2016 Postmortem

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who would you want to pick Supreme Court nominees for the next 8 years? [View all] 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