Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Breaking News

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring at end of current session.

by Anonymousreply 4602/15/2013

I predict this will be a bigger fight than that of nominee Robert Bork.

Obama will most likely be nominating a hard liberal for this post.

by Anonymousreply 104/09/2010

OMG, are you serious?

by Anonymousreply 204/09/2010

Just no white males, please.

by Anonymousreply 304/09/2010

I'd love a hard liberal in the spot. But can Senate Dems override a filibuster? And will the more conservative Dems support someone who supports Roe v. Wade?

(And is there anytning more on the rumors that Roberts might step down?)

by Anonymousreply 404/09/2010

Elena Kagan looks like Obama's top pick.

"Elena Kagan is the Solicitor General of the United States and former Dean of Harvard Law School. She is widely considered the front-runner for Justice Stevens' spot on the Supreme Court. "

Is she family?

by Anonymousreply 504/09/2010

Forget all the names being tossed around. Obama's surprise pick will be Hillary Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 604/09/2010

Would he really nominate two women in a row?

I mean, a lot of people that he'd nominate Kagan last time, and as Solicitor General, she's certainly qualified...

by Anonymousreply 704/09/2010

Kagan looks like a good choice, but of course she is no Harriet Miers.

by Anonymousreply 804/09/2010

R7, women are more than 50% of the population. It's not hard to find another brilliant woman.

I want the female, liberal version of Scalia.

by Anonymousreply 904/09/2010

It's on, bitches!

by Anonymousreply 1004/09/2010

Nominating Hillary Clinton would be an insult to the bench and our country. She got her consolation prize. Time to move on and put some real talent on the bench.

by Anonymousreply 1104/09/2010

Obama doesn't need that many Republican votes to prevent a filibuster. In fact he needs only two or three, assuming Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln side with the GOP, as those turncoats are apt to do.

Obama will likely have Collins, Snowe, and Lugar support him again (as they did with Sotomayor), and possibly even Lindsay Graham (who made a point last time of taking the position that SCOTUS picks are the President's prerogatives).

by Anonymousreply 1204/09/2010

Kagan is so damn FUGLY!

by Anonymousreply 1304/09/2010

[quote]SCOTUS picks are the President's prerogatives

Yeah, that worked out well.

by Anonymousreply 1404/09/2010

r12, no way would Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln side with the Repubs on this one.

No Way.

by Anonymousreply 1504/09/2010

Meanwhile, John Roberts is darned pretty and a complete asshole, r13. We tried your method of judicial selection... it didn't work out.

by Anonymousreply 1604/09/2010

R16, you forgot to mention closet-case.

by Anonymousreply 1704/09/2010

Judge Bork, at least you got an up or down vote, no? You weren't filibustered, so shove it up your wrinkled hairy hole.

by Anonymousreply 1804/09/2010

R3, I'd make an exception for Jonathan Turley

by Anonymousreply 1904/09/2010

I agree that the surprise pick will be Hillary Clinton. A trail balloon was sent up about six months ago. It will be quite wonderful to see the Republicans - after a year of characterizing her as preferable to Obama - begin to demonize her again. It will also start the process of reversing his approval rating in time for the fall elections. Watch.

by Anonymousreply 2004/09/2010

Hillary is 62 years old. She's not going to become a supreme court justice. It would be a waste of a nomination. It would be a stretch if he chose Diane Wood and she's 59.

by Anonymousreply 2104/09/2010

I'd be for Hillary because she would pose an excellent counter to Scalia. I also don't like her as SoS. She's still a neo con on that front.

Someone with the mindset of a Chuck Hagel or Howard Dean would be better on foreign policy.

by Anonymousreply 2204/09/2010

"Obama will most likely be nominating a hard liberal for this post."

What is a HARD liberal? My fear is that Obama will cave again to get a "victory" through consensus.

I dread affirmative action talk for the bench. It's akin to demanding a certain race, ethnicity or sex in choosing your child's brain surgeon. While it's important to see these characteristics represented in all professions, they cannot be the criteria that dominate the selection process. Justice Thomas is the all too obvious example of a minority nomination unable or unwilling to defend individual rights.

We really need the BEST person for the Court. Not only brilliant legally but also with a real grasp of everday life, an understanding of the reality of lawyering in the trenches, as well as the ability to persuade and garner support from the other justices for their positions. Consensus without compromising fundamental rights is a very tricky business.

For me this is primarily about protecting the Constitution and individual rights. It will be a big plus if the nominee also has the proven ability to tackle or argue complex appellate civil cases.

I said it before and I'll say it again President Obama should nominate former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. I know he's 58 but he's a youthful 58 - he's a runner which will help unless he pulls a Jim Fixx.

