Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court?

Darla said:
I was going to make a big deal out of it, but I thought it would be more embarrassing for you if I underplayed it. I did snicker as soon as I read it.
Click to expand...

Just a snicker?

and yes, quite embarassing. Helps to think before typing.

(edit: insert gag to the effect of "that hasn't stopped you before")
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO...

I think the better question is what WOULD qualify her to be on SCOTUS?

Lets see, she has shown (even to the kool-aid consuming Dems) that she is...

1) Obsessed with power
2) Will do anything and say anything to bring more power to herself
3) Is willing to betray her own party for potential personal gain

coupled with...

Zero experience as a judge (yes, I understand that is not a requirement, but when was the last time someone with ZERO experience as a judge was put on SCOTUS?)

She would get nixed in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
*ahem*

Can you say, "Unqualified?" I knew you could!
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, I'd doubt that myself. But I think she'd be soundly rejected by the Senate if not withdrawn for an appeals judge after a couple weeks.
Click to expand...
So you think that many Dems will vote no on her? I don't. I think to get along you are going to have to go along and even the blue dogs in the senate will confirm her. There will be no filibuster, that option with justices and judges is off the table since the repubs first threatened the Nuclear option. 41 senators will NEVER again hold up a judicial nomination.
 
Socrtease said:
So you think that many Dems will vote no on her? I don't. I think to get along you are going to have to go along and even the blue dogs in the senate will confirm her. There will be no filibuster, that option with justices and judges is off the table since the repubs first threatened the Nuclear option. 41 senators will NEVER again hold up a judicial nomination.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Obama would even consider her, so to me this is moot. However, even if he did, I do not see her getting the approval of the Senate.

I also think you are incorrect on the filibuster.

That said, do you really think she is qualifed to be on Scotus? No experience as a judge, clearly highly partisan, clearly self-obsessed power craving individual. Chavez has as good a chance at getting appointed as Hillary.
 
There are too many true scholors in this coutnry that deserve the job for it to be handed out for political favors. Lets leave that scumbagery to the republican party

I just felt this needed to be repeted.
 
Last edited:
Being a judge first is not a requirement to be a supreme court justice. Clarence Thomas has never done a thing to distinguish himself, as a judge or otherwise. I can't see Hillary being any less qualified than he was when he stepped onto the Court. Does she have the legal chops of a Scalia or a Brennan, probably not, but damn few ever have.
 
Socrtease said:
Being a judge first is not a requirement to be a supreme court justice. Clarence Thomas has never done a thing to distinguish himself, as a judge or otherwise. I can't see Hillary being any less qualified than he was when he stepped onto the Court. Does she have the legal chops of a Scalia or a Brennan, probably not, but damn few ever have.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. There are techinically NO requirements to be appointed to SCOTUS. I addressed that earlier in the thread. THAT was not my question.
 
Yes she is qualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court in my opinion. She has represented businesses, I am certain that she knows how to read the law and understands basic constitutional principles, there is nothing in her past that would indicate she does not understand the law.
 
So you have no problem that her hyper-partisanship is only exceeded by her obsession with personal power?

Side note... yes, she is intelligent enough to understand the law, the question is, will she follow it or will she become the uber-activist judge that places her party and herself above it?
 
The problem with Hilliary as a Supreme Court Justice is she qualified?

Granted she has a JD from Yale, She's taught in law school and she has legislative and executive experience. But does she have the practical bench experience as a Jurist to be an affective associate justice on SCOTUS?

John Roberts and Aleo are conservative ideologues but no one questions their top notch qualifications as jurists.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes she is qualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court in my opinion. She has represented businesses, I am certain that she knows how to read the law and understands basic constitutional principles, there is nothing in her past that would indicate she does not understand the law.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like she's a legal neophyte. I'd say the fact that She has a Jurist Doctorate from one of the most prestigeous law schools in the world, passed the bar, Taught Law at the graduate level and managed a successful law practice and has crafted laws as a legislature and implemented the law as an executive in government is pretty solid proof she understands law. Probably just a weeee bit more than we do.

Most Supreme Court Justices have considerable bench experience. Hilliary has none.

Having said that, some of our best Supreme Court Justice did not have much bench experience.

My shirt tail relative William Howard Taft was a mediocre President but one of our best Justices on SCOTUS and he had little bench experience if any.
 
Socrtease said:
So you think that many Dems will vote no on her? I don't. I think to get along you are going to have to go along and even the blue dogs in the senate will confirm her. There will be no filibuster, that option with justices and judges is off the table since the repubs first threatened the Nuclear option. 41 senators will NEVER again hold up a judicial nomination.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think many would vote against her as they would have against Myers. I don't think she's qualified and I think you all know it.
 
Damocles said:
First, apples and oranges are both fruit and are easily comparable by flavor and texture. In this case I am comparing apples that were picked from the same tree. They might have different bruises but they are both apples.

I am comparing two people who are wholly unqualified to be on the SCOTUS regardless of who puts them forward. Hillary is very much unqualified, at least as much as Harriet Myers.
Click to expand...

Being unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court has never been an impediment before. I also consider Hillary to be unqualified, but that's not the point. Even in her unqualifiedness, she'd be better than some already on the court, and unlike Myers, she'd be confirmed.

That's the point.
 
Mottleydude said:
You make it sound like she's a legal neophyte. I'd say the fact that She has a Jurist Doctorate from one of the most prestigeous law schools in the world, passed the bar, Taught Law at the graduate level and managed a successful law practice and has crafted laws as a legislature and implemented the law as an executive in government is pretty solid proof she understands law. Probably just a weeee bit more than we do.

Most Supreme Court Justices have considerable bench experience. Hilliary has none.

Having said that, some of our best Supreme Court Justice did not have much bench experience.

My shirt tail relative William Howard Taft was a mediocre President but one of our best Justices on SCOTUS and he had little bench experience if any.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

She has some judicial and legislative experience that most on the court do not have.
 
Superfreak said:
So you have no problem that her hyper-partisanship is only exceeded by her obsession with personal power?

Side note... yes, she is intelligent enough to understand the law, the question is, will she follow it or will she become the uber-activist judge that places her party and herself above it?
Click to expand...

She will be an activist and she will constantly be angling to become Chief Justice.
 
blackascoal said:
Being unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court has never been an impediment before. I also consider Hillary to be unqualified, but that's not the point. Even in her unqualifiedness, she'd be better than some already on the court, and unlike Myers, she'd be confirmed.

That's the point.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that she would be confirmed. For the reasons previously applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top