GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics

» GC Stats
Members: 329,737
Threads: 115,667
Posts: 2,205,067
Welcome to our newest member, juliafrances374
» Online Users: 1,622
1 members and 1,621 guests
No Members online
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old 06-06-2008, 04:20 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid View Post
I posted this in another thread, I believe, but I don't think there's any way Clinton gets on the Court. Excuse me if this gets a bit longwinded, but I'm a bit of a Supreme Court nerd.

It's true there have been cases of SCOTUS justices being named with no judicial experience, but that hasn't happened in quite a long time; the last ones were Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist, I believe, when they were appointed in the early 70s. The trend seems to be towards judges with some federal judicial experience, or some combination of judicial experience and SC advocacy (like in the case of Roberts). A high-profile academic position would probably suffice in place of judicial experience. However, Hilary lacks that and has never argued before the Court,

I realize this list is from 2007, but the SCOTUS blog had an interesting post about potential nominees under a Democrat's administration:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dem...so-short-list/

The list is a bit outdated in a few ways; for example, I doubt Patrick would get support even though he's close to Obama, especially after the allegations of ethical violations in his time as Governor. However, I think that Dean Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland, or even someone like Cass Sunstein are much more likely to be successful candidates than Clinton.

Plus, I could completely see her confirmation hearings as being a revenge for the Bork debacle.

The argument by the first author on Clinton's potential impact on the Court is overstated and a bit misinformed, to say the least. The next two Justices to retire would be some combination of Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. If Stevens or Ginsburg were to leave, the Court would lose its two most liberal members, and it's not like Souter is the poster child of the conservative branch. I don't see how she could help a "Court that has veered dangerously to the right," in the words of the first link. The only way she could have that type of impact would be if she were to replace Scalia or Thomas, and I don't see either of them leaving in the near future.

I understand the political reasons behind offering her a position; however, there are a lot of more qualified potential nominees out there for Obama if he wins.
This makes perfect sense, but wouldn't she have a few years to acquire high-level academic experience (or even take up a doorstep advocacy position) to complete the historical circuit, as it were?
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hillary Clinton will soon become an Honorary AKA hoosier Greek Life 5 06-06-2008 02:02 PM
Hillary Clinton Website Down? Senusret I News & Politics 8 05-10-2008 01:18 AM
Supreme Court Justice Retires spring04_swing Swing Phi Swing 0 07-01-2005 11:48 AM
Alpha Kappa Alpha to Be Chief Justice of Georgia Supreme Court exlurker Greek Life 12 03-15-2005 05:15 AM
Hillary Clinton cartoon IowaStatePhiPsi Cool Sites 4 03-07-2005 06:34 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.