Nightmare in Washington

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Bush did it the Democrats would claim she was unqualified for the job, racist, and corrupt.
 
Actually, I don't see how she could be much worse than what we have now. It would also have the added benefit of removing her for possible POTUS nomination come 2008.
 
I don't think Hillary has any desire to be on the Court, and she isn't qualified anyway (she was not a judge or even a Constitutional scholar, just a regular everyday lawyer). Bill is the one who wants the Court, and he was a law school professor and Constitutional scholar so if either Clinton ever gets it that will be him (scary isn't it).

As for what would happen if Bush would nominate either (which of course would never happen) I've discussed this with some friends lately. Politics have become so polarized these past years that had Clinton nominated Orrin Hatch the Republicans would have attacked Hatch and gone crazy just because Clinton nominated him (they would be very suspicious of the motives) and the same would happen with the Democrats if Bush would nominated Hillary (the example I used with my friend was Ted Kennedy).
 
I'd buy massive supplies of nitrous oxide and immediately design myself a breathing apparatus so I could keep laughing for her term on the court.

Hey - the way Bush1 and Bubba are buddying up, Bill might get the nod.
Janet Reno is the one I worry about, "ole shakey" could end up there someday.
 
Please don't recommend that I be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...

That would be a waste of tar and feathers. You need to have your eyelids stapled, and made to watch each and ever speech by Hillary, that she has ever made, for 7 days straight. :evil:
 
I don't think Hillary has any desire to be on the Court, and she isn't qualified anyway (she was not a judge or even a Constitutional scholar, just a regular everyday lawyer).
Click to expand...
There are no qualifications required to sit on the SCOTUS. In fact, it was the 20th century (FDR administration IIRC) before all nine sitting justices were lawyers. We survived for ~150 years without requiring the justices to be lawyers (much less legal scholars). In any event, I don't think that the bad decisions of the first ~150 years were due to non-lawyers sitting on the court.

The "qualifications" actually are a product of the 20th-century ascendancy of lawyers as members of a sort of secular priest cast. Although the analogy can be taken to absurdity, the increasingly Byzantine complexity of our laws has rendered lawyers into intermediaries to information and power not directly available to mere citizens.

Yes, the qualifications are a practical need for getting a nominee past Congress, but they are nonetheless nothing but unofficial and de facto qualifications.

If I were president ( :rolleyes: ), I think I'd nominate a non-lawyer just to make a point.
 
There are no qualifications required to sit on the SCOTUS. In fact, it was the 20th century (FDR administration IIRC) before all nine sitting justices were lawyers. We survived for ~150 years without requiring the justices to be lawyers (much less legal scholars).
Click to expand...

Of course there are no official qualifications and technically you and I could be nominated. However, of late you have no chance of even being considered unless you are an acknowleged Constitutional scholar (whatever your ideology- even the Repubs would fight a right-wing regular lawyer, let alone non-lawyer, and the Dems would fight a left winger of the same, the nominees must be seen as experts in the area the Supreme Court works in).
 
Qualification

There are no qualifications required to sit on the SCOTUS. In fact, it was the 20th century (FDR administration IIRC) before all nine sitting justices were lawyers. We survived for ~150 years without requiring the justices to be lawyers (much less legal scholars).
Click to expand...

What I think you need to be on the SCOTUS is intelligence. :rolleyes: A rare commodity, these days, in Washington. :neener:
 
However, of late you have no chance of even being considered unless you are an acknowleged Constitutional scholar
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why I acknowledged it is a practical, albeit unofficial and defacto, qualification. ;)

IMHO, that chain needs to be rattled a little, and if I were president ( :rolleyes: ), I'd nominate a non-lawyer just to make a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top