John Edwards on Supreme Court?

[Paula Sims]

Hoping that Obama wins in November and there actually is a new administration sworn-in in January, do you think Edwards could be a Supreme Court nominee should there be a vacancy? Yes, I'd like to see him as AG (even VP if he'd take it), but in SCOTUS I think he'd do an amazing job.

Anyone else?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. No

he really doesn't have any relevant experience.

[hlthe2b]

3. I hope you are being facetious...

NO relevant experience? :wtf:

[elleng]

4. I agree;

not enough to be a lawyer (tho even that's not required,) but scholarly, judicious; not just any lawyer.

[hlthe2b]

9. You agree with what? that he is qualified or not qulified?

:shrug:

I could certainly see the value in having a constitutional scholar such as Jonathan Turley. On the other hand, there is a history of those with more applied legal experience combined with legislative or other public service being named to the court and I do not see that as at all "unqualified" nor undesirable.

[elleng]

18. Less qualified than I want on the court,

experience-wise, and I'd like someone with scholar-type experience and/or interest; reading S Ct. decisions shows necessity/desirability of such.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Right

No relevant experience.

What does being an accomplished tort lawyer have to do with being on the Supreme Court? He's never been a judge in even municipal court, he didn't deal with constitutional issues.

There are literally over a million lawyers in the US. Are they all qualified for the Supreme Court?

[hlthe2b]

17. Perhaps you should take a look at the history of those named

to the Supreme Court....There have always been a mixture of "just lawyers" and in fact some NON-Lawyers. To think you need to have been a judge is just not the case.

Of those millions of lawyers you claim to be of an equal "ilck" to John Edwards, how many have made it on their own, and have so stongly advocated for Americans as a very successful trial lawyer, Senator, Presidential candidate (twice) VP candidate (once) and as a result of his Poverty Center?

No, we must have a well connected recipient of a legacy appointment-- first to law school, then to the bench, where, surrounded by other cronies of the political system, he/she has never had to look at the societal consequences of the law (or justice denied). Yeah, that's what we need...:eyes:

I'm not saying Edwards is my choice for SC, and I would love to see someone with tremendous broad experience coupled with major scholarly understanding of the law, including constitutional law (say a Jonathan Turley or Fred Abrams type). But, to have someone with Edwards passion for the welfare of all Americans, who has seen first-hand the consequences of RW abuse of the constitution and could be influential in bringing other justices over to his point of view--no that is definitely not a bad thing to consider!

[ColbertWatcher]

10. LOL!

[hlthe2b]

11. After producing George W, I now finally understand why Poppy

thought that Mr. Public Hair was qualified to be on the Supreme Court.... What's the difference, after all...:eyes:

[Mojambo]

2. Young, liberal, skeptical of corporate influence... Perfect.

I'd like to put 3 just like him on there in Obama's term.

[Turner Ashby]

5. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from a prestigious school.

UNC is one of the top public Law Schools. He reminds me of Justice Black who was not a "white shoe" lawyer, either. More of a trial lawyer, and he certainly was one of our better Justices. Justice Black was always held up as a "trial lawyer's Lawyer", much like Edwards.

However, I still think he would be great as AG.

[Warpy]

8. AG, USSC, Health and Human Services, HUD,

he would be wonderful anyplace they put him, and I hope they do find a place for him.

I also hope they adopt his health care plan once they get into office. His was the best, with a back door entry into national health care via Medicare as an alternative to overpriced for profit insurance.

[Paula Sims]

6. OK, in reply to my own thread. . .

Although I still think Edwards would be a great SCOTUS member, how about Jonathan Turley? Frankly, had Obama not gotten the nomination, I would also have liked to see him on the Court.

Paula

[cascadiance]

7. For me I'd prefer him as AG and Erwin Chemerinsky as SCOTUS judge...

Chemerinsky is such an authority on the constitution that is sought to talk about it these days, and yet he has such a decent perspective on things from our viewpoint that he almost didn't get hired for his most recent job as the head of the Law School in Cal Irvine for being "too liberal". He's the guy I want to be in there to help fix the damage that's been done and will continue to do so in the years to come! I'd also like to think Edwards would be free to be available to run in the future as well if the time were to come where he's needed in other political offices too!

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Chemerinsky would be perfect.

I don't remember where I first heard that, but it made me very hopeful!

[TexasObserver]

14. John Edwards would be a great choice for the Supreme Court.

John Edwards is a very competent trial attorney, and therefore understands well the POLICY role the Supreme Court plays in law. Some will say to choose only jurists, but that's nonsense. The federal bench is overwhelmingly Republican, and the only Democratic judges are the ones appointed by Bill Clinton. That's too limited a pool from which to draw appointees.

The Supreme Court is a policy position, a POLITICAL position. The person should be one who holds definitive beliefs that are consistent with our democratic ideals. John would be great at that.

[DiverDave]

15. A.G. then a Supreme court justice

let him loose on the company's that broke the law during the idiots reign, then after that he can fill a seat for 40 years, handing down 1 good decision after another.

[dems_rightnow]

16. AG would be great experience

for a future SC appointment.

Until then, I'd agree that I'd like to see someone with judicial experience.