General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Ruth Ginsburg decides to retire, how about Obama naming as her replacement
Hillary Clinton?
And then Elizabeth Warren can run for President.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)to the bench instead?
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)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)male President and VP, but a female President and VP would disturb some I am sure
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)who didn't wonder about that when a certain Black American was being talked about as Presidential material.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)We don't need stunt casting.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)John Marshall and Earl Warren didn't have judicial experience.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are we supposed to pick GOP candidates now?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)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)I want EW for that....if she doesn't become VP
calimary
(81,127 posts)If we nominated Jesus Christ Himself, they'd find a way to hate Him, too!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)as opposed to someone they probably have voodoo dolls of.
awake
(3,226 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)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)Failed the DC Bar exam and has no judicial experience.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)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 Courts 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 nations 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)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he doesn't seem to have any of his own....
former9thward
(31,948 posts)'She is just as good as Clarence!'
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you know pointing out she can't do any worse than that pretense of a justice.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)former9thward
(31,948 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)JI7
(89,241 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)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)Why would we nominate someone so old, seems like 60 or so would be about it. Some longevity is important.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She IS a liberal whether YOU like it or not!
elfin
(6,262 posts)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.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,824 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)tritsofme
(17,371 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)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.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)BootinUp
(47,093 posts)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.