Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
94 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who would you want to pick Supreme Court nominees for the next 8 years? (Original Post) FlatBaroque Jan 2016 OP
B. Bernie Sanders, the one who *doesn't* pal around with Kissinger.... peacebird Jan 2016 #1
Bernie, obviously HerbChestnut Jan 2016 #2
I want to rip all Democratic Party candidates to shreds so Ted Cruz can pick SCOTUS Hekate Jan 2016 #3
just curious... restorefreedom Jan 2016 #24
I want Clinton to pick SCantiGOP Jan 2016 #68
i am neither desperate nor trying to be cute restorefreedom Jan 2016 #72
I was actually responding SCantiGOP Jan 2016 #73
i was a deaniac, too restorefreedom Jan 2016 #75
I want to see Clinton nominate herself. Nt NCTraveler Jan 2016 #4
It would be consistent with her current demonstrations of understanding of the constitution. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #9
#hillyes nt NCTraveler Jan 2016 #22
What a strangely substance-free response. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #25
Ohhh. I was just saying I would like for Clinton to nominate herself. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #51
"That requires even more thinking of how to do it" tazkcmo Jan 2016 #41
All the best thinkers in the world (actual cryptographers) agree and wrote a paper explaining why... JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #43
Certainly not the truth. tazkcmo Jan 2016 #44
Wow. Talking all techie about encrypted apps and what not FlatBaroque Jan 2016 #60
Any of the Democrats that win the Democratic nomination. P.S. ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #5
Is that due in any part to a possible decline in the number of practicing 'country lawyers'? JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #45
Possibly. But I would say ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #50
Depends, really. I would trust both to make good choices. Problem is with the radical randys1 Jan 2016 #6
The House has nothing to do with it. cali Jan 2016 #10
Not in confirming SC justices, but they gerrymander the states, which gives elections to randys1 Jan 2016 #13
good explanation of the ripple effect restorefreedom Jan 2016 #26
I know, you know, cons hate the govt now solely because of the pigmentation of Barack's skin randys1 Jan 2016 #29
hmmm yeah the hatred towards pres o is particularly vile and tribal restorefreedom Jan 2016 #34
Cons have been hating the government for decades. senz Jan 2016 #39
Yes and no. Cons now hate the government in areas they never did before, like randys1 Jan 2016 #46
Are you referring to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl? senz Jan 2016 #54
I disagree entirely. If W and Cheney had arranged for his release their reaction would have randys1 Jan 2016 #61
I think you're conflating several rightwing hate objects. senz Jan 2016 #83
inevitably may be a bit strong onenote Jan 2016 #91
Bernie, of course. Punkingal Jan 2016 #7
There have been four justices named by Democrats in my life time dsc Jan 2016 #8
I pick the Democrat MiniMe Jan 2016 #11
Not a Republican. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #12
+1 MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #20
I'd prefer Bernie Sanders Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #14
Not a big fan of Breyer. Ginsburg has been good though. Vattel Jan 2016 #86
MARTIN O'MALLEY, elleng Jan 2016 #15
He actually might make a damned good nominee for the job. jwirr Jan 2016 #27
Yes he has, elleng Jan 2016 #28
Thank you. jwirr Jan 2016 #48
No, I don't mind, I should have included a choice for him. FlatBaroque Jan 2016 #58
Well Trump would be the best bet silly! TM99 Jan 2016 #16
B. The one who isn't cozy with Wall St. CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #17
Hillary is much better equipped to nominate judges and justices. MohRokTah Jan 2016 #18
Either of those would be fine with me uppityperson Jan 2016 #19
Either one. None of the Republicans emulatorloo Jan 2016 #21
There are some clear and concise replies in this thread. MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #37
Bernie, DWS is not qualified to run the DNC let alone set in jwirr Jan 2016 #23
she isn't qualified to run the dnc bake sale. nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #32
LOL jwirr Jan 2016 #63
No more Wall St. friendly justices on the Court! Bernie Sanders is the ONLY choice. senz Jan 2016 #30
c. trump restorefreedom Jan 2016 #31
How have Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer done? n/m ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #35
mostly pretty good restorefreedom Jan 2016 #56
Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton's selections? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #33
What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? bvf Jan 2016 #40
Bill = Hillary tazkcmo Jan 2016 #42
And for you, it's the same. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #55
Fun's that-away. bvf Jan 2016 #64
Whatever you say n/m ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #65
Don't go away. Seriously, what made you think bvf Jan 2016 #66
The subject was Supreme Court justices ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #69
I never once said Hillary Clinton bvf Jan 2016 #70
Why did you even reply to me in the first place? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #71
"This should be fun." bvf Jan 2016 #74
You're damn right I'm full of piss and vinegar ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2016 #84
You keep citing Bill Clinton's record bvf Jan 2016 #94
Sanders, obviously. bvf Jan 2016 #36
Either would make good choices. nt hack89 Jan 2016 #38
Your "PS" just shows that you're here to stir shit. MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #47
Actually, there are not qualifications to serve on the SC anigbrowl Jan 2016 #49
B. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #52
we have quite a few here who seem to have no problem with the GOP doing the pick(s) DrDan Jan 2016 #53
I see what you did there FlatBaroque Jan 2016 #59
Personally, ejbr Jan 2016 #57
B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B. or Autumn Jan 2016 #62
Sanders... CTyankee Jan 2016 #67
HRC underthematrix Jan 2016 #76
Either Renew Deal Jan 2016 #77
Either A or B or even MO'M Vogon_Glory Jan 2016 #78
Bernie. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #79
#ImWithHer Metric System Jan 2016 #80
There's an obvious candidate seamonkey58 Jan 2016 #81
It wouldn't be hard at all for the repubs to block his nomination onenote Jan 2016 #92
C. not a Republican wildeyed Jan 2016 #82
Warren. nt Laffy Kat Jan 2016 #85
Not Clinton. She supported unconstitutional warmaking in Libya Vattel Jan 2016 #87
A or B works for me (nt) bigwillq Jan 2016 #88
Like a Republican Senate is going to confirm any elected Democrat's court nominees. nt TeamPooka Jan 2016 #89
"Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz possess the necessary qualifications to serve on the SC?" Um.. NO !!! vkkv Jan 2016 #90
I doubt there would be much difference in their likely choices. onenote Jan 2016 #93

