Gore is running, not for prez...it's for...

[Didereaux]

Al Gore is not going to run for president, nor is he going to support any last minute petions to get him on the ballot. Al Gore is a good politician, 2years ago when the first 'piggybanks' started filling with iou's Hillary was formidable. To take on the Clinton's, in a rough and tumble would be self defeating. No, Al has his eye, on what he considers a much higher post. Al Gore wants to be on the Supreme Court!

By not running against Hillary he gets a HUGE IOU. By not being overly supportive, and endorsing too soon he preserves an aura of separation from her, so that when nomination time comes around for the open slot on the court Al Gore will face no open opposition and will still have the publics cmplete trust and confidence.

Politics is a long-winded thing, the average American cannot grasp it. Yet, stop and realize that the current crop of zealots and the incompetents they put into office have been planning this fro nearly thirty years.

Al Gore for SCOTUS! I can live with that.

[Mythsaje]

1. Is he a viable candidate?

I could live with that. Hell, I'd give up a heck of a lot for that. Gore gets what's going on...I'd actually TRUST him on the SC...unlike ANY of the fuckwads there now. And I mean ANY.

[Didereaux]

2. He is a VERY viable candidate....

Actually has better credentials for the job than the majority of justices ever appointed. And my little 'I could live with that' was an understatement on purpose.

[Mythsaje]

4. That would be awesome...

I've been disgusted by them for years...even before the current crop of jackbooted jurists.

[liberaldemocrat7]

28. I believe the FREEPAHS would have a fit if someone nominated Al Gore for the Supreme Court.

hehehe

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. This is an interesting thought...

And one that I could certainly get behind...

He is without question the most and best qualified for SCOTUS...

That might be even more important than being President...

:shrug:

[drm604]

5. Interesting idea.

I like it. The very institution that denied him the presidency. They would have to look him in the face every morning.

Why do you think that that's his plan?

[Swamp Rat]

6. I prefer President Al Gore, VP John Edwards, and Supreme Court Justice Mario Cuomo

:)

[Bluebear]

10. Perfection. nt

[Didereaux]

7. Another compelling reason for SCOTUS vs pres

Setting aside the for the moment that SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, for a perso of Gores personality it is a much greater acheivement and carries a much greater possibility of long posterity. I am sure Gore is well aware that there are two justices on the court that can be 'swung', for two very different reasons. Roberts can be persuaded for two reasons, the first is that above all he is a lawyer cum prosecutor(that not being a legal job of need of the highest intellect) a lawyer will always argue, just as a salesman is the easiest of all sales, a lawyer, when argued effectively will ;slide' off and let you pass.

The second case is Kennedy, and his weakness is his ego, the years have shown that if you pet his ego, and make the argument in an academic manner, he will turn it to his own and you win...he grabs the limelight, but you win. Gore as I said is a good politician, recognize the opportunity for such skills on Kennedy?

So, the total effect is that one person, with good legal skills, good instincts and excellent political skills can turn this court from a 4-4-? to a solid 7-2 court.

Needless to point out, but can't help myself(grin) Scalia, Alito, and Thomas combined have the intellects and legal skills of newborn armadillos...and they are born dead at the side of the road!

[man4allcats]

8. "Al Gore wants to be on the Supreme Court," but

does he have a law degree? He apparently did attend law school at Vanderbilt but left without a degree to run for a seat in The House. Not that there is any doubt or really even needs mention, but Al Gore is very bright. His IQ has been measured at between 133 and 134. Law degree or not, I'm sure he has a better conception of justice and due process than most if not all of the lunks on SCOTUS right now.

Go, Al!

[Didereaux]

9. A law degree, nor even...

There is no requirement to be on the SCOTUS involving having passed a bar, nor even having a law degree. That is something that has merely become 'traditional. There have been several acadamicians appointed over the decades. Some have excelled. Remember this is NOT interpreting the details, it involves applying the Constitution to the laws that are passed. Our school systems in the past half century or so have in the area of government deteriorated with greater speed than the more mundane 3R's. That will eventually be our undoing.

