ADVERTISEMENT

Who should Biden nominate with his four brand new SCOTUS picks?

Cornel West is another I wish Biden would consider. For those of us who think the Supreme Court should be about ensuring justice, a philosopher of justice hits the spot.
 
I want Garland and Obama in there. That would be worth the Republican meltdown. AOC should be pick #3. She would have at least 60 years to drive the cons nuts.

But who I really want is Hillary. I want her to have a vote to ream out the Republican insides for the rest of her life.

Are they gonna make a "Double-Chief Justice" too?

That outranks the regular Chief Justice?
 
Lol, I was hoping someone would trot out this argument and you didn't disappoint. You guys have really overplayed the "constitutional law professor" angle. He taught a class on voting rights as a part-time professor while serving in the Illinois State Senate twenty years ago.

He has limited experience as a trial lawyer. The crowning achievement of his legal career was 26 years ago when he successfully represented a client in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after the client had been improperly fired from his position as a securities trader.

He has never presided over a court case in any court at any level. Ever.

His license to practice law has been inactive since 2007. And you want to put him on the Supreme Court.

Look, I like Obama and I would take four more years of him as POTUS over either one of our current choices, but let's leave the Supreme Court positions for actual judges who have actual experience.
Damn. If only he had some experience in government law since then.
 
Are they gonna make a "Double-Chief Justice" too?

That outranks the regular Chief Justice?
Whomever is holding this gets to speak:

TijFrqalOe.jpg
 
Merrick Garland was badly treated. But he was a choice designed to be acceptable to the GOP.

This Court is arguably the most right wing, pro-corporate, anti-rights, anti-democracy Court in my lifetime. We don't need any more Justices selected to make Republicans happy.

We need to right this ship.
 
If he wins I hope he does expand the court and go full progressive libtard. I'd just as soon speed up America's demise as draw it out any longer than necessary.
 
If Dems want to destroy the party, then by all means attempt to expand the SC. Oh, and be prepared when the republicans regain power for them to expand the court, too.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.

Why are Dems the only party that hurts themselves when they are unethical?
 
Damn. If only he had some experience in government law since then.
I feel like you're just not grasping the fact that his license to practice law has been inactive for 13 years.

Name one Supreme Court justice in our history who was appointed after having their license to practice law inactivated for the prior 13 years and I will concede the point.
 
Lol, I was hoping someone would trot out this argument and you didn't disappoint. You guys have really overplayed the "constitutional law professor" angle. He taught a class on voting rights as a part-time professor while serving in the Illinois State Senate twenty years ago.

He has limited experience as a trial lawyer. The crowning achievement of his legal career was 26 years ago when he successfully represented a client in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after the client had been improperly fired from his position as a securities trader.

He has never presided over a court case in any court at any level. Ever.

His license to practice law has been inactive since 2007. And you want to put him on the Supreme Court.

Look, I like Obama and I would take four more years of him as POTUS over either one of our current choices, but let's leave the Supreme Court positions for actual judges who have actual experience.
There is no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice have been a judge, or even a lawyer.

A good argument could be made that we need some non-judges and non-laywers on the Court. Not all of them, but a few.
 
I feel like you're just not grasping the fact that his license to practice law has been inactive for 13 years.

Name one Supreme Court justice in our history who was appointed after having their license to practice law inactivated for the prior 13 years and I will concede the point.
Again, no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer, current or otherwise.

Sure, they need some knowledge of the law and, you know, justice. But to actually be a lawyer? Not really.

They have law clerks for the nuts and bolts. We need them to make decisions on principles more than just tightening those nuts and bolts.
 
I feel like you're just not grasping the fact that his license to practice law has been inactive for 13 years.

Name one Supreme Court justice in our history who was appointed after having their license to practice law inactivated for the prior 13 years and I will concede the point.
Multiple justices in history didn’t even have law DEGREES.
 
The American people and popular opinion, that’s who. Just because a few lunatics want it, won’t make it so. But go ahead and try, and see what happens.
Mitch stole a seat. That opened the dialog.
 
Lol, I was hoping someone would trot out this argument and you didn't disappoint. You guys have really overplayed the "constitutional law professor" angle. He taught a class on voting rights as a part-time professor while serving in the Illinois State Senate twenty years ago.

He has limited experience as a trial lawyer. The crowning achievement of his legal career was 26 years ago when he successfully represented a client in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after the client had been improperly fired from his position as a securities trader.

He has never presided over a court case in any court at any level. Ever.

His license to practice law has been inactive since 2007. And you want to put him on the Supreme Court.

Look, I like Obama and I would take four more years of him as POTUS over either one of our current choices, but let's leave the Supreme Court positions for actual judges who have actual experience.

He was President of the Harvard Law Review, offered a clerkship by Mikva, but instead took a job as Senior a Lecturer at U of C’s law school. He taught Con Law III. That’s as real as it gets.

And knocking the President for not keeping up with his CLE’s is insane. He’s literally signing every major change in federal law and is in charge of Admin, BIA, and federal law enforcement.
 
I want Garland and Obama in there. That would be worth the Republican meltdown. AOC should be pick #3. She would have at least 60 years to drive the cons nuts.