SCantiGOP

(13,826 posts)
68. I want Clinton to pick
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:12 PM
Jan 2016

But this is obviously not in any way a serious post. Schultz is not a candidate for the Supreme Court. Guess you wanted to be cute but this just shows the increasing desperation of the Sanders faction here as they realize the nomination will be settled in about 3-4 weeks.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
72. i am neither desperate nor trying to be cute
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:59 PM
Jan 2016

its one of the fond memories i have of dean. i was basically ignoring the comment about dws since she is not qualified to do much imo.

i do agree with you that the nom will he settled sooner, although 4 weeks is a bit short. once bernie wins iowa and nh and the inevitability bubble bursts, he will have major momentum. i do think it will take a bit longer than a month, however

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
75. i was a deaniac, too
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 09:10 PM
Jan 2016

and i felt he was given quite a bad rap by the m$m that kept making an issue of that rally and that moment to the point where it was all anyone would talk about

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
9. It would be consistent with her current demonstrations of understanding of the constitution.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:01 PM
Jan 2016

vimeo.com/148092658

'Nuff said.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
51. Ohhh. I was just saying I would like for Clinton to nominate herself.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:56 PM
Jan 2016

You raised a constitutional concern. I was kidding in the first place and didn't care past that.

tazkcmo

(7,263 posts)
41. "That requires even more thinking of how to do it"
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:35 PM
Jan 2016

Because shredding the Constitution may not be enough. Now back to work Proles!

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
43. All the best thinkers in the world (actual cryptographers) agree and wrote a paper explaining why...
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:38 PM
Jan 2016

what she (and the Republican Comey) wants is impossible.