[man4allcats]

11. Well I'll be damned!

I didn't know that, but where Al Gore is concerned I am more than happy to learn it. That being the case, I would love to see him get a seat on the high court. We desperately need someone with his abilities and his sensibilities in that position. Again I say:

Go, Al!

[The Wielding Truth]

12. This is your idea,right? First we need a Dem President.

[Didereaux]

13. I suppose you...

I suppose you could call it my idea (but only if the premise is untrue, otherwise it would be Gores' idea), but really all I have done is look and watch very closely to what has been going on the past few years, and try and work out explanations that fit the daylight. For caveats I offer that in my long life my political predictions have been less than stellar, in fact often less than chance would have done. sheesh! How embarassing is THAT?
;)

[Didereaux]

14. I think this deserves a kick... n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

15. hell YES it does

:kick:

[The Wielding Truth]

18. Hold on, do you think that Gore actually said this?

This thread is going wild over a suposition. It isn't even a strong one. Then poster kicks their own post. 120 post count?

[Didereaux]

21. this is a discussion thread, right? Well this is an idea to be discussed... n/t

[SlowDownFast]

62. Right.

But you state, "No, Al has his eye, on what he considers a much higher post. Al Gore wants to be on the Supreme Court!" like it's a fact or you are privy to such inside info - without having anything to back it up.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be a good thing if it were true...

[SlowDownFast]

59. .

[Guaranteed]

16. I think he would need to be a lawyer.

I don't recall him going to law school- wasn't he a journalist?

[Didereaux]

17. see above: Law degree nor even...comment n/t

[Guaranteed]

19. Yeah....that doesn't sound right, though.

Local judges are elected, federal judges appointed- but I can't imagine a judge being either elected or appointed without even having a law degree. Not sure if there is an actual law or not, but at the very least it would be a very, very strong tradition.

[Didereaux]

20. check it out...n/t

[Didereaux]

22. Here's your reference to qualifications...

Article II of the Constitution gives the President power to nominate justices, who are then appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."<6> 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.

(Wikipedia)

[Guaranteed]

23. Do you think someone who doesn't have a law degree is

qualified to serve on the highest court of our country?

[Didereaux]

24. yes, and here is why...

The framers of the Constitution, and all of the Courts since, acknowledge that it is not the knowledge of the minutia of the process that is the concern of the Supreme Court. It is the application of the Constitution as a window threw which you must view the laws passed by legislatures, orders written by executives, and precedures used by the courts. In other words it is the fence around which our justice system, our very system of government must remain within in order to function as the Democratic Republic consisting of three branches that the Constitution sets forth.

You see then that to do the work of a Justice requires more skills than that of a technician. Would you rather have a Steven Hawkin or a UHF 2AM in the morning Personal Injury lawyer on the court. Many American historians are far better versed on the Constitution than probably a majority of average lawyers, there ahve been historians appointed in the past. Judges fair little better. Generally a Dean of a prestigious law school, or at least a tenured Constitutional law professor has the edge for appoval, but do you realize that many of them are NOT attorneys? They have never taken a bar. All the bar does is assure that at some point a law graduate has the minimum knowledge of court procedures in THAT particular jurisdiction. That is why lawyers cannot in general cross state lines and practice in other states, they can; however practice in federal courts because the procedures are uniform within the federal court system.

Do some reading on our legal system, quit guessing...too many guess at these things and are wrong, to their detriment and especially to the countries detriment.

And no, I am not a lawyer, nor a law school dropout, or such. I am an old Bubba with a lot of curiousity about things.

[cali]

26. It's never gonna happen. Sorry.

As I said above, the only people who are going to be appointed to the SCOTUS, are lawyers with a background in Constitutional law, either through experience on the Federal bench, or through academia.

[AdHocSolver]

49. Yeh! Like Clarence Thomas. n/t

[stranger81]

35. That hasn't happened for centuries. Last time anyone on the SC

did not have a law degree was sometime in the early to mid 1800's. You should do a little more digging before lecturing others so smugly.

