Bill Clinton is eligible, right?

 

He's a former lawyer.

Yes.

 

Bork. Even Thomas wasn't that contensious (sp.) even with the Anita Hill bulls*** compared to Bork, and from there it's been totally obnoxious.

I liked Bork because he reminded me of what the Swedish Chef used to say.

 

 

 

"Bork, Bork, Bork!"

Bill Clinton is eligible, right?

 

He's a former lawyer.

The president can nominate whoever he wants, Clinton is probably too old though. I think the president can even nominate himself if he wanted to.

Clinton's what - 63/64?

 

He's not that old yet.

Clinton's what - 63/64?

 

He's not that old yet.

For a Supreme Court nominee he is. You want them to serve for as long as possible, so you don't want to nominate anyone older than about 55.

Oh, something I remember about Sotomayor's confirmation process - the idea that there is a single "most qualified" person out there is f***ing ludicrous. There are probably literally dozens, maybe hundreds of people that are qualified enough to be nominated, even if there's usually about 5 people that seem to get looked at.

Oh, something I remember about Sotomayor's confirmation process - the idea that there is a single "most qualified" person out there is f***ing ludicrous. There are probably literally dozens, maybe hundreds of people that are qualified enough to be nominated, even if there's usually about 5 people that seem to get looked at.

Well, once you assume that anyone who isn't a white male can't be the most qualified person, it narrows the field a fair amount.

Well, once you assume that anyone who isn't a white male can't be the most qualified person, it narrows the field a fair amount.

That too, that any time a non-white male is picked was just because they were a woman, or they were a minority, that is really obnoxious - this is one of the few things I'll actually agree with Clarence Thomas on. Of course some people did that to Sotomayor, and I was like did they even bother to look at her education and career before hollering about how she wasn't qualified? I doubt it, I bet the only thing they knew about her was the "wise Latina" quote and the ruling she made in the New Haven case (except they won't know why she made that ruling, i.e. she's not really in a position to overturn it, that's not what courts are for).

He's right though, being a good mayor doesn't really mean anything, legal qualifications do, but that doesn't.

 

does being a governor of a big state like california count?

does being a governor of a big state like california count?

Depends, what exactly are we talking about? For the Supreme Court, by itself, no it doesn't

That too, that any time a non-white male is picked was just because they were a woman, or they were a minority, that is really obnoxious - this is one of the few things I'll actually agree with Clarence Thomas on. Of course some people did that to Sotomayor, and I was like did they even bother to look at her education and career before hollering about how she wasn't qualified? I doubt it, I bet the only thing they knew about her was the "wise Latina" quote and the ruling she made in the New Haven case (except they won't know why she made that ruling, i.e. she's not really in a position to overturn it, that's not what courts are for).

 

she got the supreme court nod based in large part because of demographics and has clearly stated that she believes courts should not only interpret law but "The court is where policy is made " in her opinion. Most people don't follow things correctly or understand why that is dangerous. I will give her credit for coming out and admitting it, as most of the 'supremes' likely feel that way but would never say so.

Edited April 12, 201016 yr by mr_genius

she got the supreme court nod based entirely on demographics and actually has clearly stated that she believes courts should not only interpret law but "The court is where policy is made. " in her opinion. Most people don't follow things correctly or understand why that is dangerous. I will give her credit for coming out and admitting it, as most of the 'supremes' likely feel that way but would never say so.

Did you see her entire statement of that or are you just zeroing on that parsed-out piece of a quote? (Rhetorical, I already know the answer.) She was talking about how decisions that courts make set precedent. Anyone who says this isn't true is either ignorant or is just lying.

 

Also, whether she was selected based on demographics or whether she wasn't is almost entirely irrelevant, because like I said, there is no "one" "most qualified person"... there are so many that fit this description that the president can pretty much do that if he wants to.

other unconventional possibilities:

elizabeth warren

ken salazar

other unconventional possibilities:

elizabeth warren

ken salazar

 

Elizabeth Warren and Justice Roberts would get along great.

salazar is too valuable right now.

 

I continue to see no reason why someone with a law background and government experience with laws cannot be tapped.

Justice Spitzer.

Word.

Did you see her entire statement of that or are you just zeroing on that parsed-out piece of a quote? (Rhetorical, I already know the answer.) She was talking about how decisions that courts make set precedent. Anyone who says this isn't true is either ignorant or is just lying.

 

Also, whether she was selected based on demographics or whether she wasn't is almost entirely irrelevant, because like I said, there is no "one" "most qualified person"... there are so many that fit this description that the president can pretty much do that if he wants to.

 

Wow, lf. Kool-aid? She knew damn well what she was saying, and exactly what it meant. And I'm not ignorant, or lying.

I know she knows what she was saying. We had this argument before last year and went in circles, and fwiw I didn't read any op-eds or any blogger's opinion on Sotomayor, I don't know how liberal she is compared to Souter or whatever the hell people were talking about. If I recall, your argument basically comes down to there is only one way to interpret any way legal ruling, and that's "the Constitution" as if it was that cut and dry, and I was saying every judge sees themselves as doing that. Except for whatever reason conservatives think only "conservative" judges actually understand the Constitution - the truth is, everybody is ok playing loose with the Constitution to get to a ruling they like and manages to drum up a bunch of self-righteous indignation when someone else does the same thing.

 

And actually, I can see how the Citizens United decision was the "correct" decision but conservatives don't really care about legal precedent or principle any more than liberals do so it's all a moot point.

 

Oh, and yes or no question here: when a federal appellate judge makes a ruling on something for the first time, does it or does it not set a precedent? If Sotomayor believed she could make up her own new policy, and thought the New Haven ruling she made was wrong, she could've overturned the law, but since she was following another precedent, she didn't... she would've been an "activist"

Edited April 15, 201016 yr by lostfan

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

f*** it. Not tonight...the brain ain't in the right place.