Of course she chooses to ignore them. What other recourse does she have?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
5. Any of the Democrats that win the Democratic nomination. P.S. ...
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 05:59 PM
Jan 2016

While a Law Degree and having practiced law is not a requirement for the SCOTUS, there hasn't been a non-lawyer since Rehnquist and Warren.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
50. Possibly. But I would say ...
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:54 PM
Jan 2016

it's because the confirmation process is so Opinion driven. Without a traceable history of rulings, no one would be able to tell with the nominee applies the law or makes up stuff to justify a particular outcome.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
6. Depends, really. I would trust both to make good choices. Problem is with the radical
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 05:59 PM
Jan 2016

insurrectionists in the House and Senate, who could get confirmed?

We have a serious problem, folks.

As long as the minority party, by a wide margin they are the minority party, manages to win elections due to gerrymandering, our government may not be allowed to function.

Electing and REelecting the Black man has made them insane.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
13. Not in confirming SC justices, but they gerrymander the states, which gives elections to
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:03 PM
Jan 2016

cons in the house which leads inevitably to momentum that leads to cons in the Senate.

And if you want to for instance FIX something the supremes did which was terrible, like Voting Rights Act, you cant if the house is controlled by the assholes

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
26. good explanation of the ripple effect
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:20 PM
Jan 2016

local elections matter. we put so much emphasis on one office, but there are many important elections coming up


randys1

(16,286 posts)
29. I know, you know, cons hate the govt now solely because of the pigmentation of Barack's skin
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:22 PM
Jan 2016

but will that vicious, ridiculous, childish asinine hate hold over for either Hillary or Bernie?


I think they would hate Bernie less, because he looks like them.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
34. hmmm yeah the hatred towards pres o is particularly vile and tribal
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jan 2016

they will still hate, but it will be on policies, like the dreaded socialist bogeyman, etc.

the birther bullshit will finally be put down where it belongs

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
39. Cons have been hating the government for decades.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:32 PM
Jan 2016

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

-- Ronald Reagan, 12 August 1986

randys1

(16,286 posts)
46. Yes and no. Cons now hate the government in areas they never did before, like
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jan 2016

not being behind getting back prisoners of war.

And I could list a few dozen other examples of the rights hypocrisy, hopefully I dont have to.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
54. Are you referring to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl?
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:09 PM
Jan 2016

Cons hate him the same way they hated "draft dodgers" back in the Sixties. Same psychology. They think President Obama is complicit and too loose with "terrorist" Muslim gitmo prisoners. They would have thought that of any Democratic president; they hate all "liberals;" they think we're insufficiently militaristic and therefore not macho, manly 'Mericans.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
61. I disagree entirely. If W and Cheney had arranged for his release their reaction would have
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:21 PM
Jan 2016

been different, maybe not entirely accepting but different.

The right HATES this country right now because a Black man leads it.

They cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics.

They opposed the First Lady for saying WATER IS GOOD

I could go on, but I wont.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
83. I think you're conflating several rightwing hate objects.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:18 PM
Jan 2016

They hate many things, but for our purposes, let's look at three of their favorite hatreds:

1) They hate government.

2) They hate liberals and Democrats.

3) They look down on people of color and hate AAs who achieve success and/or power (and of course the Obama family are the epitome of AA success and power in this country).

All of the above hate objects are interrelated in the rightwing pantheon of hatred and most of them have been inculcated and kept alive through rightwing media propaganda (talk radio, Fox, etc.).

1) They hate government primarily because it regulates business, but their government hatred escalated in mid-20th century desegregation, civil rights, and busing legislation and then went on steroids in the 1990s with the rise of rightwing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, et. al.) and Bill Clinton. That is the time when the militia movement became prominent (while rightwing media told them the government was going to take away their property and especially their guns and then enslave them, etc.)

2) They've hated Democrats and liberals for many decades because they considered us socialists who were soft on communism. Add to that the youth counterculture of the 1960s/70s. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they lost a major hate object, communism, but then rightwing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) gave them Democrats and "libruls" as a substitute, so they went after us with a vengeance.

