Thread: New Supreme Court Nominee

Originally Posted by Mr. White

Her lack of time as a judge and out of academia could be issues.

That would be my only real concern, being on the highest court and all, a little experience would be nice.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

I'm willing to bet that she is a closet communist, who worked with Saul Alinsky, wants to take guns and bibles away from us, and force us to eat tofu/sprouts while having abortions...

He reads minds... lol hawg you have outdone yourself... roflmao, really have no idea what she believes, in past, nominees are not always as like minded as the president that appoints them. The above is my main concern. Looks good politically, female nomination should win him some favor.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

I'm willing to bet that she is a closet communist, who worked with Saul Alinsky, wants to take guns and bibles away from us, and force us to eat tofu/sprouts while having abortions...

Too good.


hahahahahha

You actually had me laughing out loud.

She looks like she plays softball.

And her C.V. makes her more qualified to be President than a Supreme Court Justice.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Mr. White

Her lack of time as a judge and out of academia could be issues.

Her experience in academia is pretty good, if you ask me.(Tenured law professor at University of Chicago, Dean of Harvard Law School).

Her experience in the courts, as a clerk for Judge Abner Mikva as well as Justice Thurgood Marshall cannot be dismissed. Nor should her experience as Solicitor General, who basically argues in front of the Supreme Court. Not too shabby.

Now regarding her absence of bench experience, (R)'s are going to have a tough time arguing that she ought not be appointed/approved because of lack of bench experience, when it was their congress that refused to give her initial appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even a hearing.

There were other Justices that had no prior judicial experience, she wont be the first, and it isn't a radical idea.

I doubt it will be more than posturing by the Republicans against her, since she has enough credentials to make her a nominee. It will be an interesting hearing though when they question her.

R's won't have a tough time arguing since they did what R's do and she can't really say much without looking like a whiner. If I didn't hire you for a job, yet you apply later for a different position, you can't really say "well I would have had X experience too had you hired me" without looking rather childish.

I think her Solicitor General experience will go over more than the Harvard Dean work anyway as it is more relevant to the actual seat. That whole "those who can do, those who can't teach" as a well known phrase goes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8673839.stm