Obama’s choices: Gird your loins
Conservatives in Washington are gearing up for the SCOTUS battle. My legal sources have compiled sketches of Obama’s top three likely picks and their records. Gird your loins:
Elena Kagan
“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.
-Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.
-It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.
-Dean Kagan has argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should undergo a searching inquiry into the nominee’s substantive views of the law, and should comment particular issues. If nominated, it will be interesting to see whether Dean Kagan remains faithful to this prescription in answering the Committee’s questions.”
Sonia Sotomayor
“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”
Diane Wood
-If nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Wood will have some substantial questions to answer regarding her judicial philosophy based on her work as a circuit court judge.
Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003).
-Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests. For example, Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 867 (7th Cir. 2006), she would have voted to allow a public university to revoke the student organization charter of the Christian Legal Society because it declined to extend membership to homosexuals.
She also authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).”
***
Ed Morrissey: “After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments.”
Indeed.
William Jacobson in the Green Room: “…ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
I guess we’ll see if the hypocritical Democrats on the Judicial committee ask Obama to choose a “middle of the road” type of nominee rather than a divisive choice like they accused George W. Bush of nominating. Don’t hold your breath.
It just amazes me that the liberal appointees see their purpose as creating law based on their cultural worldview rather than interpreting the law as written in the Constitution.
“Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:3)
Ugh, ugh and ugh.
Praying now. For the Republicans on the committee that is. Let’s see if they can keep any of these folks from getting out of there and onto the main floor.
I hate to break this to the “conservative” crowd, but you should prepare yourselves for the middle finger from the President and Congress. Neither, honestly, care in the slightest way what you think. Now, had “conservatives” been more focused on the Congressional races last time around, rather than wasting time on McCain, “conservatives” would be in a far better position to resist such judge nominations and the policies we have seen come out of Washington. Now, just because you can’t stop it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do your best to make the rest of the country aware of what’s going on, in preparation for the next congressional races.
Just cut to the chase and appoint Jerry Wright or Frank Davis.
First 100 days were described to us as ‘moderate’, a president of ALL the people. Now comes the really nasty stuff, the crap that makes Republican senators shrink into the shadows. Whoever is chosen, it will be the one most likely to change laws and interpretations. This sucks, but we knew it was coming some day.
Oops, Davis dies. I guess it’s Ayers, then.
Great summaries, MM. If this trio of misfits constitutes the “cream of the crop” then I shudder to think what the bottom of the barrel looks like.
I’m sure John McCain and his “gang of 14″ will keep everything on the up and up.
/sarc off
Heads up. There is a new thread on this subject.
Sorry…meant to post on last nights thread.
Since this one “needs” to be female,
Mike Nifong is out.
How about Lynn Stewart
Or offer your own best guesses.
Does Tiller the Baby Killer have any legal experience? Oh, never mind…Obama could appoint him anyway. Look at the rest of the administration. No experience there! I thought the first 100 days was my worst nightmare. Not even close. THIS is my worst nightmare!
That Kagan woman apparently is as qualified for the job as Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the clueless now in power. The ONLY qualification necessary is to be a liberal democrat. The fact you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground is immaterial, which Obama proves daily, in conjunction with his other appointments. The difficult decision will be WHICH black/hispanic lesbian in a wheelchair to appoint to the supreme court.
I can’t express how wrong this way of thinking is.
Someone mentioned Lynn Stewart. I don’t think Stewart is qualified, for the appointment has to be female. And human. Maybe just female.
Three crap sammiches, pick one.
Is she nuts??? That is so completely NOT what a judge should do! The role of the Supereme Court is to interpret the law based on the constitution, not enforce it based on race or sex. So we know where this is going…trashing the constitution and making the members of the Supreme Court of the U.S. activists. Thanks, liberals…This is what you have done to our Country.
I think the choice needs to be a real minority. Some group that up til now has had no representation in our government. It hereby gives me great pleasure to nominate…Mr. Crip L. Dwarf!!!
Suddenly it struck them — maybe driving Specter out of the Republican party and giving Democrats a filibuster proof majority wasn’t such a great idea. Goldstein’s agents have been here!
Interesting that the only minority on the bench is Clarence Thomas, and he is a conservative…so in Obama’s mind, he doesn’t count. In fact, they are probably trying to “strong-arm” any of the right-leaning judges into quitting…Chicago Thug style.