3) Their racial arrogance and cruelty precedes the founding of our nation but got really ugly with desegregation, civil rights marches and civil rights legislation -- all of which involved government and Democrats.

So it's a big ugly ball of wax. However, you have made two claims that I don't think are justified, namely,

I know, you know, cons hate the govt now solely because of the pigmentation of Barack's skin


The right HATES this country right now because a Black man leads it.


You are claiming that the right hates the government and the country solely because the president is Black. I just showed you that their hatred for government goes way back and has several causes.

However, I completely agree with you that many of them DO hate President Obama and the First Lady solely because of their race. And I agree that it is a deep, ugly, irrational hatred. I particularly hate the things they've said about Michelle Obama. And I will agree that the AA presidency makes them even more cynical about government and their suspicion that Obama is a secret Muslim makes them distrust him on all Muslim-related issues. It's hard to imagine how miserable they must be.

onenote

(42,057 posts)
91. inevitably may be a bit strong
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:13 AM
Jan 2016

Of the repubs first elected to the Senate since 2011, around half were members of the House of Representatives first (and one was the representative from Montana which only has one Congressional district)

dsc

(52,088 posts)
8. There have been four justices named by Democrats in my life time
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:00 PM
Jan 2016

(and one attempted) and all four were fantastic. The best of the four, Ginsburg, was named by Bill Clinton. I have zero problem with Hillary naming the next three or four justices.

Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
14. I'd prefer Bernie Sanders
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:03 PM
Jan 2016

...but Hillary Clinton would nominate good ones, too.

Her husband gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
27. He actually might make a damned good nominee for the job.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:20 PM
Jan 2016

Does he have the qualifications for the SCOTUS?

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
58. No, I don't mind, I should have included a choice for him.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:14 PM
Jan 2016

I do not click with O'M but from what he has said on the campaign trail I would probably be supportive of his SCOTUS choices. However, his law and order record in Baltimore is what disqualified him in my assessment.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
18. Hillary is much better equipped to nominate judges and justices.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jan 2016

She'll actually be able to get them confirmed. I doubt if Sanders would ever have a nominee survive confirmation.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
31. c. trump
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:23 PM
Jan 2016






bernie and OM would pick the best imo. clinton's picks would likely be better than republicans but too corporate friendly for my taste


restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
56. mostly pretty good
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jan 2016

but that doesn't mean because he appointed good ones that she will. i really worry about monsanto and big ag friendly judges coming from her. i also worry about trade issues and the dp

she will protect choice but that is the only thing i am confident of, honestly.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
33. Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton's selections?
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jan 2016

Why don't you compare and contrast who Bill selected to say, George W Bush?

This should be fun.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
40. What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything?
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:33 PM
Jan 2016

Unless you think he'd have anything more to say of influence about the issue? Or welfare "reform." Or LGBT rights. Or...

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
64. Fun's that-away.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:51 PM
Jan 2016

No, it's not the same, but you want "fun."

Did I mention Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

No. But again, fun's over there.

Sigh. They don't learn.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
66. Don't go away. Seriously, what made you think
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jan 2016

I had a problem with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

You implied that I did, and I'd appreciate an explanation for the insulting, transparent, and deliberate misdirection.

Fun, huh?

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
69. The subject was Supreme Court justices
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:14 PM
Jan 2016

Clearly, if you think Hillary is going to make some poor SCOTUS choices, you must have some reason for thinking that. Maybe Bill Clinton's weren't good enough for you? It's a quite logical thought process.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
70. I never once said Hillary Clinton
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:25 PM
Jan 2016

would make poor choices wrt the SCOTUS, so quit with the childish insinuations, will you?

I'd trust Sanders to make far better ones.

And again: WTHF does Bill Clinton have to do with anything?

Go ahead: argue for his potential WH influence. To whatever extent you choose to do that, be prepared to defend his record on already cited issues, and to defend your apparent confusion regarding who's actually running for office this year.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
71. Why did you even reply to me in the first place?
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:29 PM
Jan 2016

Sheesh. I didn't ask you. My post wasn't a reply to you. I didn't project any anti-Clinton sentiment on you. Only you have done that by replying to me in such a defensive fashion. If you think my point is dumb, fucking ignore me.

