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

Hillary Clinton is well qualified, in my opinion, and would be easily confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

 

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

 

Well, duh. I thought you had that one figured easily.

 

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.

 

Why naively hope Roe vs Wade gets overturned when the legislators could just amend the constitution if they really wanted to stop abortions?

 

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.

 

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."

 

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..."

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.