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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

onenote

(46,192 posts)

14. Nominate someone the barely paying attention public will see as qualified to be a SCOTUS justice

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:57 PM

Feb 2016

which pretty much means nominate a sitting judge that the repubs have previously confirmed for his/her position.

Naming someone out of the mainstream of recent appointments -- that is, naming someone who isn't a lawyer and/or a current or past member of the judiciary at some level -- would only allow the discussion to veer off onto whether the repubs opposition (and yes they would oppose Collins in sufficient numbers to keep her from being confirmed) was based on something other than their own partisan opposition to having Obama select anyone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How about this...nominate Susan Collins for the SC? [View all] Ken Burch Feb 2016 OP

Not a lawyer. And do we need another Catholic? nt msanthrope Feb 2016 #1

technically, you don't have to be a lawyer to serve on the SC Ken Burch Feb 2016 #2

I am well aware that you do not need to be a lawyer. But there's nothing about msanthrope Feb 2016 #4

Nominating a non-lawyer would give them a valid excuse for ignoring her muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #18

She's Republican. Why should Obama nominate a Republican? closeupready Feb 2016 #3

more that she was moderate and pro-choice(at least I think she is) Ken Burch Feb 2016 #8

Heh...In Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. Xolodno Feb 2016 #15

She is already 63, a bit old for a new SC member. madaboutharry Feb 2016 #5

How about if he just nominates a f*#@&^g liberal for chrissakes? tularetom Feb 2016 #6

I'd prefer that, too. Ken Burch Feb 2016 #7

They've said they wont move on any nominee, so I say we try to win the senate and then during the Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #9

In her 60's, Catholic, not an attorney or legal scholar, Republican, conservative, bigoted. Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #10

No joeybee12 Feb 2016 #11

cause of her initials? 6chars Feb 2016 #12

I agree with post #6 ... Nominate a liberal... Whiskeytide Feb 2016 #13

Nominate someone the barely paying attention public will see as qualified to be a SCOTUS justice onenote Feb 2016 #14

Wow - how weird leftynyc Feb 2016 #16

You want Paul LePew to pick her Senate replacement? meow2u3 Feb 2016 #17