Hang on a sec. She has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..never served as a Judge?!?!?

Has that happened a lot in the past?? Putting some one that’s never been a judge on the SCOTUS???

I know we have a bumbling fool in the White House but…???

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Yes, we have many times appointed justices without judicial experience and it’s really good thing to do!

Law schools teach a certain ideology, but their ideology gets far from both the ideas of the masses and from reality. While we should have some people on the SC who come from that ideology, we need other people who take other approaches.

For the partisan bean counters, I do strongly think that this approach does favor conservative interest, as law schools tend to be leftist. But I’m not so sure that this is partisan idea as much as a democratic ideal. The faculty of any profession can go off on the weirdest tangents and shouldn’t be trusted.

Moreover, Granholm has had tax problems, though at this juncture that seems more like a prerequisite for Obama than a disqualification.

I’d bet money she’s in.

Nominating a Canuck is wrong on so many levels

I take it back. Gibbsy just hinted that she’s at the W.H. for an “announcement” Barry will make tomorrow.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

You were right the first time.

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The Tuesday announcement is tomorrow’s announcement.

Ahnold will be there too.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee:

“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.” “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”

Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.

“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”

Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.

“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”

And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork….and four years later with Clarence Thomas.

NYT, Neil A. Lewis

The other side has won the right to choose someone this time? No, only to NOMINATE someone. If it were a mere right to choose according to election results, then Bork, Thomas and John Roberts would not have experienced such unbecoming animosity from the losers in opposition to their appointments, Bork not appointed.

We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution. No, REVISION is not a literal job description granted by the Constitution to any Supreme Court Justice or the entire Court. Again, if anyone re-defines the Constitution, it must be the entire legislative body of Congress with the POTUS signature making the Amendment law.

GOP LITMUS TEST OF SCOTUS: Does the nominee advocate CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION or any legislation FROM THE BENCH?

Whether by choice or not, be prepared for the OK Corral,
Sen. Sessions, not the belly up possum or head in the sand ostrich or hibernating bear mode.

I do not believe there is a SCOTUS constitutional requirement with regards to citizenship. I also do not believe there is constitutional requirement that SCOTUS has been a sitting judge, much less an attorney. The Judiciary section is pretty vague.

ladyingray on May 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Wow.

That does make more sense than putting her on the list for SCOTUS. She’s got too much baggage. And pardon my ignorance on this question, but don’t you have to be a natural born citizen to sit on the Supreme Court? Isn’t that considered “federal” office?

Dee2008 on May 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I do not believe there is a SCOTUS constitutional requirement with regards to citizenship. I also do not believe there is constitutional requirement that SCOTUS has been a sitting judge, much less an attorney. The Judiciary section is pretty vague.

If memory serves, Earl Warren had no experience as a judge before being nominated as Chief Justice.

JohnGalt23 on May 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Alrighty then….

I really had no idea, just seems…wrong in some fundamental way….

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The national emissions policy for autos, which will ramp up to a new standard of about 35 miles per gallon in 2016, will harmonize the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard and the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse-gas standard.

…Auto executives are flying into Washington from around the world for the White House announcement…California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is expected to attend, the sources said.

According to Rush, this isn’t about the SCOTUS. It’s about creating some green car initiative.

Daggett on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

That does make more sense than putting her on the list for SCOTUS. She’s got too much baggage. And pardon my ignorance on this question, but don’t you have to be a natural born citizen to sit on the Supreme Court? Isn’t that considered “federal” office?

Obama’s intrusive meddling with Chrysler and General Motors on behalf of the UAW demonstrates the president’s interest in holding onto the Rust Belt now and in 2012.

Maybe it’s just me, but if I lived in a Rust Belt state I’d be blaming the UAW and Obama for making a bad situation immeasurably worse. And is energy policy is the cherry on top of the ice cream soda.

Hang on a sec. She has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..never served as a Judge?!?!?

Has that happened a lot in the past?? Putting some one that’s never been a judge on the SCOTUS???

BigWyo on May 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

If memory serves, Earl Warren had no experience as a judge before being nominated as Chief Justice.