Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Ruth Ginsburg decides to retire, how about Obama naming as her replacement (Original Post) pnwmom Jun 2014 OP
No thanks, I want a progressive. Scuba Jun 2014 #1
Why not just wait until we have President Hillary Clinton and she names Elizabeth Warren VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #2
How about a Hillary and Warren ticket? lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #6
I don't have a problem with Vice President Elizabeth Warren on President Clinton's ticket VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #22
That was my thought. However, with the "sexism" in this country people never think twice about a lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #33
They'll get over it... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #34
How about naming someone with judicial experience not already hated by the GOP? winter is coming Jun 2014 #3
Judicial experience isn't necessarily a prerequisite Spider Jerusalem Jun 2014 #7
True enough, but it's not a bad thing to have. n/t winter is coming Jun 2014 #15
Why do we care what they think? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #23
The GOP still hates Hillary with the intensity of 1,000 suns. winter is coming Jun 2014 #26
All of them have an uphill battle.....but I don't want Clinton for SCOTUS anyways... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #27
ANYBODY our side would nominate would be hated by the GOP. calimary Jun 2014 #30
True, but I'd prefer a nominee receiving only the pro forma hate, winter is coming Jun 2014 #31
Ginsburg is not who needs replacing awake Jun 2014 #4
Of course, but folks are worried that Justice Ginsburg has health issues, and while we have the lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #10
Clinton has no background for the Supreme Court. former9thward Jun 2014 #5
You don't have to have judicial experience to be a Supreme Court justice. pnwmom Jun 2014 #8
You only have to be 35 to be President. former9thward Jun 2014 #18
as opposed to who writes opinions for Clarence Thomas? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #24
It is funny how Clinton supporters are forced to use Thomas as a standard. former9thward Jun 2014 #28
no pointing out there is a bar lower than you are holding out against her... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #35
hmmm, and Thomas has experience? lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #12
He had judicial experience but is that the standard you wish to go to? former9thward Jun 2014 #14
Exactly, that was my point lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #17
because Hillary Clinton probably doesn't want it ? JI7 Jun 2014 #9
How about some new blood? Throd Jun 2014 #11
Why do you think we need another corporatist on the high court? TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #13
I am getting a little sick and tired of hearing the Independents calling her that here on DU. VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #25
I think he should self-nominate elfin Jun 2014 #16
How about someone under 50? Gidney N Cloyd Jun 2014 #19
IMO, noone will be able to be confirmed. nt CK_John Jun 2014 #20
No thanks, but on the other hand I think Elizabeth would make a wonderful justice! tritsofme Jun 2014 #21
The chances of Hillary not being Borked are zero. JVS Jun 2014 #29
I have no problem with Warren or Clinton, I just think.......... wandy Jun 2014 #32
Invent a time machine and send either of them back 30 years and I'd go for it.... Rowdyboy Jun 2014 #36
what a surprise /sarcasm BootinUp Jun 2014 #37
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
2. Why not just wait until we have President Hillary Clinton and she names Elizabeth Warren
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:00 PM
Jun 2014

to the bench instead?

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
22. I don't have a problem with Vice President Elizabeth Warren on President Clinton's ticket
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:54 PM
Jun 2014

she said she wasn't running for President...she didn't say she wasn't running for VP!

IN fact it would be a good move on Hillary's part....because they would hate to find a way to get rid of Hillary and risk a Warren ascendency...

But the subject was Supreme Court Justice....

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
33. That was my thought. However, with the "sexism" in this country people never think twice about a
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:54 PM
Jun 2014

male President and VP, but a female President and VP would disturb some I am sure

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
34. They'll get over it...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:59 PM
Jun 2014

who didn't wonder about that when a certain Black American was being talked about as Presidential material.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
3. How about naming someone with judicial experience not already hated by the GOP?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:01 PM
Jun 2014

We don't need stunt casting.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
7. Judicial experience isn't necessarily a prerequisite
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:09 PM
Jun 2014

John Marshall and Earl Warren didn't have judicial experience.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
26. The GOP still hates Hillary with the intensity of 1,000 suns.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:58 PM
Jun 2014

Kinda dumb to nominate someone like that for the Court, when there must be other candidates with less of an uphill confirmation battle awaiting them.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
27. All of them have an uphill battle.....but I don't want Clinton for SCOTUS anyways...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:00 PM
Jun 2014

I want EW for that....if she doesn't become VP

calimary

(81,127 posts)
30. ANYBODY our side would nominate would be hated by the GOP.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:23 PM
Jun 2014

If we nominated Jesus Christ Himself, they'd find a way to hate Him, too!