[Didereaux]

37. and you should do more reading such as...

That was a rather personal attack. Had you read this entire thread you would have noted that I made no claims as to when or even how many non-legal jurists had been appointed. What I did point out , and VERY clearly twice, was that there was no requirement for a law degree to be seated on the Supreme Court. I further went on to post the appropriate section/subsection and the explanations as were found on Wikipedia. I hear there are support groups for those amongst us with intelligence envy.

At any rate I hope such as this exchange enlightens and does not kill a valid, and I think is an interesting discussion of an idea which no matter how improbable its premise is fun to think about.

[cali]

25. Not all local judges are elected. Judges in

my state are all appointed. In any case the only people who will be appointed to SCOTUS are lawyers with a background in Constitutional law.

[Guaranteed]

27. Usually judges are appointed temporarily but have to be

confirmed through election at least once.

[cali]

30. No. Not in all states.

In Vermont, Judges for the Supreme, Superior and District Courts are appointed by the Governor for 6 year terms with a retention hearing after that in the State House. We do have a tradition, in each county, of electing people called side judges. This a largely honorary posititon with no independent power at all. Simply an old fashioned quirk. (we have quite a few odd elected official in Vt with no power, harking back to the traditions of the 18th and 19th century)

Vermont is not the only state that selects its judges in this manner.
http://www.ajs.org/js/VT_methods.htm

MA, CT and RI are among the states that appoint rather than elect judges. Some states have a mixed process. Here's a handy dandy click on a state map that tells you of each state's judicial selection/election process.

http://www.ajs.org/js/select.htm

[Guaranteed]

31. Not in all states. But, yes, "usually."

As in CA, NY, IL, TX, etc.

[cali]

32. But of course that's not what you originally asserted in this thread

"Yeah....that doesn't sound right, though.
Local judges are elected, federal judges appointed-

[Guaranteed]

36. But of course that's exactly what I said in the post you responded

to with your information.

[dysfunctional press]

39. there is no requirement to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court

anyone can be appointed.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I like the idea. Probably wouldn't happen, but he's certainly smart enough to warrant

being given a lifetime appointment like that. We could do a lot worse.

[Ninga]

33. I think a constitutional scholar such as Mario Cuomo would be a stellar Supreme.

[melody]

34. He can do far more as President -- that's where he needs to be, if he wants it n/t

[ThomWV]

38. Don't you think he is missing something? How about a LAW DEGREE?

He doesn't have one.

[dysfunctional press]

40. so what? it's not a requirement to be on the court.

i don't think that ANY judges are required to have law degrees.

[Didereaux]

42. I think that that point is what makes this thread so interesting...

It's been established early in the thread that no law degree is required. For several years now we have heard from all sorts of widely divergent groups and individuals that America needs to return to its roots. Well, perhaps that moment has arrived with respect to the Supreme Court.

Here we have an intellectual gadfly(I mean that with the highest respect and regard) who clearly is intelligent, can not only grasp a wide range of subject matter, but also has the tenacity to do the hard work of generating his own original works. Further he is in a position such that if someone, the Democrat who surely will be elected, might very well be of a mind to try and appoint an 'outsider' to the Court.

It may be a bit far fetched, but the soundness of the idea I am convinced has merit, and further given the mood of the general public right now might have a higher chance for success than I or anyone here might believe.

Damn fun digression at any rate, eh wat! heheh

[blondeatlast]

41. You may very well be right. It's certainly a great idea. nt

[fenriswolf]

43. if that is the back door deal

its a very crappy backdoor deal and one I believe hillary will not back up. Flame if you want but were gonna get another ultra con next in the supreme court then look out roe v wade.

[Pachamama]

44. Now that's an interesting angle I had never considered....

:eyes:

[rosesaylavee]

45. NOT going to happen.

A lifetime job is not what he's looking for at this point. Being on SCOTUS would demand his attendance for definite long periods of time in DC AND not necessarily focus on what he is passionate about - namely the environment and restoring the Constitution.