I fully expect a Harold Koh or equivalent internationalist who will subvert the Constitution at every turn. Obama has stated he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and needs to be reinterpretted to read:
From each acoording to his means, to each according to his needs.
Expect a communist.
Don’t expect the GOP to put up a fight.
Spectre was not driven out of the party, in fact he was coddled. He left of his own volition due to a lack of principles.
Spectre was sure to vote with the socialists anyway, if history is any guide.
Sorry, too obscure for me, don’t know what it means.
Whoever is chosen will have to meet the following qualifications:
Anti marriage
Anti life
Anti speech
Anti gun & military
Anti family
Anti American
Anti paying her taxes, in full, on time
Well, that narrows it down to several million Dimmihcrats.
One
Big
A**
Mistake
America
Which nominee makes our humble fearless leader look good?
And Cynthia McKinney. Come on Michelle…with his track record for appoinyrrs, is she really that far off? Or maybe even Maxine Waters
From above:….
Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.” WJ
Rs have never shown that have the B_ _ _ $$$$$ to STOP anything the Ds DO—SO-DOES ANYONE REALLY believe that they have developed a pair now!!
C-CS
Well, there you go…any rag’ll do!
Wouldn’t surprise me if, he nominates Michelle Obama.
Of all the institutions of federal power — congress, the executive and its bureaucracies, and the courts — only the Supreme Court hasn’t been co-opted by the Left.
The good news is, as long as none of the four conservative Justices and “coin-toss” Kennedy don’t retire, then Cap’n Ed’s take is on target: no sea changes before we have a chance to lance the boil in Congress and remove the cancer in the White House.
The main electoral consequence in this regard from 2008 was a missed opportunity: if Hope-a-Dope had lost, there’d be a better chance that McCain would’ve put another Kennedeyesque coin-tosser in Souter’s place (it’d have been too much to ask him for a conservative), as opposed to a William Brennan-style radical that we’re guaranteed to get now.
Ed Morrissey has it just right: Souter was a member of the far left third of the court, and his replacement with another Obaaama radical leftist won’t change anything in the court.
What it will do is give us something else to use in the midterm elections, another piece of solid evidence of who Obaaama really is – a radical leftist nitwit who requires real containment by thinking people in congress.
Well I did get the reference, and it gave me a little chuckle, but I’m not sure it is relevant.
B-cat pointed it out well, LGM. Specter wasn’t much of a conservative. From a tactical perspective it may seem right to try to keep him, but if he’s going to vote with your folks anyway then we may as well lose him in title as well as deed.
I play pool with a buddy on weekends, and he has a tendency to celebrate his ‘victory’ before the game is over. Right now I have about a 5 to 1 winning streak over him. Yet he still celebrates before the game is over. Be careful that you guys aren’t doing the same thing here.
Obama will change the fabric of this country and the Supreme Court to the point that it can’t be undone for 30 or 40 years. You can bet Ginsburg and Stevens won’t make it through the next 4 years – they require an aide to wipe the drool off their mouths during a court session now.
It will be a radical that Obama will select. Like Ginsberg. Obama, being a radical himself, wants someone of his ilk in there. Another extremist.
And America will tire of Obama’s extremism and the extremism and arrogance of the left. Say goodbye to your majority. It will at least wither in 2010. Then die in 2012.
McCain would have never gotten anything due to the liberally stacked congress, only what is palitable to the left (and usually McCain himself). He was a lame duck before he was a duck.
Yes indeed.
“consider their “experiences as women and people of color” …goes by another name: sexism and racism – but is anyone surprised???
None of these candidates will be considered too extreme by the dems. In fact, the choices make it clear that as female liberal judges, their mission will be to achieve “social justice” in the courts. By social justice I mean, to discriminate based on race, sex, and economic status – and unjustly persecute those who are not in any “acceptable” group.
The ends truly justify the means to these communists. Watch out white males, Christians, “Zionist” Jews, conservatives (terrorists!), and anyone else not ready to accept our black robed overlords interpreting the US Constitution through “international law”.
He’s going to try to appoint ideologues and constitutionalists
Sorry Not Constitutionalists
Am I wrong, or do Democrats not have 59 seats in the Senate?
Conservatives whining about whoever Obama picks is something like Comic Book Guy blogging about what’s the worst Star Trek series.
