zztop11
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,573 
|
Post by zztop11 on Oct 25, 2016 3:18:25 GMT
So let's say Hillary wins. She's going to need to nominate someone for the Supreme Court. I'm thinking she'll nominate a democrat. Barak Obama is a lawyer. I've heard his name mentioned as a potential nominee. Wouldn't that be ironic. If the republicans had not blocked someone these past 7 or so months, it would not be him. I find this pretty interesting. What do you think?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Oct 25, 2016 3:27:07 GMT
I agree that it's interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Oct 25, 2016 3:41:02 GMT
I actually heard a suggestion that she might nominate Michelle. I find that far more interesting a possibility than nominating the President.
Regardless, John McCain has threatened that the Republicans will block all of her nominees: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
|
|
|
|
Post by dulcemama on Oct 25, 2016 3:41:14 GMT
I've heard this idea bounced around ever since the Republicans decided to not vote on Obama's nominee. I think it would be awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by cajeanne on Oct 25, 2016 4:07:39 GMT
I thought I read somewhere that they had both surrendered their licenses to practice law but can't remember the reason. Would that have any bearing on it? I had always thought SC Justices were picked from judges not just people who had a law degree. But I could be wrong.
|
|
Why
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,203
|
Post by Why on Oct 25, 2016 4:18:58 GMT
Regardless, John McCain has threatened that the Republicans will block all of her nominees: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." So that crap is going to go on for 4 or more years - AGAIN??  |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Oct 25, 2016 4:32:47 GMT
Regardless, John McCain has threatened that the Republicans will block all of her nominees: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." So that crap is going to go on for 4 or more years - AGAIN?? I sure as hell hope not. I thought I read somewhere that they had both surrendered their licenses to practice law but can't remember the reason. Would that have any bearing on it? I had always thought SC Justices were picked from judges not just people who had a law degree. But I could be wrong. I don't know whether they surrendered them, but I wonder whether they somehow inactivated them-- it would be hard to keep up with continuing education requirements. Although I would argue that your licensing agency should probably accept at least all of his presidenting duties as rough equivalents. LOL. There's actually no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice even be a lawyer, though. |
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Oct 25, 2016 4:39:46 GMT
I don't think he'd do it. He's got a Presidential Library to build, books to write, etc. He's too young to retire but he needs a break. The last 8 years have been stressful enough. Besides, I think the Mrs. wants some semblance of a private life back.
|
|
|
|
Post by cajeanne on Oct 25, 2016 4:41:36 GMT
I thought I read somewhere that they had both surrendered their licenses to practice law but can't remember the reason. Would that have any bearing on it? I had always thought SC Justices were picked from judges not just people who had a law degree. But I could be wrong. I don't know whether they surrendered them, but I wonder whether they somehow inactivated them-- it would be hard to keep up with continuing education requirements. Although I would argue that your licensing agency should probably accept at least all of his presidenting duties as rough equivalents. LOL. There's actually no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice even be a lawyer, though. Thank you for clearing that up. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:02:16 GMT
Re: Pres. Obama's license: Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009. Source: www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/From same site, re: Michelle: Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on May 12, 1989. Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily had her license placed on “inactive” status. So, technically, Obama is retired and has to pay no fees. Michelle is inactive and has to pay a smaller annual fee vs those who are active. Both could return to active status. For the President, it would be expensive as he would have to pay the annual fee for every year he was retired in order to be active again. Michelle wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Oct 25, 2016 11:02:26 GMT
It would be interesting for sure.
I would be surprised if he accepted the nomination though. Same goes for Michelle. I think they are ready for a nice long break from Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:50:32 GMT
Interesting, but not very likely. He'd never be approved -- she'd really have to nominate someone with at least the semblance of impartiality.
|
|
tracylynn
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by tracylynn on Oct 25, 2016 13:36:27 GMT
I thought I read that the GOP was now talking about pushing Garland through since he's moderate and it looks like Hillary will get a couple of nominees beyond that?
Either way, they can't not put nominations through for 4 years. They'd be signing their own death warrants if they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Oct 25, 2016 14:05:32 GMT
Regardless, John McCain has threatened that the Republicans will block all of her nominees: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." So that crap is going to go on for 4 or more years - AGAIN?? That is why many people, including myself, will be voting straight ticket for Democrats this time. I consider myself an Independent and usually vote based on the person and not the party. Not this year. I am tired of them sitting on their behinds, collecting a paycheck and doing nothing to earn it except obstruct. At least, if it is majority Democrat, things will get done. I think that President Obama or Michelle, either one, would be a good choice for SC. |
|
|
|
Post by M~ on Oct 25, 2016 14:18:03 GMT
So that crap is going to go on for 4 or more years - AGAIN?? That is why many people, including myself, will be voting straight ticket for Democrat this time. I consider myself an Independent and usually vote based on the person and not the party. Not this year. I am tired of sitting on their behinds, collect a paycheck and doing nothing to earn it except obstruct. At least, if it is majority Democrat, things will get done. I think that President Obama or Michelle, either one, would be a good choice. exactly. I actually toyed with the idea of voting for Republicans down ticket but I don't want to see the obstructionism of the past 8 years. I was pissed at McCain for saying this. So, I voted early (yesterday) and ended up voting straight ticket. |
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
|
Post by suzastampin on Oct 25, 2016 16:20:06 GMT
So that crap is going to go on for 4 or more years - AGAIN?? That is why many people, including myself, will be voting straight ticket for Democrats this time. I consider myself an Independent and usually vote based on the person and not the party. Not this year. I am tired of them sitting on their behinds, collecting a paycheck and doing nothing to earn it except obstruct. At least, if it is majority Democrat, things will get done. I think that President Obama or Michelle, either one, would be a good choice for SC. I said the same thing yesterday when I heard what McCain said. Also an independent, I will be voting straight Dem because of what he said. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 18:30:56 GMT
Interesting, but not very likely. He'd never be approved -- she'd really have to nominate someone with at least the semblance of impartiality. Good point. |
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by mimima on Oct 25, 2016 19:21:21 GMT
It would make my day but doubt that she will.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:41:13 GMT
Last night on Rachel Maddow she had a story about possibility of President Obama's life after The White House.