And depending on Senator Clinton to fulfill his lifelong dream of being on the Supreme Court - just doesn't resonate at any level.

[RestoreGore]

47. And being president of the military industrial complex wouldn't demand that?

attendance for long periods in DC and not necessarily focusing on his passion? If he can't be a justice for those reasons he can't be president either, right, because they would both demand the same according to your logic. Of course, running for president now is more fun for those in the media, on blogs, and on certain radio shows who are bored and looking for something to talk about. Personally, I doubt it will happen, but I could live with him being a USSC justice if he truly wanted that a helluva lot better than seeing him stuck in the soundbite political BS of the beltway. But I think he definitely should be allowed to pursue his passion, and in that vein then he shouldn't run for president now, because he simply will not be able to do that with all the crap he would have to deal with that would do exactly as you stated being a justice would do.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Not for life it wouldn't and being on Scotus is not the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

When was the last time you heard a justice rally the people to a cause? And if the environment is so important to you, which candidate would you trust to carry out these reforms as President, anybody?

[rosesaylavee]

55. None of the candidates

at this point are focusing on the climate crisis as a true crisis or even as something more pressing than the other issues they have 'plans' for. I think it is for that reason he will announce in October.

[Uncle Joe]

57. The

"sponataneous" rush of the states to be first in the primaries, does seem to shrink the time window of opportunity for Al to enter, doesn't it?

[rosesaylavee]

63. There is always the 'write in' capability too.

I do think there is a ground swell of support for the man, it wouldn't surprise me if that would work for him. This is some election season mystery, isn't it? Surely you don't think there is something behind the 'spontaneity'?

No word from our darling Rove lately. Hope he is doing 'well'.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Ever since the selection of 2000,

My first instinct is to believe there is something behind everything, until proven otherwise.

Re: Rove, I'm looking forward to seeing a Nick Nolte type photo of him in the not too distant future and I will probably take a week off work to celebrate when that happens.

[RestoreGore]

69. The candidate AL GORE ENDORSES

As he claimed the odds are he would do. See, I actually trust him and believe his words. And if the "presidency" is such a bully pulpit why didn't Bill Clinton do it? Why didn't he rally people to this cause then as Al Gore is doing now WITHOUT it? Bully pulpit my eye.

[Uncle Joe]

71. 1. Al Gore just stated, he may not endorse anyone

2. Bill Clinton; with all his political skills, isn't Al Gore.

3. The world has changed as it continues to do, 2008 is not the 1990s.

4. It seems to me, I trust Al Gore's ability to use the bully pulpit more than you do.

5. The clock on the global warming climate crisis is ticking and a justice's influence can't move fast enough, particularly if that justice is outnumbered.

6. You never answered my question, who do trust as President in the White House, since apparently you don't believe Al Gore can be effective in that occupation?

The term bully pulpit was originally used by our nation's first environmental President Theodore Roosevelt and it still applies. The only reason Bush's approval ratings are as high as they are is because he is the President and the people want go give him the benefit of the doubt, otherwise he would be in the single digits.

[RestoreGore]

74. You stated the presidency was THE bully pulpit to raise this issue

Now you state the excuse that Bill Clinton is no Al Gore? So which is it? If Mr. Gore can as he has already proven get this message out effectively to bring about what must be done now as a statesman and advocate because this crisis is not to be used as a political wedge or game because it is real, then I think he should continue doing it. And should he receive the Nobel Peace Prize that will be validation that his work since leaving that beltway that stifled him is on the right path.

I do not believe the presidency of the US is the be all end all everyone else is making it. You would think we lived in an aristocracy instead of a Democracy the way people go on and on and on about it. Thomas Jefferson did much of his most memorable and greatest work not in the presidency. All those through our history of this country we remember and revere most for their accomplishments were not president and they did influence policy. The title is not indicative of results, it is the character of the man or women performing those works and having the true backing of the people that counts.

