• 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!

Ever Hear of Judge Jane?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hmmm...trial balloons went up floating the name Jane Kelly as a potential Scalia replacement. I never heard of her, but she comes from Iowa, home state of Senate Judicial Committee Chair, Charles E. Grassley.

The F.B.I. has been conducting background interviews on Judge Kelly, 51, according to a person with knowledge of the process. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity...

Democrats have privately said that selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings, out of a sense of obligation to a respected jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election. The six-term senator is facing pressure from voters to consider any nominee on the merits, but he said in an interview Wednesday that he would not change his position even for a fellow Iowan.

In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/u...ting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Gotta hand it to Obama. He knows how to jab a stick in the eye of certain Republicans.
 
Harvard law school..graduated with Obama...no significant accomplishments to note...openly Gay.......no thanks.
 
WCH said:
Harvard law school..graduated with Obama...no significant accomplishments to note...openly Gay.......no thanks.
Click to expand...

You prefer your gays in the closet? Hmm...that could very well be a sign.
 
My biggest concern re Kelly is her short term of experience as a federal judge, less than three years. Doesn't seem like much for something as important as this*. Though I don't know how other SC judges in the past stacked up, so maybe it's common.

*-I know there have been some with little experience, but I'm looking for the general rule, not outliers.
 
calamity said:
You prefer your gays in the closet? Hmm...that could very well be a sign.
Click to expand...

Obama has appointed more openly Gay people to judicial positions than any other POTUS. This is just another friend deal to pacify another small section of the population who generally vote Dem.
 
How often does the first nominee put forward get the job?

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

Does the first one get kicked back frequently enough that we can think of this one as a sacrificial lamb?

Throw a nominee out there that you know for sure a Republican Senate isn't going to approve and make it harder for them to say no the next time without seeming like outright obstructionists (not that Republicans in Congress have any qualms about that but still).
 
radcen said:
My biggest concern re Kelly is her short term of experience as a federal judge, less than three years. Doesn't seem like much for something as important as this*. Though I don't know how other SC judges in the past stacked up, so maybe it's common.

*-I know there have been some with little experience, but I'm looking for the general rule, not outliers.
Click to expand...

She's unknown too, for the most part. The trial balloon may just be a red herring. I'm still in Sri's camp.
 
WCH said:
Obama has appointed more openly Gay people to judicial positions than any other POTUS. This is just another friend deal to pacify another small section of the population who generally vote Dem.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter that much to you who they zoom?
 
Considering recent cases before the court...yes I do Although if they're Leftists to begin with.......that won't matter.
 
WCH said:
Considering recent cases before the court...yes I do Although if they're Leftists to begin with.......that won't matter.
Click to expand...

There used to be a lot of gay conservatives. But, after a while, they figured out they weren't really welcome. Kind of like Blacks, Latinos, Muslims and a whole lot of women.

You do realize that once you've purged everyone except for older white males who don't have sex except maybe three times a year, you'll be standing pretty much in an empty building.
 
Maybe it is really time to nominate Judge Judy, since many think she is already a member of the court anyway. Or, maybe we should just wait for Trump to nominate her and keep it all in the family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom