Hillary Clinton On The Supreme Court?

[Slartibartfast]

Hillary Clinton On The Supreme Court? - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR

Her name has come up in the past as a possibility, and this morning Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah raised it again.

On NBC-TV's The Today Show, the Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee threw out the name of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as someone who might be nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. "That would be an interesting person in the mix," Hatch said. And, he added, he likes and respects the former first lady:

 

[digsbe]

:shock: Well, actually this may be a good thing. She's old and will probably die when we have a Republican in office. We don't need liberal judges, we need lawful judges.

 

[Redress]

White house has already said no to this rumor.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

How many takers he only considers minorities.... White man can't catch a break.... :ssst:

 

[Coronado]

How many takers he only considers minorities.... White man can't catch a break.... :ssst:

That's pretty much been the word from the White House. They're looking for someone with a vagina or with lots of melanin. People with penises and too little melanin have been excluded so far.

 

[Crunch]

What exactly would be Hillary’s qualifications?

What judgeships has she had that were outstanding?

What was that source again?..... we need to ban it from BN.

 

[Redress]

How many takers he only considers minorities.... White man can't catch a break.... :ssst:

The list of likely candidates says you are probably wrong. Source: Judge Sidney Thomas on Supreme Court list - Yahoo! News

Thomas, white
Wood, white
Garland, white
Kagan, white
Granholm, white, except for that mole on her face
Napolitano, white

Only minority on the list of candidates is Sears.

Any more uninformed smears to make based on jack **** for evidence except what you want to be true?

 

[Crunch]

That's pretty much been the word from the White House. They're looking for someone with a vagina or with lots of melanin. People with penises and too little melanin have been excluded so far.

From what I've seen of the prospects, they want both..... if she is wiser than those without, so much the better.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The list of likely candidates says you are probably wrong. Source: Judge Sidney Thomas on Supreme Court list - Yahoo! News

Thomas, white
Wood, white
Garland, white
Kagan, white
Granholm, white, except for that mole on her face
Napolitano, white

Only minority on the list of candidates is Sears.

Any more uninformed smears to make based on jack **** for evidence except what you want to be true?

Uhm you did see the :ssst: icon indicating I was being tongue in cheek.... :doh:



I'll bet you an avatar, anyway for a month it wont be a white man.

 

[Gipper]

This is a really moot debate. Diane Wood is going to get it. She's a minority (female), she's hyper-liberal, she legislates from the bench, and she's from Chicago. Hell will freeze over if she is NOT picked.

 

[Gina]

Hillary Clinton On The Supreme Court? - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR

Interesting and I've heard her name bandied about as a possible SC justice before Obama named her for Secretary of state. But....

White house has already said no to this rumor.

That's too bad.

 

[Redress]

Uhm you did see the :ssst: icon indicating I was being tongue in cheek.... :doh:



I'll bet you an avatar, anyway for a month it wont be a white man.

Garland is the probable favorite, and he is a white man. However, I plan on continuing to sell my avatar spot for donations to the board, which I think is a better cause.

 

[Deuce]

:shock: Well, actually this may be a good thing. She's old and will probably die when we have a Republican in office. We don't need liberal judges, we need lawful judges.

Thing is your definition of lawful and my definition of lawful are not the same, especially when it comes to constitutional issues that SCOTUS deals with. Anyone intellectually honest has to admit there is more than one valid interpretation of the US constitution.

edit: Perfect example is your describing liberal and lawful as if they are mutually exclusive.

 

[digsbe]

Thing is your definition of lawful and my definition of lawful are not the same, especially when it comes to constitutional issues that SCOTUS deals with. Anyone intellectually honest has to admit there is more than one valid interpretation of the US constitution.

edit: Perfect example is your describing liberal and lawful as if they are mutually exclusive.

How can there be more than one logical interpretation of the law? I think we need to understand the minds of the founders to know the context of the constitution.

 

[Crunch]

How can there be more than one logical interpretation of the law? I think we need to understand the minds of the founders to know the context of the constitution.

No, no, no..... it's a living, breathing document, and they will interpret it in the way that benefits themselves the most...... or ignore it completely and do what they damned well please.

It's the progressive way.

 

[Redress]

How can there be more than one logical interpretation of the law? I think we need to understand the minds of the founders to know the context of the constitution.

If there was not, we would not need a multi-layer court system.

 

[Gipper]

Then again, a reduction of lawyers in America wouldn't be a bad thing...

 

[TurtleDude]

Then again, a reduction of lawyers in America wouldn't be a bad thing...

I agree and I am an attorney

There are way too many attorneys and much of our problems come from lawyers creating work for themselves. 95% of the lawsuits I have dealt with as a civil defense attorney are complete crap churned by attorneys trying to create business.


We need to make law school harder to get into than Medical school. More doctors are good, more lawyers are bad. There are WAY TOO MANY lawschools with too many lawyers chasing too few dollars, ethics has slipped


as to Woods, she's pretty far out there and I suspect would be fillibustered. After what happened to Estrada and Keisler-both of whom were much more qualified to be on the appellate court than woods was when she was selected, its time for a little payback

Kagan and Garland are both Jewish and there is talk that another Jewish Justice is too much (2% of the population-33% of the court) but then again, with Stevens retiring, Protestands have ZERO Justices and Wood is Protestant

she also has been divorced twice and didn't go to an Ivy league law school though Texas is one of the finest schools in the nation and certainly the equal of NW where Stevens went.

Kagan is a bit more Mainstream and Garland doesn't have much of a record to attack given the court he sits on normally deals with regulatory issues rather than more controversial issues which could provide ammunition

our appellate guru in my office (he predicted Roberts long before the Public had ever heard the name) said at one time brilliant Lesbian professor Pam Karlan was a leading contender but with contentious mid terms coming, she has faded due to being "too radical".

I am hoping if Obama wants a "quota" he pick Akhil Reed Amar because the guy is as brilliant as they come, is a sterling professor of law at Yale (which is a strong argument that he is the leading constitutional law scholar in the nation today) and incredibly honest intellectually. Plus he is a genuinely warm and decent person.

 

[American]

Wholey unqualified by lightyears.

 

[Coronado]

Anyone intellectually honest has to admit there is more than one valid interpretation of the US constitution.

Not really. There are interpretations that take into account the Founders' intent, and there are interpretations that don't. The former category aren't valid interpretations and make for bad precedent.

 

[Captain America]

Hillery sitting on the SCOTUS is about as laughable as Palin sitting in the oval office. :rofl

 

[TurtleDude]

Not really. There are interpretations that take into account the Founders' intent, and there are interpretations that don't. The former category aren't valid interpretations and make for bad precedent.

There is the correct interpretation and the outcome based wrong interpretation.

The surest way to kill the Constitution is to claim it is a "living document"

 

[TurtleDude]

Hillery sitting on the SCOTUS is about as laughable as Palin sitting in the oval office. :rofl

actually Palin's qualifications to be president-given what we have had of late are far stronger than Hillary's to be a justice

Hillary only got into Yale Law because she was female. She didn't even make Cum Laude in college. She didn't make the law review didn't clerk for an appellate judge (let alone a justice) wasn't order of the coif and she flunked the DC Bar.

Lets look at recent USSC picks


Scalia-#1 in his colllege class, #1 at Harvard law. Souter-Rhodes Scholar, Thomas-the weakest but still top half of his class at yale Law and was an appellate judge, Sotomayor Phi Beta Kappa, Top of her law school Class.
Roberts-#1 at Harvard law, seen as the top supreme court advocate in the USA. Alito-PBK at Princeton top of his class at yale law. RB Ginsburg. made the law review at Harvard and Columbia (transferred due to her husband's illness), Breyer top of his class at both college and law school, Kennedy, Phi beta Kappa, Order of the Coif, law review at Harvard, etc

Hillary isn't evan as qualified as Thomas. She isn't anywhere near her husband's two picks and like it or not W's two picks were the strongest of any president in the last 100 years

 

[disneydude]

How can there be more than one logical interpretation of the law? I think we need to understand the minds of the founders to know the context of the constitution.

That's the fallacy of the "strict constructionist" mentality. Why would you rely on the minds of people from the 1700's when the world is a completely different place, with different technology today.

The other problem with the so-called "strict constructionists" is that they love to talk about "strict constructionism" until it doesn't fit their agenda....at which time, they engage in right-wing activism...e.g.....Corporations are "people" under the Constitution.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a "person" if you are a "strict" constructionist. :doh:doh:doh

 

[disneydude]

actually Palin's qualifications to be president-given what we have had of late are far stronger than Hillary's to be a justice

What.....that she can see Russia from her house?