Just thought of the perfect Supreme Court nominee: How about Anita Hill? n/t

[TygrBright]

[roody]

1. President Biden could redeem

himself by nominating her.

[oasis]

2. Ginni Thomas is still waiting for Anita's apology. So no.

[Ocelot II]

3. Oh, ffs, didn't this idea get beaten to death in multiple threads a couple of days ago?

Anita Hill is 65. She's never been a judge. The only reason for nominating her would be to piss off Clarence Thomas, which is a really dumb reason for selecting a Supreme Court justice. Biden has a short list of far more qualified currently-sitting federal judges already under consideration.

Just, no.

[MyOwnPeace]

4. You are correct, but......

wouldn't it be fun to see Anita Hill order a round of Cokes for all on the first day of hearings - and offer a toast to her honored colleagues, especially Clarence?

[Ocelot II]

5. No. It would be stupid and demeaning to the Court, which already is suffering

from a serious loss in dignity and respect.

[MyOwnPeace]

6. They've already been 'demeaned' with the past 3 appointments.......

along with the way that they were placed in the chamber of 'dignity and respect.'

[Ocelot II]

8. So let's not make it worse with childish stunts?

Not that it would ever happen.

[Bettie]

18. I don't think Hill is being considered by anyone who has any influence

but, for some of us, it is fun to think of Clarence Thomas feeling uncomfortable...then again, he's probably not capable of shame.

The point is that virtually none of us have ANY influence over, well, anything.

[Hav]

13. I call that the trumpification of the Democratic party

It's a trademark of the magats to care more about triggering the political opponent than actual policies.

[Hortensis]

23. :) Hey, don't blame it on the Democratic Party. Such an insult,

and so unfair. It's not a Democratic or Republican thing, it's an individual thing.

I'm assuming some have just never considered that various levels way beyond normal exist of exceptional excellence, education, expertise, brilliant intellect,...

Reminds me of a colleague who, during chat in the office about college days, revealed she thought her beauty college certificate made her a college graduate. What's so amazing -- but relevant -- was that she was a smart woman in her 30s by then, well traveled with plenty of friends, and made a quite good living in a field that typically required a four-year degree for entry.

[treestar]

14. +1

Sounds like she is not qualified. And why would she want to be on the court with Thomas?

[MissMillie]

17. Yup, that's what I remember (n/t)

.

[obamanut2012]

21. All of this

As well as using a victim to "own" her abuser for their amusement.

[VarryOn]

7. She's 65. Way too old. Nt

[Ocelot II]

10. And way too unqualified..

[dchill]

9. I don't think she'd want that at all.

[DFW]

19. I agree

As opposed to Clarence Thomas, she would probably say, as he SHOULD have, "I'm honored, but I'm not qualified for the post, so I must request that my name be removed from consideration."

[Salviati]

11. Please stop.

Stop with all these stunt suggestions for the supreme court.

Not just you, but everyone suggesting her, or Merrick Garland, or Barack/Michelle Obama.

Just stop.

[PJMcK]

12. President Biden can do a lot better than Dr. Hill

First, she's not the most qualified candidate.

Second, she lacks judicial experience.

Third, her legal background is limited.

Shall I continue?

Your suggestion is intended for shock value. You want to piss off Thomas and the conservatives. Democrats can do better than this.

The President will nominate someone who will be up to the job. Republicans will get pissed off anyway and Thomas can go suck an egg.

[themaguffin]

15. No. No. No.

[Shrek]

16. She worked in the executive branch under Reagan

What makes you think her jurisprudence would be perfect?

[obamanut2012]

20. JFC just stop

I am so sick of these threads promoting this.

STOP

[Celerity]

22. Please stop. This is like the 10th OP (and dozens of replies in others) on this this bad idea.

Cheers