Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary would be a great SCOTUS pick....but she is too old.......

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:00 AM
Original message
Hillary would be a great SCOTUS pick....but she is too old.......
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 09:40 AM by KansasVoter
I love her and think she is great. But she is 62 years old.

But lets get a 50 year old canidate that we can have there for 20-30 years like they did with Roberts (55 years old now), Aleto (60 years old now).

Damn worthless Clarence Thomas was 43 when he was appointed.

We need someone in the 45-50 range.

The oldest appointment currently serving is Ginsburg who was appointed at 60. No one else was over 56.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, and yes. A law professor told me that her methodical approach to things is ideal for SC, but
she is, indeed, too old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. She herself proved that impression wrong during the dem primary campaign.
She was so convinced the nomination was hers she failed to plan after Super Tuesday. Also she failed the bar exam fresh out of law school.

I do agree she is too old to be appointed to the SC. I'd like to see the president shoot for a raging liberal fetus judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. PLEASE don't consider 'failed the bar exam fresh out of law school.'
So have millions. And 'fresh out of law school' particularly means NOTHING; thats when, I'd estimate, 90+% take it. AND THEN we take it Again, and Again if necessary.

She very smart, and conscientious, and would probably do a good job. She's doing a good job now, imo. Lets keep her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. maybe it's the hiding it for 30 years from friends part that is of interest

LINK

Bernstein reexamines the most sensational aspects of Clinton's life -- and to his subject the most painful -- namely her decisions to marry and remain married to Bill Clinton. She waited two years before deciding to become his wife and move to Arkansas, and Bernstein points to a little-known factor that may have contributed:

Hillary Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam after law school, something she hid from her best friends for 30 years until disclosing it in passing in her autobiography, "Living History." Bernstein suggests that blow to her ego may have played a role in her decision to move to Arkansas, where she had passed the bar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. One tends to be ashamed of such things,
especially if we're thought of as over-achievers. Thats life. She's human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's the tradeoff
A slam dunk confirmation that would probably get 75 votes, but perhaps only 10-20 years of service on the Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I seriously doubt that Clinton would get 75 votes for SCJ
I think there would be a lock step "no" from the Republicans, who would argue her lack of judicial experience. This is not SoS, where, as a person who on foreign policy was to Obama's left, the Republicans likely thought that she was as good for them as they were likely to get. The SoS reports to the President and is supposed to represent him - not so a SCJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Maybe not
Orrin Hatch was ready to vote for her this morning. His support might carry a lot of weight with Repukes. Of course knowing Orrin, he probably only said that because he knew there was no way in Elohim's Celestial Third Heaven that Hillary would actually BE the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. He also played around with the healthcare bill - only to leave the gang of 6
and then vote no. I would guess he was trying to stir up trouble - the Republicans have used her too often to generate fear to quietly agree to put her on the SC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. But imagine the heart-burn this would cause the far right. They HATE HER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. That makes it almost worth doing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Those who have worked with her in the Senate don't hate her...
I think she'd get the job - but she doesn't want it. Who can blame her? It would be pretty isolating and boring compared with what she's doing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. She's not an open government advocate and sided with corporate power over workers and consumers
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 09:10 AM by blm
too often when she was in the position to wield influence. She'd be a poor choice for a Supreme Court panel already tipped towards fulfilling the powerful interests of the fascist agenda.

I want a liberal with a strong record of advocating for the needs and the RIGHTS of the citizenry.

The right might make a show of squawking if Hillary was tapped, but, the corporatists would be dancing behind the scenes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. minor correction; Roberts is 55 now. He was 50 when appointed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Fixed! Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. Too old by male standards--women live longer
And as far as we can tell, she is amazingly energetic and presumably healthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
10. I'd much rather have her remain Secretary of State
I think she's been doing great job there and I think there is a lot more she can get done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
11. BS! She's not too old.
Stevens is 90. She'll be 82 in 20 years.

If you're under 30, or even 40, 62 looks pretty old! To us closer to her age it's not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Depends on your overall health.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:21 PM by Jennicut
Sotomayor is in her 50's but a diabetic (as am I). There can be complications with that the older you get. I have some now and am only 34.

Ginsburg's health is not great right now as well and she was the oldest justice appt. recently at 60. Still, it is hard to predict. Overall health can have more to do with how long one can serve then just age. 62 to me is not that old as long as you are in overall very good health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Agreed. I supported her for President but would not for SCOTUS
I do not even think she would be too old to be president in 2016.

But everyone does die eventually. And the thing is, when the president dies someone of the same party takes over automatically.

Does not work that way for Supreme Court justices.

So yes, she is too old for that job, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here we go again!!!
If I hear one more time that a 62 year old person is too old for the SCOTUS I'm going to blow a gasket. She's in fine health and could easily serve for the next 25 years.

But, she doesn't want the job anyway.

x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The appointment range is 43 - 67
With 53 being the average. She is on the high end of norm for appointments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. I agree and then disagree
I don't understand this preoccupation with super-young appointees. Doesn't make sense as far as I can see.

The SCOTUS's next ten years are going to be focused on the last ten years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 60 when she was appointed in 1993
But I can see your point. The longer an Justice serves, the more influence they have in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
24. She'd be good, but I'm not sure the Senate would vote to confirm her. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I can't imagine a former US Senator that was fully vetted in a Presidential Campaign
Would get less than 96 votes during confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Dunno - the Rethugs in the Senate are likely to go apeshit at her nomination. n/t
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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