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
31. True, but I'd prefer a nominee receiving only the pro forma hate,
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:24 PM
Jun 2014

as opposed to someone they probably have voodoo dolls of.

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
10. Of course, but folks are worried that Justice Ginsburg has health issues, and while we have the
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:17 PM
Jun 2014

the majority in the Senate, if Justice Ginsburg had to step down for health reasons, some people are concerned that a repuke majority, if we lose the Senate would block a progressive.

The ideal situation would be if one of the conservatives stepped down, then I would say without a doubt Justice Ginsburg should consider retirement to improve the odds for Democratic appointees.

What the Democrats MUST do is use this as a campaign issue for the midterms.

I can see ads saying do you want your employer to determine what kind of health care service to have or your doctor

former9thward

(31,948 posts)
5. Clinton has no background for the Supreme Court.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:08 PM
Jun 2014

Failed the DC Bar exam and has no judicial experience.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
8. You don't have to have judicial experience to be a Supreme Court justice.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:10 PM
Jun 2014

She has a broad experience that would well qualify her.

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/03/08/most-united-states-supreme-court-justices-have-lacked-prior-judicial-experience/

In response to my earlier post about Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court who were also the Court’s senior justice in terms of years of service, Nick Zales posed the question as to whether the late William Rehnquist was the only Chief Justice to have had no prior judicial experience before becoming a member of the Supreme Court. (While Rehnquist had served for 13 years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court before being elevated to the Chief position, that was his only prior judicial experience.)

As it turns out, Rehnquist shared a lack of prior judicial experience with a majority of the men who have held the nation’s highest judicial office. Altogether, nine, or slightly more than half, of the 17 men who have held the position of Chief Justice were appointed without prior judicial experience.

Moreover, of the eight who had previously been judges, several had very limited judicial experience. Edward White, for example, had served for only a single year on a state court, and that had been fourteen years prior to his appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The judicial service of the first Chief Justice, John Jay, constituted two years as the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court a decade before his appointment as the U. S. Supreme Court. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, served for only two years and three months as a federal judge before his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2005.

former9thward

(31,948 posts)
18. You only have to be 35 to be President.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:24 PM
Jun 2014

But we don't go around electing them to be President now do we? Clinton by no means has the legal background of others you mentioned in your post. She did nothing in the legal field that would distinguish her. If all you want is a political person in there whose law clerks will write her opinions then go ahead and nominate her.

former9thward

(31,948 posts)
28. It is funny how Clinton supporters are forced to use Thomas as a standard.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:03 PM
Jun 2014

'She is just as good as Clarence!'

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
35. no pointing out there is a bar lower than you are holding out against her...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:01 PM
Jun 2014

you know pointing out she can't do any worse than that pretense of a justice.

Throd

(7,208 posts)
11. How about some new blood?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:18 PM
Jun 2014

My God! Half my life has been all Bushes and Clintons who won't go away because apparently we need them so much. I think a nation of 300,000,000+ can do better than Beltway/Wall Street insiders.

TheKentuckian

(25,020 posts)
13. Why do you think we need another corporatist on the high court?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:19 PM
Jun 2014

Why would we nominate someone so old, seems like 60 or so would be about it. Some longevity is important.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
25. I am getting a little sick and tired of hearing the Independents calling her that here on DU.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:57 PM
Jun 2014

She IS a liberal whether YOU like it or not!

elfin

(6,262 posts)
16. I think he should self-nominate
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:23 PM
Jun 2014

Biden's happy, Rethug heads explode all over -- all good. Hillary and Biden can duke it out for a fantastic primary season, so media is happy. One of them will get to the White House and may name Warren to Treasury -- I am happy.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
32. I have no problem with Warren or Clinton, I just think..........
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:34 PM
Jun 2014

it would work better the other way around.
Elizabeth Warren would make a fine Justis and she would be able to bring forth sanity for more than 8 years.

BootinUp

(47,093 posts)
37. what a surprise /sarcasm
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:10 PM
Jun 2014

If all I cared about was Warren running then I could agree with this. But you know what? I want a Democrat in the fucking WH in 2017. And that means we need the strongest candidates we have. So don't exclude the front runner please.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Ruth Ginsburg decides ...