He has devoted his career to protecting individual rights and successfully pushing the envelope to protect those rights. He's a really decent guy with tons of public service, he's immensely popular in the legal community nationwide and even has close friends and supporters among the "other side," he's also handled many complex commercial and other civil appellate cases, the other justices respect him immensely and no one doubts his brilliance and his fairness. I suppose there are those who won't like that he's Jewish.

There may be other candidates who are equally qualified to serve on the bench so I will be very interested in who is being considered but there is no one MORE qualified than Seth Waxman. With his abilities I think he could move the Court back in the right (or left if you will) direction.

Perhaps because the rulings of the Court actually have a direct bearing on my daily professional work I feel this in my bones but very few things are as important to me the President getting this right. It is not enought to just get another liberal vote on the Court. If you can get a liberal vote and a liberal consensus builder as well and you pass up this opportunity for political reasons then you have blown a golden opportunity in my eyes. If Waxman is not his choice then he needs to be looking for someone on a par with him and with his abilities.

Having said all that, the idea upthread of Hillary Clinton is interesting. I know she is very smart and a great consensus builder but I have no idea how she would do on the bench. Of course she cannot do worse than some of the current justices. Since Obama will most likely have a number of other choices up the road I don't know how worried he is about the nominee's age.

by Anonymousreply 2304/09/2010

OMG, what makes you think HRC could go toe to toe with Scalia? Just because she is a brilliant politician doesn't mean she has the stuff of a great constitutional theorist. Sheesh.

by Anonymousreply 2404/09/2010

Obama is going to pick Sandra Bullock, I just know it.

by Anonymousreply 2504/09/2010

[quote]Obama is going to pick Sandra Bullock, I just know it.

Well, she IS a great consensus builder.

by Anonymousreply 2604/09/2010

Kagan is a brilliant woman

by Anonymousreply 2704/09/2010

Kagan is also significantly to the right of Stevens, so if this were to happen, SCOTUS would shift more to the right.

by Anonymousreply 2804/09/2010

Nominating Hillary would be an insult to the bench and our country. No better than Harrier fucking Meirs.

by Anonymousreply 2904/09/2010

Sandy would be amazing, but since Sigourney Weaver already worked on the NY Supreme Court I'd say she's the one to beat.

by Anonymousreply 3004/09/2010

Judge Judy!

by Anonymousreply 3104/09/2010

Hillary? I doubt she wants a SC seat. The Clintons are two of the most famous people on the planet. Why on Earth would Hillary want to be one of nine? Of course, she is more than capable of being an effective Justice.

Justices, however, must be low profile. That's why Clarence Thomas and all of his media whoring is looked upon with such distate by his fellow Justices.

"Low profile" and Hillary Clinton do not and should not, go together.

I'd like to see Obama nominate Lawrence Tribe.

by Anonymousreply 3204/09/2010

"Nominating Hillary would be an insult to the bench and our country. No better than Harrier fucking Meirs."

R29 you're joking right? I think Hilary's suitability for an appointment to the Court is a point worth debating, but are you REALLY comparrng her achievements to Harriet Meirs??

by Anonymousreply 3304/09/2010

What r33 said.

by Anonymousreply 3404/09/2010

r33, it would be an absolute slap in the face to the integrity of the bench if that cunt were to be nominated.

by Anonymousreply 3504/09/2010

Trolling, trolling , trolling, keep those dogies trolling.

As if, r35. If anybody should be compared to Meirs it's you. You can't even counter r33 with a reasoned argument.

by Anonymousreply 3604/09/2010

Della, she's a fucking cunt and she doesn't deserve to be nominated. Period.

by Anonymousreply 3704/09/2010

I think he should nominate Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. He's going to lose his race as governor. He's a 54 year old African American Harvard grad lawyer. Assistant Attorney General under Clinton. Has a lesbian daughter and is to the left of Stevens.

by Anonymousreply 3804/09/2010

"Hillary is 62 years old."

So? She could be on the court for 20 or 30 years.

by Anonymousreply 3904/09/2010

I am so sick of hearing about Scalia's alleged brilliance.

If that fucker is so brilliant why is he always wrong?

by Anonymousreply 4004/09/2010

So far the only argument against Hilary is...she's a "fucking cunt". Way to argue a point.

by Anonymousreply 4104/09/2010

R41, it's like ayb's Jamie Oliver invective.

by Anonymousreply 4204/09/2010

I wonder if the people who praise Scalia have ever been required to read several Supreme Court rulings and dissenting opinions. He's a fascist buffoon.

by Anonymousreply 4304/09/2010


by Anonymousreply 4402/15/2013

an "awe" troll?

Why won't one or two of those nasty conservatives leave or die?

by Anonymousreply 4502/15/2013

Cher became an honorary Attorney filming "Suspect", and has really paid her dues. She's been a tireless defender of the common man.

It will be Cher.

by Anonymousreply 4602/15/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!