But who I really want is Hillary. I want her to have a vote to ream out the Republican insides for the rest of her life.

If a liberal nominated Garland and Obama I wouldn't really care. I wouldn't agree with how they ruled, but those are both picks with some type of legal background.

Now suggesting AOC is just asinine. I'd encouraging a Republican to nominate Charlie Kirk if that happened.
 
He was President of Harvard Law, offered a clerkship by Mikva, but instead took a job as Senior a Lecturer at U of C’s law school. He taught Con Law III. That’s as real as it gets.

And knocking the President for not keeping up with his CLE’s is insane. He’s literally signing every major change in federal law and is in charge of Admin law.
Thanks for spelling it out for him. Sometimes you run into logic so stupid, you find it hard to break it down to the most basic level needed.
 
He was President of Harvard Law, offered a clerkship by Mikva, but instead took a job as Senior a Lecturer at U of C’s law school. He taught Con Law III. That’s as real as it gets.

And knocking the President for not keeping up with his CLE’s is insane. He’s literally signing every major change in federal law and is in charge of Admin, BIA, and federal law enforcement.

This is a weak resume to even clerk at the Supreme Court, let alone be a justice.
 
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.
Not everyone shares your Meth fueled views. Believe it or not.....
 
This is a weak resume to even clerk at the Supreme Court, let alone be a justice.

Are you on crack? Harvard Law Review President is enough to get a SCOTUS clerkship, if you don’t interview like the unabomber.

I know two SCOTUS clerks who got dinged for Bigelow fellowships, and Obama was out there teaching the most prestigious classes.
 
Merrick Garland was badly treated. But he was a choice designed to be acceptable to the GOP.

This Court is arguably the most right wing, pro-corporate, anti-rights, anti-democracy Court in my lifetime. We don't need any more Justices selected to make Republicans happy.

We need to right this ship.
Merrick Garland was badly treated? LOL. I think I remember a guy named Brett Kavanaugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
If Biden is elected and at some points gets a nomination, I don't think Obama would be a wise pick even if he would make a great justice (which who knows I don't). Too political. Probably easier to find someone who would vote like Obama on every major liberal case (if there's competent legal whatever to support it). Obama is probably more helpful to Democrats in politics as an ex-POTUS than supposedly withdrawing from politics to be on the court.
 
Are you on crack? Harvard Law Review President is enough to get a SCOTUS clerkship, if you don’t interview like the unabomber.

I know two SCOTUS clerks who got dinged for Bigelow fellowships, and Obama was out there teaching the most prestigious classes.

He was elected the first black president. The position does not reflect academic achievement.

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.
New York Times Comtemporary Article
 
He was elected the first black president. The position does not reflect academic achievement.

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.
New York Times Comtemporary Article

President of the Harvard Law Review is an incredible achievement. Do you think feeder clerkship are based solely on grades? Mikva offered him. It was a done deal, but he got a better offer.
 
I want Garland and Obama in there. That would be worth the Republican meltdown. AOC should be pick #3. She would have at least 60 years to drive the cons nuts.

But who I really want is Hillary. I want her to have a vote to ream out the Republican insides for the rest of her life.
I honestly don't think Democrats want to run on expanding the Supreme Court. But if that's the plan then by all means go all in.
 
He was elected the first black president. The position does not reflect academic achievement.

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.
New York Times Comtemporary Article
Neat...does graduating magna cum laude mean nothing as well? It indicates being in the top 10% of his class.
 
Merrick Garland was badly treated. But he was a choice designed to be acceptable to the GOP.

This Court is arguably the most right wing, pro-corporate, anti-rights, anti-democracy Court in my lifetime. We don't need any more Justices selected to make Republicans happy.

We need to right this ship.
🤪
 
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.
You are a prime example of what will ignite a civil war.
 
LOL!

You won’t even get full support among Democrats to expand the court! You have gone full loony toons. Even FDR couldn’t get it done. But go ahead.....try it and see what happens.

Good grief......the lunatic extremists have taken over your party. Thankfully there are still a few level-headed Dems left to put the kibosh on such stupidity.

BTW.......Biden is on record saying he is against expanding the court, so good luck with that.

Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat. Any requests for decency ended there. You severely underestimate how pissed off the left is at Republicans right now. What will destroy the party is if they don't do anything.
 
Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat. Any requests for decency ended there. You severely underestimate how pissed off the left is at Republicans right now. What will destroy the party is if they don't do anything.
Stole a seat? That’s funny stuff.

Personally, I think Trump should nominate a black woman to fill RBG’s seat.....and do it this week.
 
Stole a seat? That’s funny stuff.

Personally, I think Trump should nominate a black woman to fill RBG’s seat.....and do it this week.

Yeah, stole a seat. The precedent has been set. What sucks is we will never have another Supreme Court justice confirmed unless the President and Senate are held by the same party. And you will howl when Democrats do it but this is what Mitch has caused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
Yeah, stole a seat. The precedent has been set. What sucks is we will never have another Supreme Court justice confirmed unless the President and Senate are held by the same party. And you will howl when Democrats do it but this is what Mitch has caused.
😂
 
ADVERTISEMENT