stopbush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:43 AM
Original message |
Put Hillary on the SCOTUS. |
|
It's a no-brainer. She's been through Senate confirmations, she's been totally vetted numerous times, and the Rs blocking a sitting SOS would look like sour grapes on speed.
I think she'd do a great job, but more importantly, I think she would be able to shape the Court in her image over time. She'd certainly be a dynamic counter to the conservatives! Plus, she's in her early 60s and would be there for a good stretch.
I don't know if she'd want the job as it comes with a lot on anonymity once you're seated.
Comments?
|
Not Me
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
|
that would make heads explode.
|
stopbush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I have concerns about his health. |
|
It would hurt Obama to nominate a person with his history of problems and surgeries. Sure, it didn't stop Cheney from nominating himself to the VP spot on the R ticket, but this is different.
Plus, Bill is doing a ton of good with his foundations, and I'd hate to see that compromised. That said, it would be great to watch him kick some Scalia/Roberts ass!
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. the fact that Bill had his law license suspended for five years |
|
and was suspended from practice before the US Supreme Court would make his appointment rather problematic from a political standpoint.
I recognize that these actions were taken as part of a political witchhunt. But the fact remains that he didn't fight the loss of his admission to practice before the SCOTUS.
|
muffin1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I like Hillary right where she is. |
|
She's doing a great job as Secretary of State, and I love seeing her do it.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Enh. Too conservative leaning for my taste. |
|
Particularly on issues of national security and constitutional rights.
I think Kagan looks good on first blush, if she's the one I'm thinking of.
|
Toasterlad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
5. There Are Already Enough Corporate Enablers On the Supreme Court, Thanks. |
frebrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
StopTheNeoCons
(608 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
shotten99
(478 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message |
6. She's 62. 15-20 years isn't long enough. If she were younger... |
Sebastian Doyle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message |
7. We need someone there who can last as long as Stevens has |
|
And be there longer than Opie Roberts and Sammy the Fish. Let alone after Fat Tony or Clarence the clown. Hillary would have to be about 98 when she retired, if she was to be on the court as long as Stevens. Those aren't very good odds. And after 2 heart surgeries, it's even less likely that Bill is gonna make it to that age.
Now Chelsea, on the other hand........
Yeah, she's got absolutely no judicial experience. But then, Opie Roberts was never even a judge until 2002, so who cares? :evilgrin:
|
WolverineDG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I've always wanted her on the Supreme Court |
|
for all kinds of reasons, but the bonus will be watching Scalia's head implode.
:nuke:
:evilgrin:
dg
|
wuushew
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 12:12 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Stupid on multiple levels |
|
First of all such a nomination would increase Republican turnout in the midterm elections. Something that I am trying to avoid.
Do you think that Bush's habbit of filling various positions from his circle of close aquaintances was not a political liability?
I think she'd do a great job Based on what? Her legal record?
She is older than other choices Obama could make.
Approaching the two year mark, the Department of State has not accomplished anything extremely newsworthy. Why would someone leave what is the most prestigious cabinet post without a major peace treaty or doctrine in place? Ego demands it.
|
DefenseLawyer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |
12. I'd prefer a liberal legal scholar, not a corporate politician n/t |
|
She is fine as a politician, but the Clintons' political success has been marked by two things: being pro-corporation at every opportunity and having no real core beliefs. Not really what I want on the Court.
|
scheming daemons
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |
13. She's 15-20 years too old.... Sorry, that disqualifies her. |
|
We need our choices to be on the court for 30-40 years.
THere are plenty of good candidates under 50 years old. Pick one of them.
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 01:01 PM
Response to Original message |
15. The SCOTUS is already full of corporatists-no thanks! |
kskiska
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Bill or Hillary wouldn't want to be tied down. How about Anita Hill?
|
Metric System
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. I kind of love the idea of Anita Hill on the SC! |
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message |
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-12-10 11:59 PM
Response to Original message |
21. A lifetime appointment does not mean until you die... |
|
Some people, like Sandra Day O'Connor walked away. Granted she had personal matters to attend to but she was able to walk away before she died. She could have stayed but she chose otherwise.
Hillary is bright. Could she persuade others with her intellectual arguments? I am convinced she would be a good Justice. However, there are two or three other possible nominees that have superb qualifications. I think it would be terribly unwise for the Republicans to obstruct any of these nominees too dismissively.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-13-10 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
22. O'Connor has said that she wishes she had stayed. |
|
She left because her husband was ill, but she has said since then that if she had known he was going to die as soon as he did that she would not have resigned ;(
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message |