How would you feel about a Hillary appointment to the SCOTUS?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, Sep 27, 2008.

?

How would you feel if Hillary was appointed to SCOTUS?

  1. It would guarantee Roe v Wade will never be reversed.

    27.3%
  2. She would make a wonderful Justice.

    18.2%
  3. That could never happen.

    36.4%
  4. Don't know/don't care.

    18.2%
  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    If Obama gets elected, how would you feel if he appointed Hillary to the Supreme Court?
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hillary Clinton is well qualified, in my opinion, and would be easily confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you really don't care about Roe v Wade, then, apparently. :tear:
     
  4. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me tell you something, the SCOTUS is Bill's dream. I honestly believe that Al Gore would have nominated Bill as the Cheif Justice if he had been elected and the position came open (which it did)

    I dont know if Hillary would get appointed over Bill or not, but dont be suprised if the next Democrat in the White House appoints one of them.

    LOL.....this would cause a bigger rift in their so-called "marriage" than Monica, Paula, and Gennifer combined.

    AJ
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    That is why this election is so important for all Bible-believing Christians to vote for the pro-life candidates McCain-Palin.

    Choose life for the 4000+ babies per day who are aborted and don't have a voice.
     
  6. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, duh. I thought you had that one figured easily.
     
  7. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    This poll seriously needs some more options. Of course having Hillary on the court doesn't mean Roe v. Wade would never be overthrown. It means another extremely vocal proponent of the death of children up to and shortly after the moment of birth would fight against the overthrow. It may even guarantee that Roe wouldn't be overthrown during her tenure on the court. No telling what would happen 50 years after Hillary's death, though.

    That said, the cultural shift of this country has been very clear for 60 years or so, and if it stays on this path, no, Roe v. Wade won't be overthrown.

    It is very significant, imo, that now even alleged evangelicals are supporting a candidate that not only supports abortion on demand for any reason, and supports late term abortion at any stage, but also supports the death of children that survive the abortion procedure.
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why naively hope Roe vs Wade gets overturned when the legislators could just amend the constitution if they really wanted to stop abortions?
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,645
    Likes Received:
    158
    That is not the queston of this thread. The question is how would you feel about Hillary being a Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court involves much more than Roe v. Wade. The consider issues covering many topics.
     
  10. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that the poll needs more options. The one I would like to have chosen would read, "I would feel that she is too doctrinaire to be as objective and as even-handed as we hope SC justices will be."
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    If Hillary were appointed: that would be good news for New Yorkers - but I would never want to do that to my country!

    Salty

    PS, We are still waiting for the 200,ooo jobs she promised us back in 2000
     
  12. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, amendments are nearly impossible. We have only had 27, and ten of them were passed in the first congress to fix initial problems and protect basic rights. It takes a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, followed by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment.

    On the other hand, Article III gives congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of the court on any issue. A simple majority vote of both houses could make ANY issue free of SCOTUS oversight and review--but everyone is scared of this obscure passage being used, and thereby creating a constitutional crisis, so it has become the ultimate political "elephant in the room."

    Article III, section 2.: "...In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make..."
     
  13. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,645
    Likes Received:
    158
    I can see why they would not want to open that can of worms. Besides a constitutional crisis it would set precedence and who knows what a future Congress might do with it in a fit of emotional reaction to some crisis. Scary thought.
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I never realized that anyone could be appointed be a Supreme Court Justice. When was the last time that someone became a Supreme Court Justice who wasn't previously a Circuit Judge or some other type of judge?
     
    #14 Gold Dragon, Sep 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2008
  15. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Technically, there are no qualifications. Practically, it is now required for one to be a lawyer. It is not required that one be a judge.

    I am sure there must be at least one more recently, but Chief Justice Earl Warren, was, I believe, governor of California when made Chief Justice.
     
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,645
    Likes Received:
    158
    I believe you are correct, Warren was the governor of CA when he was appointed the Chief Justics. Warren was a lawyer having earned his degree at the Uv. of California, Berkeley and had worked as a lawyer and an attorney general.

    My personal guess is that it would be impossible for a person without a law degree to be nominiated, much less approved as a justice of the Supreme Court.
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be concerned about her lack of judicial experience. She might make a better AG than she would ever make a SCOTUS justice. I agree with Joseph. She is too political to be an objective nominee.
     

Share This Page

Loading...