Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if Obama picked HRC for the next SCOTUS seat ???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:38 AM
Original message
What if Obama picked HRC for the next SCOTUS seat ???
IMHO...she's much better suited to preserve & protect (with apologies to LAPD!) from the High Court.
She'd certainly would "juice-up" the Court Overnight ! She'd drive Scalia and Alito nuts! And probably Reinvigorate Justice Ginsberg & Breyer !

So? How say you, DUers?
Got to go to a class (sophomores) So I can't respond.

"Hillary on SCOTUS?"

DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. She's a problem solver. He's an abstract thinker. He's make a better SCOTUS.
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 11:40 AM by wlucinda
Actually he'd probably be an excellent SCOTUS now that I think of it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. This would be like Harriet Miers.
It seems the main acceptable criteria for SCOTUS is to actually have had experience AS A JUDGE on some lower court (preferably Federal) in the past.

I don't understand the posts about sticking these random people (from either party) on the Supreme Court who have never served as a judge before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. You shouldn't have to be a judge, but lacking that experience you
should be at least a legal scholar, if not a constitutional scholar. One top justice whose name escapes me was never a judge, but was president of Harvard or some such, and a respected legal scholar. Just being a lawyer doesn't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Actually the constitution lists
no experience requirements to be a supreme court justice.

According to the link below, even William Rehnquist (who was appointed by Nixon) had no experience serving as a justice of any court.

The only barrier would have to do with that "advice and consent" clause of the constitution.

The link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300252.html


Q3JR4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. She's for CLOSED GOVERNMENT and secrecy and shouldn't be in WH or on the Supreme Court.
The WH and the Supreme Court has too many closed government protectors and fascists already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mythyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. Does she have enough experience?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. At least we know Roe V Wade would be safe
She'd be run out on a rail if she suddenly changed on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. That would be a ridiculously bad decision to make.
Given her opinion on the 1st amendment, her opinion on the IWR, and how terribly she's mismanaged her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. Ideologically she's fine
But like others have said, the judicial experience isn't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. She's too much of a pragmatist -
The supreme court is the constitutional court, and you don't compromise on constitutional issues. Right and wrong are not subject to polls and popular opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Hmm. That's a good point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. From Looking On This Forum, Obama Supporters Don't Want HER For Anything.
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 11:50 AM by Dinger
Not all Obama supporters, but many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Hey, she's welcome to keep the job she's got.
Or she could take Spitzer's job. I'm fine with that - I don't have to live in NY.

I just don't want her (and the DLC) to be making decisions on MY behalf, when they stand for much of what I abhor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. I'd like her for VP, Sen. Majority Leader, or Sec'y of HHS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
10. In principal, it's a good idea. You don't even have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the
Supreme Court. In practice, I have my doubts. I'm not happy with Hillary's willingness to compromise on the torture issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. Too much of a corporatist for my taste
The supremes need a change in direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. The republicans in congress would bounce her out of the confirmation hearings before she could be...
sworn in for questioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. LOSER between BO and HRC gets on the Supreme Court. Fair trade. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Is she qualified? Then sure... no problem......
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. She's way too dishonest for me.
Thanks anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
20. This Obama supporter thinks it would be a good thing, but Hillary would have to pull out now.
Any leverage that Hillary has with Obama will only decrease every single day from this moment on. She had the most leverage before Texas. By May, if she continues with her campaign, the American people will sympathize with Obama and give him a green light to exclude her from his ticket and she will be a junior senator in New York again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not the Only One Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. We can do much better than Hillary for SCOTUS.
Also, we can find someone younger, too. Being on SCOTUS is for life, so the younger, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. So many better qualified candidates, but no strong objections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
23. She's totally unqualified. She's never been a judge. She's not a Constitutional scholar. She's
never argued before the Supreme Court.

Obama could be a SCOTUS justice, but even still I'd only say he's dubiously qualified. Clinton could not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
25. If even a thousanth of what Obama's supporters have been saying about her is true,
I certainly wouldn't want her on the Supreme Court. I'd rather have her in the White House. At least there she'd be subject to public scrutiny and have only four years in office as opposed to a lifetime appointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
26. just what the SCOTUS needs
another corporate champion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
27. Well Mario Cuomo turned down Bill for SCOTUS that went to Breyer
:shrug:

Orin Hatch turned down Bush 41 and so did John Danforth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC