General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnita Hill is exactly who we need right now at SCOTUS
I do believe that Ginni Thomas can not take the heat and embarrassment of an investigation into the January 6 treason. It could be enough for to make her husband step down if he sees his wife going through a heavy cross examination. A person that is uniquely qualified for SCOTUS is Anita Hill. Biden would be haviing a chance to make amends and the court would be rocketed into a new formation. Dr Hill is 56 years old and i think she has an 30 year term to look forward to.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anita-Hill
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Popcorn 51
(84 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2021, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)
She did go to a conservative law school (for a semester) but it was near her home. She commuted. Then she went to Yale.
btw - She more than likely does not consider herself to be qualified for the bench. otoh - She is more qualified that Clarence was.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)She is a conservative and always was.
Popcorn 51
(84 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Popcorn 51
(84 posts)You are making stuff up.
I am not.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)mopinko
(73,343 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)making unprovable claims.
mopinko
(73,343 posts)if someone w a post count like mine said it?
dont harass noobs. it makes du suck.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)mopinko
(73,343 posts)i doubt that, but...
buh-bye.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)femmedem
(8,539 posts)I love people who stand up to bullies.
Especially when it is someone else being bullied.
mopinko
(73,343 posts)and aint we all?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"There weren't even political parties in the 1700s!!!"
Whatever you say, indeed.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)76 years before there was a United States?
89 years before the constitution was enacted?
What were they?
Hekate
(100,132 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)What about in America?
Whiskeytide
(4,640 posts)... identified with British political parties - if they cared, that is.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)was just fake news to stir up the masses?
mopinko
(73,343 posts)dont mind the ppl who are asses to noobs. they're the minority.
OregonBlue
(8,174 posts)Popcorn 51
(84 posts)femmedem
(8,539 posts)I mean, she said that of course she would vote for Biden, that she opposes family separation of children at the border which, she reminded the interviewer, was a mainstay of slavery, and she was horrified when Kavanaugh was confirmed.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/anita-hill-2020-democratic-candidates-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
And I do believe you know her. Sorry you are getting some push back, but thank you for persevering.
Popcorn 51
(84 posts)being told about Anita. I am trying to figure out where it is coming from and the motivation. Seems two or three people on here are really pushing it. Not sure what to make of DU.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)Why do you think that?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)One of the reasons her testimony against Thomas was so compelling.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)for Thomas and came to loathe him. She wanted to work on civil rights issues and working for him gave her that opportunity.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)One of the reasons her testimony was compelling was because she was a conservative who shared his views (the reasons she wanted to work with him) and could not be accused of being a liberal shill.
Conservatives like to work on civil rights, too ...
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)then taught at an Evangelical university.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)That doesnt mean she worked FOR the Reagan administration.
Shes been at Brandeis for decades.
Her area of expertise is womens studios and sexual harassment.
She voted for Biden.
Is there anything she has written or said that proves she is a conservative?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)and when she left she taught at Oral Roberts University. And since Bill Kristol voted for Biden, that hardly proves shes not a conservative.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)articles and speeches to back that up.
Are there articles, speeches, or commentary from Hill that back up your claim?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)jobs back up my claim. Many conservatives voted for Biden, just because Hill did too doesnt prove shes not a conservative.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)She was born in 56 - she's not 56.
rsdsharp
(11,823 posts)She was certainly wronged in the Thomas hearing, but I cant see that shes qualified for the Court, uniquely or otherwise.
There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.Oct 8, 2013
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)No one claimed she's not constitutionally eligible to serve on the Court. We just pointed out that you have your facts wrong and your claim that she's "uniquely qualified" to serve on the Court is without basis - having been sexually harassed by the justice holding the seat you think she should be appointed to makes her unique, but it certainly doesn't make her "uniquely qualified."
rsdsharp
(11,823 posts)After practicing law for 33 years Id like to see a candidate for the Supreme Court who has at least tried a case as first chair. Id really like to see a candidate who has served a number of years as a trial and/or appellate judge or be considered a leading expert in at least one area of law preferably constitutional law, civil or criminal procedure, evidence, tax law, etc.
What is it that leads you to believe she is qualified to sit on the Court, other than the fact that shes still breathing?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)She's been a law professor in Oklahoma since the '80s. She might be a good teacher and knowledgable about her subject matter (contract law), but so are a whole lot of law professors all over the country (I know a few myself). Amy Coney Barrett had been a professor at Notre Dame - not an Ivy League school but more highly-regarded than Oral Roberts U. and the U of Oklahoma - but she had also been a federal judge (whether she deserved that appointment is another question, but at least she had the experience). And Elena Kagan was an academic too, but she was the Dean of Harvard Law School - a far cry from teaching contracts in Oklahoma, which is an entirely respectable career but not Supreme Court material.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)of appointing federal judges, but her qualifications are equally impressive, if not more.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)Also, she hasn't practiced law since the early '80s. She has solid academic creds but there are a lot of much more qualified people. There are far better reasons for choosing a Supreme Court justice than doing it to embarrass one of the other justices or his wife.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)csziggy
(34,189 posts)In 1991, the television sitcom Designing Women built its episode "The Strange Case of Clarence and Anita" around the hearings on the Clarence Thomas nomination.[61] The following year, in the episode "The Odyssey", the characters imagined what would happen if new president Bill Clinton nominated Anita Hill to the Supreme Court to sit next to Clarence Thomas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill#In_popular_culture
LongtimeAZDem
(4,516 posts)regnaD kciN
(27,505 posts)...if he knows that, by doing so, he'll be handing over his seat to someone who will be opposed to all he has done on the Court over the past decades. I'm not even sure that her being charged with conspiracy to commit sedition (which, in itself, might be a bit of a reach) would be enough to do it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)which she is not, do you seriously think she'd want to work with Clarence Thomas again?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Or maybe your link does. Either way, its the wrong age.
I always liked her, and I think she was treated horribly. I know nothing really about her qualifications for the SC, but Ive begun to think anyone can do anything nowadays...
Demsrule86
(71,499 posts)afterwards...have you ever heart her condemn any of the GOP involved...even Arlen Spector?
Popcorn 51
(84 posts)SharonClark
(10,497 posts)That will surprise them.
leftieNanner
(16,124 posts)But I think President Biden will nominate younger people to the SCOTUS.
I don't dismiss the value of the giant F*** You to Clarence and Ginny, though.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)an unqualified 22 year old radical left socialist activist who will be there for the next 70 years.
Just sayin'.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)and probably equivalent in that respect to a Supreme Court appointment.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)krawhitham
(5,060 posts)Demsrule86
(71,499 posts)young people on the bench.
Popcorn 51
(84 posts)Demsrule86
(71,499 posts)Hill then became an assistant professor at the Evangelical Christian O. W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University where she taught from 1983 to 1986.[8] In 1986, she joined the faculty at the University of Oklahoma College of Law where she taught commercial law and contracts.[9][10]
Popcorn 51
(84 posts)Neither is a conservative hot spot.
Demsrule86
(71,499 posts)I would not choose her...she has trashed Democrats for years and never said one word about Republicans like Arlen Specter...I would not put her on the court to embarrass Thomas...seriously bad reason.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)early in her career overrules the last 25 years of her life?
tman
(1,251 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)They are people who have been working quietly and competently behind the scenes; they are often known only to the people who work in the same field and who know they're the real deal. The fact that somebody is well-known and popular in some other capacity, or that they piss off a political adversary, are about the worst possible qualifications for any public office.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and the seats should go to the most famous or telegenic lawyer they've heard of.
Before their appointments, I doubt most people outside of legal circles could have named Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
These seats aren't rewards to be given to the person with the most "oomph" or who we think will "stick it to" people we oppose.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)Somebody with a law degree goes on tv and says stuff we agree with, preferably intensely partisan stuff, and all of a sudden it's "Ooh! Ooh! He/she should be on the Supreme Court!! He/she would really piss off the righties!" IIRC, the disgraced former lawyer Michael Avenatti was one of the names that was being briefly kicked around here as being Supreme Court material (he actually wanted to run for president, and some thought that was a good idea, too) - until he turned out to be a grifting ambulance chaser who's about to do a long and well-deserved prison term (something many of us figured out pretty fast but were slagged for pointing it out).
ecstatic
(35,013 posts)She lacks the experience but makes up for it in common sense. She might not be interested though.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,439 posts)SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)In It to Win It
(12,428 posts)Rice4VP
(1,235 posts)Tarc
(10,597 posts)She's a professor and author, not SC material.