The story is that President Obama along with Eric Holder are forming an organization that's goal is to get Democrats elected in state races that ultimately would lead to enough elected Democrats to influence redistricting. Kind of followng the Republican road map of when they did it. Apparently President Obama has started because he has endorsed a number of Democrats running in local elections. Which isn't usually done according to Rachel.
This does makes sense because of the number of "safe" seats the Republicans have. It was telling in the general election when the Democrats running for Congress received more votes than the Republicans but didn't get the majority of the House.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 25, 2016 20:15:12 GMT
Who here thinks that if (when) Hillary wins, RBG will retire during her tenure so that HRC gets to choose a Supreme?
✋
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 20:18:44 GMT
Last night on Rachel Maddow she had a story about possibility of President Obama's life after The White House. The story is that President Obama along with Eric Holder are forming an organization that's goal is to get Democrats elected in state races that ultimately would lead to enough elected Democrats to influence redistricting. Kind of followng the Republican road map of when they did it. Apparently President Obama has started because he has endorsed a number of Democrats running in local elections. Which isn't usually done according to Rachel. This does makes sense because of the number of "safe" seats the Republicans have. It was telling in the general election when the Democrats running for Congress received more votes than the Republicans but didn't get the majority of the House. I saw the same show and think it's a brilliant effort for him to lead. They are just taking a play out of the playbook of Chris Jankowski, the former President of the Republican Leadership Committee. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Oct 25, 2016 20:21:00 GMT
Who here thinks that if (when) Hillary wins, RBG will retire during her tenure so that HRC gets to choose a Supreme? ✋ I think it is likely the RBG, Kennedy and Breyer will step down in the next 4 years. SaveSave |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 25, 2016 21:04:30 GMT
President Taft became a SC justice, as did many former-or-sitting senators and representatives.
Earl Warren was a governor.
And the vaunted Justice Scalia? He was a prosecutor (talk about your job informing your world view/partiality) who became a judge in his 50s. A scant four years later he became a justice.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 25, 2016 21:12:25 GMT
Interesting, but not very likely. He'd never be approved -- she'd really have to nominate someone with at least the semblance of impartiality. I doubt it would happen in this political climate, but I believe President Obama would be capable of judicial impartiality...as we've come to know it. The justices are asked to determine constitutionality. He's a former lawyer/constitutional law lecturer/legislator/federal executive. Who better? Most importantly, he went to the right law school.  It really has a lot more to do with legal philosophy and one's view of the Constitution, right? Whether it should be viewed as "original" or "living"? And (judicial) conservative and liberal don't always translate to (political) Conservate and Liberal. And it's not like the present court is a paragon of impartiality, especially after what's happened with obstuctionist Senate confirmation hearings. But I think the concept of judicial impartiality is too misunderstood for Mr. Obama to pass muster. |
|
|
|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Oct 25, 2016 21:30:21 GMT
Interesting, but not very likely. He'd never be approved -- she'd really have to nominate someone with at least the semblance of impartiality. He is Harvard educated and was Editor of the Harvard Law Review. I am pretty certain he understands the constitution better than most. I have full confidence in his abilities.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,610
|
Post by katybee on Oct 25, 2016 22:39:46 GMT
This meme was floating around Facebook a while back. Funny... but there's nomway she'd do it. She'll nominate a MODERATE... just like President Obama did. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 23:36:40 GMT
Interesting, but not very likely. He'd never be approved -- she'd really have to nominate someone with at least the semblance of impartiality. I doubt it would happen in this political climate, but I believe President Obama would be capable of judicial impartiality...as we've come to know it. The justices are asked to determine constitutionality. He's a former lawyer/constitutional law lecturer/legislator/federal executive. Who better? Most importantly, he went to the right law school. It really has a lot more to do with legal philosophy and one's view of the Constitution, right? Whether it should be viewed as "original" or "living"? And (judicial) conservative and liberal don't always translate to (political) Conservate and Liberal. And it's not like the present court is a paragon of impartiality, especially after what's happened with obstuctionist Senate confirmation hearings. But I think the concept of judicial impartiality is too misunderstood for Mr. Obama to pass muster. I agree with you. He's eminently qualified and judicially impartial. I was using impartial in the political sense of getting approval of his nomination, perhaps bipartisan would have a better choice of words. |
|