It also isn't the duty of one person to singlehandedly find solutions and dictate policy. He could do only what Congress would bring forward, and judging by the past and actually the present I don't see the evasive action that we need on this crisis now (90% reductions by 2050 and I think earlier) unless people demand it and they can't demand it in the numbers necessary unless they are informed about it.

And to say that ONLY a president has power is to demean the entire meaning of what it means to live in a country where it is supposed to be the people who have the power. Bill Clinton could then most definitely have taken a cue from Mr. Gore when he was Vice President and MAKE THIS the cause. I don't accept any excuses on that front, but I believe the reason why Bill Clinton didn't do it is the same reason why no one else in that position has or will yet... it is still not at the stage where the people believe it to be urgent enough over ending this war, having healthcare, and making enough to survive. So you tell me how Mr. Gore would run now with this as his platform and still be able to devote the time necessary to leading a global grassroots movement he has begun that now must keep its momentum by having him at the helm of it.

[Uncle Joe]

75. The bully pulpit is the position, not the individual.

We've had great Presidents and poor ones, but the title and potential is generally speaking a constant. Even when Theodore Roosevelt uttered those words, yellow journalism was rampant, having already sent us to a trumped up war with Spain. If Bill Clinton chose not to take Al Gore's advice, the fault lies with Bill Clinton, not the job it self.

Thomas Jefferson did much of his work before we even had a Presidency, so I don't think that really applies, but if you wish to eliminate a huge section of the nation from the U.S. because the Louisiana Purchase didn't mean anything, have at it.

Regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, I truly hope Al Gore wins it because I believe he deserves it, but Jimmy Carter already has one for his good deeds, regardless of that, our nation is despised around the world today because Bush is President and we're in Iraq , so please don't tell me the President doesn't have any power or influence.

I've never implied a single or only person could do the job necessary to save humanity from the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change. My point is of all the jobs in the land the Presidency is still the single most powerful and influential.

You still haven't answered my question as to who you support for President, since it's not Al Gore?

[Me.]

52. Agreed

What's wrong with Al being prez? He rec'd the popular votes to be so. Why assign him to everything but?

[rosesaylavee]

54. Right.

Interesting idea but it sounds less like something he would want to spend time on than the POTUS.

[RestoreGore]

70. Why "assign" him to anything?

Why can't people just leave the man alone to pursue his own path?

[RestoreGore]

46. I could live with this too!

Is there anything to qualify this as possible? If he truly wanted this I think he MORE than qualifies. Either this or as our UN Global Environmental Ambassador... or he could do both. Be our Ambassador until he is appointed to the court providing we have a Democratic president. His contributions there if a justice would effect our country for generations to come. Any place where he would not be once again constrained by the DC beltway BULLSHIT that still prevails. Seeing him appointed to the USSC would be absolutely wonderful. Justice Albert Gore Jr. I like it.

[The River]

48. Total Fantasy

Being a judge would keep him from following his passion.
SC Judges make legal rulings, they don't lobby for policy.

The only office that would allow him to really influence policy
is by becoming POTUS. He knows it.

[RestoreGore]

72. Not if he were a UN Environmental Ambassador

Then he could influence policy and follow his passion without the DC, DLC, Neocon BS, and then when or if HE was ready to run if he ever wished to again without everybody harrassing him to do it, he could do it provided we get off our asses and do something in the interim that is more concrete (besides begging him) to change this system first so he doesn't have to deal with the "unitary executive" crap we allowed to take place over the last seven years when we were too distracted to give a damn.

So many are so obsessed by the "presidency" as if it is some beautiful honorable place to be now. It isn't, and whomever is appointed in 2008 will not be having a glamorous time and will NOT be able to devote the amount of time to this planetary emergency that Mr. Gore can out here running his three year plan to awaken this world first. You cannot have political seachange that will have a lasting effect on policy as it needs to be changed now unless you have a moral seachange first with people enmasse demanding that change, and he has stated this as well many times. This country is not nearly close enough to that yet to guarantee Mr. Gore would win an election on just that platform. And if we are I have yet to see the proof of it. It seems to me for people who support the man, not many place much faith in his judgement.