At least you have the MSM to pay you lip service and make you feel like your voice matters. Even if it doesn’t.
Is Sotemayor African American or some other minority, even partially? If so; there’s Obama’s choice.
The only way this could be wrong is if some of the other candidates have been actively un-American. Not just in writings, etc., but in actions.
Have any of them spiked a tree with nails, to kill a logger? Burned SUV’s to protest fossil fuel use? Thrown blood on people wearing fur?
That could complicate things…
That’s so right AND it will be a window into which Republican(s) we can vote OUT of office next go-round. If the Repubs up there haven’t noticed yet, we are looking for guts.
Interesting. Here I thought that in our republic, the minority voice was still valued.
I suppose it’s all tyranny of the majority until you’re no longer in that majority, eh?
I know, but it’s still going to be exhausting political theatre. The needed replacements for Stevens and Ginsburg are right around the corner. It’s just bad luck for the left that W. was able to make two appointments of young justices. The best the Left can hope for in replacing our old “liberal 3″ is to maintain the status quo.
I would be interested in Chappy’s viewpoints on these choices. Of the three mentioned here, Sotomayor scares me the most. When emotions and “getting even” overtake legal precedence, well…
How ’bout it, Chappy? We understand the choice will be a liberal, but would like to see who you think is a good choice for the country and your profession.
What the he11 are you talking about? Please explain that sentence. Not sure I heard you right.
To quote Bill The Cat: “Aack!”
Judging from the quality of his cabinet nominations, we should expect him to nominate the absolute dregs of human sewage to the Supreme Court.
There is no justice in America.
At the risk of stating the obvious, here are some predictions for the next several years:
1. The Supreme Court will be stacked with adherents that believe “the Constitution is a living, breathing, document” and should be changed to suit the current culture.
2. Israel will be thrown under the bus and will be abandoned by the Obama Administration.
3. Gun Control will get more and more stringent and muddy the 2nd amendment to the point of being unrecognizable.
4. Same Sex Marriage will become the law of the land.
5. Christianity will be considered a religion of hate and demonized.
6. The destruction of the family as the world has known it will be fractionalized even further.
7. Thoughts and beliefs will be targets for criminalization.
8. The illegal immigrants in this country will be given the opportunity to become “legal” citizens opening the door for another 20 million to latch on to the new citizens and enter the country legally.
9. Healthcare as we know it will become socialized and the standard of care lowered to that of Cuba’s.
10. Energy costs are going to soar in the name of environmentalism and the religion of Global Warmining.
The good news is two things won’t change – death and higher taxes.
Dire warnings? Maybe 10 or 20 years ago. They are believable now.
We will become Europe, oh yes we will!”
Judge Sotemeyer’s labor and employment rulings are so amateurish and so stupid that they have been repeatedly overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Just take one matter. There was a football player from Ohio State who dropped out after one semester of college and demanded to be allowed to play in the NFL. The players association and the NFL had an agreement that no players would be drafted or signed who had only been in college for a semester. Any first year law student knows that labor law allows the NFL and the players association to come to an agreement about eligibility. The NFL is, of course, a private business and it can bargain with its employee union about basic things such as eligibility requirements. There is no room for a federal judge to jump in and change eligibility rules because SHE does not like it. But incredibly, that is what the dunce Sotemeyer did. She was astonishingly rude to the litigants before her. She actually ruled that she could abrogate the employer-employee contract and she ruled that she could change employee eligibility rules because SHE did not like them. You just have to think about how brazen and egotistical Sotomeyer is. She never played a down of football in her life yet she decided to rewrite a well crafted and well negotiated private contract. The US Second Circuit slapped her down almost immediately. Both liberal and conservative members of the Court ridiculed Sotomeyer’s astonishing ignorance of basic employment and contract law. You have to wonder how this bird ever passed the bar exam. And this is just one example of Sotomeyer being overturned by a higher court. It happened so frequently that there was a joke in the federal court building in Manhattan: “Another day, another Sotomeyer reversal”
I thought Bill Clinton would be on the short list.
You do know that just because the American electorate is highly fluid and chose the Democrats this time around, doesn’t mean it will always be that way.
The people who voted for Presidents Reagan and GW Bush twice are still here. We didn’t disappear or leave the country simply because enough of us were either mislead by the Obama campaign or pushed by a dwindling economy into giving him the plurality he needed to become president.
We’ve not lost our ideology. Once people see the Democrat failures begin to mount and once they realize Obama’s change is not the one they had in mind, the GOP will be reelected.
I confess I really don’t follow these things too closely until it comes down to a decision actually having to be made. In other words, what you have read about these people is pretty much exactly how much I know of them. Though some of the other names thrown around, like Cass Sunstein, I am familiar with. He edited the Con Law book I used in Law School.
I actually really thought during the waning days of the primary, when Obama had all but won and Hillary was still hanging on, that Obama would offer to make her the next SCJ. Actually there were rumors this happened and she refused. Which I thought as odd because that seems a far more effective way of establishing one’s own legacy separate from Bill than the Senate or SecState. And, fwiw, I think she would have been a very good choice.
Great. A raging partisan agenda-driven leftist who will passionately deconstruct America for the next 50 years. Just what we need. At least Souter posessed the gravitas of a thoughtful jurist.
Friends, I you think there is mischief coming from DC now…
you ain’t seen nothin.
In SCOTUS is where THE ONE will leave his most lasting impact.
This is a perfect storm…and it is bearing down on us like a freight-train.
Not what I expected, but thanks for the input, Chap…
Hillary would make sense if a woman had already been elected President. She will hold out for that historical memory of being the first woman President.
Can anyone name a Supreme Court Justice from 1878 or 1844 outside of Court historians? You will remember the first black or first woman President.
I think Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters, or Michele Obama as the first black woman SCJ would be the slap in the face Obama would like to foist on the conservatives of this country.
There is a dark horse candidate in Georgia named Leah Ward Sears. What makes this choice so interesting is that she announced her retirement from the GA Supreme court in Oct ’08 to be effective June ’09.
Coincidence??
lets not forget how dear leader looks at the LAW.
uuugghhh.
Not gonna happen. Not gonna happen.
Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters, eh? With either of them, SCOTUS would start sounding more like a city council or school board meeting. Good grief…
First, with unbridled power it’s a given the Democrats will tip thier hand and offend every thinking voter into ousting them from office at the next election.
Second, if the GOP is as nefarious as the Left believes, then why should they rejoice and receive Specter w/ open arms? Wouldn’t an evil GOP send one of its own forth into the Democrat fold as a spy, perhaps to create mischief from w/in?
Third, you’re a plant, but hardly an informative one.
this matters not at all…we’re already a fascist state…and we’re going to be living and probably dying (if you live in NYC or DC) with this presidency for a long time to come…
the American era of dominance is over..we’re soon to be a third world banana republic
Means he believes in the tyranny of the majority, as long as his side is in the majority. When they’re in the minority, of course, we’re supposed to cater to them anyway.
The person he will appoint will be of the mold of the new HHS Director. Anyone who thinks he’s going to appoint a moderate is frankly insane.
Marc, I immediately thought of the Maurice Clarett case here; however, was it really Sotomeyer that ruled on that case?
I’ve seen a couple references that say that Judge Shira Scheindlin was the one that ruled on that case initially.
Of course…there is always…CINDY SHEEHAN!!!!
*GASP!!!!*
THAT’S RAAAACIST!!!!
Gawd! Why does every marxist/lib chick look like a freakin’ bull dike on steroids?
Since there is NO requirement that Supremes must be lawyers…
Bill Ayers would fit his thinking nicely.
Remember, 5 A’s in RAAAAACIST…
all republicans should take note how this appointment happens from start to finish. then in the future when republicans hold power you will have a template to appoint scallia and thomas’ replacements. when dems do something, make note, it must be fair, so give it back to them and give them rahm’s finger also.
Geez…where did the idiot cut and paste this idiocy from. As if whatever party he belonged to had ANYTHING at all to do with how he votes. Thanks once again for demonstrating that you have no idea at all as to what you are talking about, and are only here because you like to see things you type on the Internet…just like the way you love to hear yourself talk.
A judge is supposed to interpret the law, not make stuff up on their own. Justice is to be blind…just like the statue of her depicts. It is not supposed to base decisions on whether or not someone is black, hispanic, asian, or female. That is the very basis of a discriminatory decision. I would say that anyone who has come before this woman should immediately demand a retrial just based on that statement alone. It is clear that she based her decisions on what color or sex the defendant was.
Yeah…you just gotta love how non-racist Liberals are, doncha?
Sorry…still early here. Too much blood in my caffeine system.
In a perfect world maybe…
The Justices in California, Massachusetts, and Iowa show that it’s not a perfect world. Both the Federal and State courts are legislating from the bench more and more. Not interpreting from a constitution.
Keep in mind that this is SCOTUS. Look at the hundreds of appellate court appointments over the next number of years that he can stack with little imps and demons. The “bottom of the barrel” will be tapped for those. That’s where the real damage is done.
The greatest trick Satan has pulled is convincing everybody that he doesn’t exit.
exist!
Truth
George Soros…Then he can be President and on the Supreme Court at the same time…
AHHHH, the first of many??? Here we are 102 days into this “ADMINISTRATION”, and a SUPREME COURT nomination comes up… To all you BOOB CONSERVATIVES who said “I’ll vote for O-BOZO before I vote MCSHAMNESTY, elections DO have consequences!!!
Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Diane Wood . . .add another to the potential list: Cass Sustein, Harvard Law School professor (internet czar), “Free Speech in the Age of the Internet.”
# Sunstein, Cass R. Worst-Case Scenarios (Harvard University Press 2007).
# Sunstein, Cass R. The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (Basic Books 2004).
# Sunstein, Cass R. Why Societies Need Dissent (Harvard University Press 2003).
# Sunstein, Cass R. Risk and Reason (Cambridge University Press 2002).
(translations forthcoming in Spanish, Chinese, and Farsi, paperback 2004)
# Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com (paperback ed. 2002).
(multiple translations, including Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Chinese, new afterword, 2002)
# Sunstein, Cass R. “The Laws of Fear,” 115 Harvard Law Review 1119 (2002) (reviewing ).
OH, I forgot… Of course he could make up for the “MOTHER OF ALL APPOINTMENTS”… He could nominate GOOD OL’ HILL, or even better JANET NAPOLITANO… now there’s a pair to draw to…
Just cut to the chase and put Bernadine Dohrn on the court.
This is where the real damage is done, in the courts. It’s also why I think lifetime appointments ought to be eliminated.
It makes sense if you believe the Democrats are really The Borg.
As if all of this isn’t bad enough, the GOP WANTS to be RIP. The National Council For A New America-i.e. more Democrat-lite.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21957.html
Eric Cantor has received his last vote from me.
GOP-RIP
If…BIG IF…the GOP wants to remain a viable political force…
they need to broom the Judiciary Committee membership, and put in place hard-eyed Constitutionists.
I have no idea if the rules would allow that, but sometimes the rules are an impediment to survival.
Errah, Was it over when Obama took over the banks and auto companies??!! Was it over when he spent our children inheritance and shackeled them to a life of higher taxes and endless debt??!! Hell No! This calls for a really stupid and futile jesture and he’s just the guy to do it. . . . Jamie Gwhorelick!!!! Now, Who’s with me!!!!
I think Chillary will be the “first choice.”
They all sound like the radical in the White House!
Not that I am familiar with any of her rulings, but one choice is Justice Helen Hoens from the NJ Supreme Court. She’s been appointed by Whitman, Codey and Corzine so she must do something right for the left. She has an autistic son, so she has that relatability that Obama is looking for.
Here are some traits THE ONE will consider mandatory criteria in any condidate…
1) the Constitution, as written, is a document of “negative” rights
2) the jurisprudence of the US has to be infused with fundamental “positive” rights
3) there is, and can be, no reason to be limited by the Constitution as written, tho it can be used any time it is convenient
4) only doctrinaire, knee-jerk leftists need apply, tho the ability to have the MSM depict them as “moderates” will be a plus
Ragspierre said:
Don’t forget, they must sign an affadavit that they or anyone in their household does not or ever has owned a firearm.
Yeah, that’s in the Consitution…
Earth to lgm, what is there about these three that Specter wouldn’t love?
Picking Hillary would get her out of Obama’s hair for life. Strong motive, and no Dem would vote against her. Besides, she has the necessary lack of scruples…but Diane Wood seems to meet the GD America litmus test.
Actually, I’ve known many, many Leftists who advocated strongly for gun control laws who owned guns.
They are ELITISTS…
THEY are not subject to the law…!!!
Here’s FOXNews’ list:
Lucky for us the two BOLDED folks can’t be replaced.
Or can they?!?!?
Question. Isn’t the whole “abusing lawyers” thing a net plus for her for most of you?