Have a good night.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
84. You're damn right I'm full of piss and vinegar
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:24 PM
Jan 2016

Clinton's nominees were fantastic and not just because Bush's stunk the joint out and destroyed our nation like the flotsam Rubio, tRump, Cruz, et al would propose.

Both Bernie and Hillary's choices I'm sure would be fantastic. I don't see this as a strong point of difference between the two of them.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
94. You keep citing Bill Clinton's record
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:22 AM
Jan 2016

on SCOTUS, as if he were the candidate, then you object to being questioned about it by asking "what do you have against Ruth Bader Ginsburg?"

Thats a ridiculous response.

If you only expect replies from the user you're addressing, then feel free not to respond to anyone else. No one twisted your arm here.




 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
36. Sanders, obviously.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:28 PM
Jan 2016

Give me a candidate whose criteria will be more discriminating in favor of individual rights.

Does Clinton still advocate limitations on an open internet, btw?

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
49. Actually, there are not qualifications to serve on the SC
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:50 PM
Jan 2016

You don't even have to be an American citizen, or a lawyer, or old enough to vote. Of course, good luck convincing the Senate to ratify your appointment in any of those cases, but the Constitution gives the President a free hand in this regard.

I would lean towards Hillary for SC picks since she's an attorney and thus better able to evaluate the quality of legal analysis from potential candidates. If elected, I would not be surprised to see her nominate on from among Erwin Chereminsky, Goodwin Liu, Lawrence Tribe or Cass Sunstein...but I don't keep up with who the viable candidates are. I'd be glad if we got a 4th or even 5th female justice.

ejbr

(5,850 posts)
57. Personally,
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:13 PM
Jan 2016

I would not have any concerns about any of the choices either would choose. Wow! Thanks for the question! I didn't think there was anything that I could not hand wring over.

Autumn

(44,589 posts)
62. B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B. or
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:28 PM
Jan 2016

B.B.B.B.B.B. IMHO Debbie Wasserman Schultz does not possess the necessary qualifications to serve as dog catcher.

seamonkey58

(19 posts)
81. There's an obvious candidate
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 09:21 PM
Jan 2016

If he wants it, Barack Obama is an obviously great candidate for the Supreme Court, assuming a dem is president. It would be very hard for republicans to block him, and he is very qualified, having taught constitutional law at Harvard, in addition to his knowledge of how the government works. And he's young enough to have a long tenure.

onenote

(42,057 posts)
92. It wouldn't be hard at all for the repubs to block his nomination
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:28 AM
Jan 2016

And given that the overwhelming majority of recent SCOTUS Justices have some judicial and/or Supreme Court litigation experience, he's not really "very" qualified.

He wouldn't want it. And no repub Senator that wants to get re-elected would vote to confirm him, so it's not going to happen. Ever.

Finally, one other note: Obama graduated from Harvard Law. He taught at the Univ. of Chicago Law School (a pretty fine school itself).

wildeyed

(11,240 posts)
82. C. not a Republican
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 09:43 PM
Jan 2016

But if I have to choose, both Dems would make a good pick, so it's more about getting the nominee confirmed. Who do I think has more experience in hand-to-hand political combat? Hillary Clinton, of course. So she is the obvious choice.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
87. Not Clinton. She supported unconstitutional warmaking in Libya
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:50 PM
Jan 2016

and unconstitutional NSA data collection, and illegal spying on allies, to mention a few ways in which she cannot be trusted to respect individual liberties and Congress's war powers.

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
90. "Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz possess the necessary qualifications to serve on the SC?" Um.. NO !!!
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:53 AM
Jan 2016

Why did you have to ruin a perfectly decent question with that?

onenote

(42,057 posts)
93. I doubt there would be much difference in their likely choices.
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jan 2016

They'd both be motivated in large part by a desire to find someone who has a shot at getting confirmed, which means overcoming either a repub majority in the Senate or a repub filibuster if the Democrats recapture the Senate.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Who would you want to pic...