[AwakeAtLast]

50. He would also make a great addition to any Cabinet

He has so many possibilities open to him now - how far he has come since 2000! I am LMAO at all of those sick repukes who tried to make him go away quietly!!!! :rofl:

[TheDoorbellRang]

51. don't you have to have at least a law degree

to be on the supreme court? I don't think Al's got that. He went to law school but never graduated (per Wikipedia).

[tammywammy]

60. Technically you don't have to have a law degree

But the chance of someone making it on to the court without one is slim to none.

[debbierlus]

56. According to people close to Gore & deeply involved in the Draft Gore Movement - I disagree

My sister is leading the Western MA movement which puts her in touch with the national players who KNOW Gore. Recent occurrences suggest Gore may indeed run.

My sister has been no optimist on this....but given the latest news, she is pretty hopeful. I will create a seperate post & give a full run down on what she has told me from people actually involved & in the know. Not just speculating.

[SlowDownFast]

64. Kewl. You're my new friend.

I'm hoping against hope.

Oct 23rd is the deadline here in Mich, and I got petitions on the way from Ann Arbor...

[Me.]

66. Dying To Hear The Full Rundown

fingers crossed

[RestoreGore]

68. Well I hope for once we then actually see some real names being mentioned

and not "someone close" or someone twice removed from so and so's best friend's sister's cousin who knows "the truth," whose names I can't reveal, because then logically if he is running (in a system he has done nothing but rightfully excoriate and say he was over) he doesn't need a draft movement nipping at his heels.

[debbierlus]

76. Did it ever occur to you that he is keeping quiet as a strategy

The decision is coming very soon. Nobel Peace Prize announcement around the corner.

[RestoreGore]

77. I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about people like yourself

who claim you have some sort of "inside info" and know names. If you know them then spill it, otherwise why even mention it here? And if you think his getting one prize is all he needs to decide something like that then you must think him quite shallow. I for one don't believe that for one second. And I know good and well when the Peace Prize announcement is. Too bad some only seem to care for the "political" value they can place on it.

[stlsaxman]

79. please email me when you post this...

oh and hey- thanks!

[SlowDownFast]

58. "Al Gore wants to be on the Supreme Court!"

Link please...

[Didereaux]

78. It's only a discussion point....

perhaps not clear in the initial post, but made so in the first half dozen or so. I had thought the opening lines about would show all that....but the closing ones trumped them! ;)

At any rate you have to admit that although about as apt to happen as a rabbit ordering a Big Mac, it would be a good thing to have an Al on the Bench.

[tammywammy]

61. No, he's not running for president or SCOTUS

He'll continue on his mission to educated about environmental issues.

[RestoreGore]

67. Yes, I think he will too, because those who serve their conscience serve well

And it isn't about "titles" in the sense others hold them in high esteem in comparison to the work being done.

[cascadiance]

73. Personally I'd prefer him as president or as an independent force for change with global warming...

... and other environmental issues.

On the supreme court he'd tie up his time and just be one member of many, and couldn't have time to do work on what he's really good at and that is trying to get some movement out there on dealing with climate change, etc. In short, I think Supreme Court is the last place I'd like to see him. There are plenty of other really good candidates out there that would do an even finer job I think in balancing out the court with their legal expertise.

One of those I think would be great, as did Marjorie Cohn when she talked to Jon Elliot on this would be the recently hired, fired, and then rehired president of the Cal-Irvine Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky. He's a great constitutional scholar and legal mind in addition to having a decent perspective on issues we believe in.

Evidently so much so that they tried to withdraw their job offer to him once they made it (because he was too "politically controversial"). Even though they've now hired him, I think if he were to get an offer for the court, he'd feel less sense of loyalty to them after that experience to stay there, and might even welcome the opportunity to give them a subtle "FU" by eagerly accepting the job.