might actually be a better fit for Palin. Consider her interests: Palin has little background in national security, health care, immigration or foreign policy. Her main concerns have been the hot-button social issues that cannot be settled by fiat in the executive branch. Palin wants to do away with abortion and strongly opposes gay marriage. She supports teaching creationism in schools and believes in promoting religious free expression. These are constitutional issues on which Republican presidents have been thwarted for decades. Since the Supreme Court has often been the lone defender of the rights of women, gay couples and atheists, installing a Sarah Palin there would do far more to undo these things than getting her into the White House.

snip.....

Palin is well aware of the awesome power of the courts. That's why, when the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a controversial abortion restriction last year by a 3-2 margin, she excoriated them for "legislating from the bench," named a new justice to the court and pushed for the passage of an even harsher version of the same law, explicitly intended—said its sponsor—"to overturn ." Governor Palin understands the fundamental tediousness of constitutional checks and balances. She knows that if a court gets it wrong, you just build a better court.

snip.....

Finally, Palin has revealed, both as the mayor of Wasilla and then as the chief executive of Alaska, a style of governance that features the not-infrequent firing of dissenters. Among the growing list of those dismissed or threatened with removal on Palin's watch were Mary Ellen Emmons, the Wasilla town librarian and vociferous opponent of Palin's proposal to dabble in book banning, and John Bitney, Palin's legislative director, who was dating the not-quite-ex-wife of one of her husband's friends. Palin is also the subject of an ethics investigation for firing Walt Monegan, the Alaska Public Safety commissioner, who declined to fire the state trooper divorcing her sister. I can't help but wonder if following two years of scandals surrounding the Bush administration's decision to terminate nine U.S. attorneys for their imagined disloyalty, John McCain might be nervous about a vice president with a proclivity toward doing the same thing. If McCain puts Palin on the Supreme Court, however, she has only a trio of law clerks and a secretary to hire, and each can be vetted for ideological purity.

No fair arguing that Palin isn't experienced enough to sit on the highest court of the land. What matters—far more than experience—is one's unyielding moral certainty, relatability and gender. And Palin has these qualities in spades. Washington's old-boy problem hardly ends at the Oval Office. If ever there were a D.C. institution in dire need of a place to plug in a breast pump, it's the Supreme Court. And Palin has already proven that neither the courts, nor precedent, nor even the Constitution itself will be a match for the force of her will. America has finally found someone suited to put the "law" back into scofflaw, and it's Sarah Palin. McCain shouldn't waste her talents on state funerals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. We've already got Thomas - all the inexperience and lack of
intelligence, all the same knee-jerk conservative "values".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Article is clearly satire
Edited on Sat Sep-13-08 02:50 PM by andym
Article is satirizing the political reasoning for Palin to be Vice President and certainly is mocking her ability to be a Supreme Court justice. Very clever in my opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I know.
Just the thought, though... ((((shudder))).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I know.
Just the thought, though... ((((shudder))).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saturday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wouldn't we have to send her to law school first? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, she has seen many law offices, making her an expert on the law...duh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Okay, i know this article is snark
but is Palin even eligible to be on the Court? Does one have to have to pass the bar and have a law license to be able to be a judge, esp a SC justice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elkston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Exactly. That's why I figured the article was satire. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Anyone can serve on the SCOTUS.
No reason why someone without a law degree could serve.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secondwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think they are supposed to have law degrees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Nothing in the Constitution stipulates this.
If President Obama appoints (say) Michael Moore and enough Senators vote to confirm, he's in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trueblue2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. she can't even legally be a garbage collector
Just kidding, but I wouldn't hire her!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. Fabulous satire, done right!! brilliant! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC