• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton Would Consider Appointing President Obama to Supreme Court

Top Cat

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
33,022
Reaction score
14,665
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A second Clinton administration could mean a future Justice Barack Obama.
At a campaign event in Deocorah, Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton lit up when a voter asked her if she would consider appointing the president to the Supreme Court should she win the White House.
"Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow," theDemocratic presidential candidate responded. "He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that's a great idea."
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton Would Consider Appointing President Obama to Supreme Court - ABC News

Now that's a brilliant idea!
 
No, it really is not a brilliant idea. At all.
 
DDD said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because Obama would judge challenges with an obvious lean to what the government can do despite the Constitution, instead of holding the Constitution as primary and the only means we have to restrict what government does.
 
Henrin said:
Because he has proven himself incapable of uphold the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well considering that he managed to clear a really controversial piece of legislation that was a close Constitutional question past the Supreme Court while it was lead by a Republican appointee...I'd say the evidence speaks to an alternative conclusion.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because Obama would judge challenges with an obvious lean to what the government can do despite the Constitution, instead of holding the Constitution as primary and the only means we have to restrict what government does.
Click to expand...

It is more accurate to say that Obama views the Constitution as a document that can and should adjust over time to account for modern issues and morals instead of a Constitution that must continually be rooted in the interpretations and intentions of biased men that lived 250 years ago.
 
MrT said:
Well considering that he managed to clear a really controversial piece of legislation that was a close Constitutional question past the Supreme Court while it was lead by a Republican appointee...I'd say the evidence speaks to an alternative conclusion.
Click to expand...

Based on a lie.



So, yeah. A supreme court justice who is proven to be dishonest.






Perfect.
 
Unquestionably partisan in nature, ZERO experience as an actual judge, with his only true qualifications for the job was a position that Hillary Clinton's campaign decried as an exaggeration (Constitutional Law Professor) and even then it was a position he held for a short amount of time and hardly at the highest level in the field. This suggestion going forward would be nothing but a pure political stunt to court votes and nothing more.
 
Top Cat said:
Yes it totally is. See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

Refer to post #4 where I started to put forth my opinion with more behind it, something that as of this post you have still yet to do.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because Obama would judge challenges with an obvious lean to what the government can do despite the Constitution, instead of holding the Constitution as primary and the only means we have to restrict what government does.
Click to expand...

Because judges with political agendas are never appointed. Oh wait. They all are.
 
MrT said:
It is more accurate to say that Obama views the Constitution as a document that can and should adjust over time to account for modern issues and morals instead of a Constitution that must continually be rooted in the interpretations and intentions of biased men that lived 250 years ago.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In principle then the appropriate response would be for our government to engage in the process of Constitutional Amendment. Simply bending the interpretation to allow government more power than what is stipulated in the Constitution as of now is nothing more than an effort to sidestep it. If we are going to resort to the ends justify the means then we might as well not have a Constitution at all.
 
Zyphlin said:
Unquestionably partisan in nature, ZERO experience as an actual judge, with his only true qualifications for the job was a position that Hillary Clinton's campaign decried as an exaggeration (Constitutional Law Professor) and even then it was a position he held for a short amount of time and hardly at the highest level in the field. This suggestion going forward would be nothing but a pure political stunt to court votes and nothing more.
Click to expand...

You may be right. But I still like the idea. Although based on BO's reaction to the idea, I doubt it would happen.
 
Top Cat said:
Because judges with political agendas are never appointed. Oh wait. They all are.
Click to expand...

So the "but mommy, he did it too" is the defense you are going with to support Obama being a Supreme Court judge?
 
Obama is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. This fact alone should end the discussion.
 
OrphanSlug said:
So the "but mommy, he did it too" is the defense you are going with to support Obama being a Supreme Court judge?
Click to expand...

No. But your contention is based upon a fallacy.
 
Top Cat said:
No. But your contention is based upon a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Not at all, there is zero evidence that Obama would look at challenges based on what the Constitution limits government to.
 
Huh. Another reason not to vote for her.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Obama is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

There actually aren't any qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

In principal a mentally retarded thirteen-year-old illegal immigrant with a criminal record and a second grade education could be nominated to sit on the SCOTUS and as long as the Senate confirms that nomination there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with that.

There might be a million and one subjective reasons why such a person would be a poor choice as a Justice, but they'd have all the qualifications needed by simple virtue of the nomination and confirmation.

And to be fair, this hypothetical retard would, in all likelihood, actually be a better choice than Barack Obama.
 
soot said:
There actually aren't any qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

In principal a mentally retarded thirteen-year-old illegal immigrant with a criminal record and a second grade education could be nominated to sit on the SCOTUS and as long as the Senate confirms that nomination there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with that.

There might be a million and one subjective reasons why such a person would be a poor choice as a Justice, but they'd have all the qualifications needed by simple virtue of the nomination and confirmation.

And to be fair, this hypothetical retard would, in all likelihood, actually be a better choice than Barack Obama.
Click to expand...
I think we need only look at the legal background, experience, and achievements of past and current SCOTUS judges for precedence. He does not measure up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom