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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 Republican fascists push through a justice despite their own assurances otherwise, welcome to DC and Puerto Rico statehood and four permanent Dem senators, motherfuqqer.
Damn. If only he had some experience in government law since then.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.
If Republican fascists push through a justice despite their own assurances otherwise, welcome to DC and Puerto Rico statehood and four permanent Dem senators, motherfuqqer.
Whomever is holding this gets to speak:Are they gonna make a "Double-Chief Justice" too?
That outranks the regular Chief Justice?
Whomever is holding this gets to speak:
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.
I feel like you're just not grasping the fact that his license to practice law has been inactive for 13 years.Damn. If only he had some experience in government law since then.
The bludgeoning is part of the fun.Bad bad idea.
Needs to be a Nerf-like squeaky toy.
Someone'll get bludgeoned with that....
There is no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice have been a judge, or even a lawyer.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.
Again, no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer, current or otherwise.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.
Ha.I think he should nominate David Duke that way everyone will be happy.
/83Hawk
Multiple justices in history didn’t even have law DEGREES.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.
Mitch stole a seat. That opened the dialog.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.
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.
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.
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 law.
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.
Not everyone shares your Meth fueled views. Believe it or not.....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.
This is a weak resume to even clerk at the Supreme Court, let alone be a justice.
Merrick Garland was badly treated? LOL. I think I remember a guy named Brett Kavanaugh.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.
Poor BrettMerrick Garland was badly treated? LOL. I think I remember a guy named Brett Kavanaugh.
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
Oh...we know. Time to take it back.The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.
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.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.
Neat...does graduating magna cum laude mean nothing as well? It indicates being in the top 10% of his class.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
🤪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.
😂Ha.
White supremacists are already well-represented on the court.
You are a prime example of what will ignite a civil war.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.
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.
The subject is expanding the SupremeCourt. Which party is threatening that?Why are Dems the only party that hurts themselves when they are unethical?
Stole a seat? That’s funny stuff.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.
😂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.