A non lawyer for Supreme Court, someone like Rachel Maddow. The next

[CK_John]

appointment needs to be a two person process.

The first person will need to be qualified and able to fill the appointment, but... knowing that they will draw as much venom as the GOP can muster and will likely be rejected.

That's where the second person comes in. An appointment Plan B who would get approved because the GOP over reacted on the first appointee.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. So you're saying Obama should copy the Chimp's Harriet Meyers scam?

Well, as long as we get someone who is as far to the left as Sammy the Fish Alito is to the right, that might actually work.

[Sanity Claws]

2. I'll guess that you are not an attorney

A non-attorney on the Supreme Court?
Can you imagine a non-attorney ruling on evidence? Having an appreciation of precedents?
Follow a legal argument? See how one legal ruling fits into the big picture?

No offense to you but that idea is not even half-baked. That is the kindest way I could think of phrasing it.

[CK_John]

3. I don't think Earl Warren was an lawyer, corrected he was a DA not just Gov. n/t

[Sanity Claws]

4. You are so wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

He went to law school at UC, Berkeley (Boalt) and had a long legal career, including stints in private practice and as a District Attorney and California Attorney General.

[CK_John]

6. You're right corrected, but...you are not required to be a lawyer. I'm looking for a recent example.

[Sanity Claws]

9. Nothing in the Constitution requires that a SC justice be an attorney

However, one could not really function as a justice unless one had a great legal background. Clarence Thomas is an example of how a poor lawyer makes for a bad Justice. He's so inept that he can't even formulate questions for oral argument.

Reagan once said that we need more non-lawyers on the SC and claimed that Thurgood Marshall was a non-lawyer. But as with so much, Reagan was wrong. Marshall was indeed a lawyer and, IIRC, he argued the Brown v. Board of Education case on behalf of Brown.

[nemo137]

5. He was a lawyer, but not a law professor or judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

Warren went on to attend the University of California, Berkeley, both as an undergraduate (B.A. 1912) in Legal Studies and as a law student at Boalt Hall where he was a member of the The Gun Club secret society<2>. He earned his LL.B. in 1914.<3> While at Berkeley, Warren joined the Sigma Phi Society, a fraternal organization with which he maintained lifelong ties. Warren was admitted to the California bar in 1914.

He was a D.A. and a politician, but he did have legal training.

[KansasVoter]

7. LOL.....yes, because the lawyers on the court have done so well!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. uhm

no.

[Perky]

10. Why would Obama want a fight like that?

There is no upside to having a non-lawyer nominee when the Court's purpose is to rule ostensible on the constitutionality of issues. Such a person would be wholly unqualified.

[CK_John]

11. He may not want it but..he is going to get it anyway, so why not an option to defang them.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. If Chief Justice Roberts retired and Obama appinted him to replace himself..

the GOP would "over react," fillibuster, or simply throw a hissyfit. This isn't really about who will be appointed, but political points.

[CK_John]

13. For the record I think Roberts will quit, but thats off topic. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

14. No, I think for Roberts it is about history and power.

I think he will be there for a long time, and that his view of the court and the Constitution will keep him there.

[CK_John]

15. He always reminds me of John Dean and is hiding something. n/t

[Fire1]

16. Oh hell no. They've got to know the law. n/t

[CK_John]

17. I think about 40% of Congress who make the laws have no formal legal training.

To me being a lawyer is highly overrated.

[Fire1]

28. Opinion noted. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

18. Absolutely no! The Supreme Court is not a place for "regular folk"

who aren't well-versed on the law and Constitution. Their job is to apply the law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I think having a law degree or extreme familiarity with the U.S. Constitution is absolutely essential.

Rachel is great at what she does, but she should not be on the Supreme Court, nor should anyone like her (non-lawyer/legal scholar).

[CK_John]

19. Rachel is a scholar and has a very good grasp of current events and probably a quick study type of

person and the constitution is a quick read. So what's the problem?

[Sanity Claws]

20. I have no doubt that she is a capable person

If she went to law school and practiced law for a few years, I'd consider her.
However, Someone having the raw material does not mean that she is capable of jumping in at the highest level of the profession.

[CK_John]

22. It's not a constitutional requirement, therefore you are making a poor legal argument.

A good judge would ask what is your foundation for that point of view. Your answer is... because I don't like to change anything. Judge reply..to bad.

[Sanity Claws]

25. You don't even know what a legal argument is

You know, as well as I do, that I never said I don't like to change anything.

Putting words in my mouth is not a legal argument.

I think it is time for the ignore button.

[Phx_Dem]

21. She's not a legal or constitutional scholar. She's a political scholar.

She majored in politics and holds a PhD is philosphy. Not exactly condusive to a "non-political" Supreme Court, at least as it should be.

Nothing against Rachel. I like her alot! She's very smart and holds a Ph.D, but just because she's smart and we like her doesn't make her an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court.

[Fire1]

29. THANK YOU PHX DEM FOR THE FACTS!!! n/t

[rasputin1952]

23. Want to watch heads explode...How about Michelle...

An attorney, incredibly intelligent, and there is even a slight chance at precedent...ie, JFK putting Booby in as AG.

I know this would never happen, but to see MO take on the RW of the USSC would be amazing...:rofl:

[vaberella]

24. I love this idea. Too funny. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. The usual CK-John nonsense

Where's that post with all his failed predictions?

[CK_John]

27. Snark comment and no contribution, as usual.

[AngryAmish]

30. I guess Shawn Michaels isn't doing anything nowadays...

[Phx_Dem]

31. How 'bout Keith Olbermann?!!!

I have no doubt I would agree with all of his rulings so that makes him a perfect choice!

:sarcasm: