White House Said to Be Vetting Appeals Court Judge for Supreme Court Seat
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
I can't say I do, but I have talked to those who know her and they don't get a sense of her leanings either. They DO say she is fantastic to work with and she is one the brightest legal minds they've encountered.
He tries to be a caricature of folksy Midwest farmer when the actual equipment they use are hundreds of thousands of dollars and 10x as large.
She definitely leans left but her background as a prosecutor makes her opinions different than most of the left side of the court.
I hadn't heard the Judge Colloton rumors. I always thought that Paul Clement and Judge Kavanaugh would be at the top of a GOP wish list.
My sister (who leans a little right of center politically) worked with her in the Federal Public Defender office and has nothing but wonderful things to say about her. Another little tidbit: her husband wrote a book about Nile Kinnick that is a pretty good read.
Wouldn't this actually slow him down? A riding mower can cut grass at higher speeds than a push mower. I would think the decrease in mowing speed and turning speed would offset the wider cutting pattern. I wonder what the difference in mpg is?
Mostly rumors as you say, but he meets certain criteria- mostly that he is non-controversial. I think the biggest drawback with Steve in the eyes of Dems is that he served as a special asst. to Ken Starr on Whitewater. He was confirmed to his post by a 94-1 vote.
Doesn't matter. Anyone whose vote would be influenced by seeing this on a campaign commercial is too dumb to ask questions about science and geometry and stuff.
This is a non-issue. Jane Kelly may be an acceptable appellate court judge, but she does not meet the standard for Supreme Court Justice. She will not be approved, and it will not hurt the GOP at all.
That settles it, vote down a Kinnick family and it will be time to burn the grass.
The Senate's standard which is the only one that matters under the constitution. Her experience and background are too limited for the high court.
What would be "the standard" here hawk? I'm really curious. Is there a list of standards somewhere?
Kelly is a solid lefty but Grassely put her on the circuit court anyway probably because of her Judge Hanson connection and also because the 8th Cir. is so far right that Kelly's presence could not change the court's lean.
Since Grassley already did J. Hanson a favor, why would the senator feel pressured to double down with Kelly. Especially, when the pick would throw the Supreme Court from conservative to far left.
Grassley should be insulted that Obama thinks he's dumb enough to go for this.
Since Grassley already did J. Hanson a favor, why would the senator feel pressured to double down with Kelly. Especially, when the pick would throw the Supreme Court from conservative to far left.
Grassley should be insulted that Obama thinks he's dumb enough to go for this.
BS. What part of her experience and background are "too limited"? Frankly, her background and experience is broader than most who sit there now. Not one was ever a defense attorney, let alone a public defender. She was a standout at Harvard, a distinguished and highly respected attorney, a professor of law at two Big Ten universities, a unanimous selection to her current position by the Senate, and the victim of a violent crime on top of all that.
The standard is whatever the particular Senate that votes on her decides it is. They have complete discretion to approve or not. They have made it abundantly clear that she does not meet their standard, and under the constitution, they do not have to approve her.
The left has an incredibly short memory.
She was a public defender. That is very limited experience. Besides, it doesn't matter. The Senate will not confirm her. That is beyond dispute.
So the long-standing "she has to be nominated by a Republican president standard". Got it.
But they do not tell anyone what "the standard" is, correct? So there is NO criteria except that criteria the Senate believes is important. Now I understand why the past couple of Congresses have been so productive.
The Senate has really backed themselves into a corner here, haven't they?
This will come to bite these folks in the arse come November. Grassley won't lose but he may have to run an ad ot two for re-election. The Dems will be playing this up for a possible take-over of the majority in that house. Remember how effective Truman's demonizing of the "do nothing Congress" (the 80th) helped him back in '48........
Grassley stopping some of the more moderate suggestions by Obama is gonna end up being a huge kick to the stones when Hillary is nominating judges.
Sorry R's, Hillary is our next president most likely. I hate it too, but call it without blinders on. R's are going to get smacked around again.
Sorry R's, Hillary is our next president most likely. I hate it too, but call it without blinders on. R's are going to get smacked around again.
So, given all the sincere concern expressed by the left here...please tell us what "standard" applies to the nomination?
Under the constitution, it is perfectly acceptable for the Senate to reject any appointee that does not have the judicial philosophy that they think is appropriate. At this time, the voters of the country have elected a majority Republican Senate. Accordingly, that Senate may properly reject a liberal nominee.
Under the constitution, it is perfectly acceptable for the Senate to reject any appointee that does not have the judicial philosophy that they think is appropriate. At this time, the voters of the country have elected a majority Republican Senate. Accordingly, that Senate may properly reject a liberal nominee.
That's what I don't get with the Republicans' knee jerk obstructionism on the nomination. If they stonewall the appointments through the end of Obama's term it will just mean that Hillary will be making the nominations instead, and they may well have lost the Senate in the meantime too!
You're right. They do have the absolute constitutional right to reject a nominee. They have no constitutional authority to refuse every single hearing.
Yes, the standard is what the particular Senate that is voting on a nominee says it is. That is because the constitution gives the Senate total discretion to accept or reject a nominee.
Now, of course if President Obama thinks it is so critical to have this seat filled, he is free to go to the Senate and obtain from the GOP majority a list of acceptable candidates that the Senate will approve, and nominate one of those folks. Right?
To quote Hillary: "What difference does it make"? And actually, they do have the constitutional authority not to hold hearings.
That is a possibility. But if that happens, what have they lost? The alternative is to confirm an unsuitable liberal appointee now, or take a chance that they might get stuck with an unsuitable liberal appointee later. I think they are correct to take their chances with later.
The Constitution requires the President to get the advice and consent of Senate to approve of a judge. It follows then that the Senate is required to give advice at the very least. There can be no advice given if the Senate refuses to convene on such a matter.
I know it won't change your mind, but there ya go.
