Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Justice Nominations

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Justice Nominations

    Can the President nominate himself for Supreme Court Justice ???

    Don't ask why would he... O.K. here's my theory on why one might try such a stunt: So, Pres. Obama serves 4 years, and either does or does not get reelected.

    Even if he serves for 8 years, he will only be in his 50's, so, he is a Harvard educated attorney, and he wants to continue working, (and get a second pension, salary, etc.) could he after being voted out of office, or when his term is close to expiring, nominate himself in an attempt to secure a more liberal Supreme Court, or guarantee himself a second pension ????

    Assuming there are 2 Justices ready to retire, could he nomintate himself, and his wife ?,,,, could they serve together even if confirmed ??? Conflict, etc ..

    Things that make you go HMMMMMM.............

    Any thoughts ?

  • #2
    I believe it was William Taft served on the Supreme court after leaving the presidency.
    so the president can in deed serve but the nomination process is a circus now compared to 100 years ago he would never get confirmed.

    side note if Obama nominates Napolotano and she gets on i think ill be looking into The Mounties

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by OverCharged View Post
      I believe it was William Taft served on the Supreme court after leaving the presidency.
      so the president can in deed serve but the nomination process is a circus now compared to 100 years ago he would never get confirmed.

      side note if Obama nominates Napolotano and she gets on i think ill be looking into The Mounties
      They keep talking about a judge out of Chicago.
      It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

      Comment


      • #4
        The important thing with Taft is that he served on the Court after he left the Presidency and did not nominate himself. I took a quick look at the Constitution and didn't find anything that expressly prohibits the President nominating himself, but it does violate the principle of separation of powers that the framers intended, so it's unlikely that the Congress would confirm him if he tried, and even less likely that the Court itself would allow him to sit having nominated himself, since they are the ones charged with determining the spirit and interpretation of the Constitution.
        "Because they wouldn't let me go for three."
        -Woody Hayes

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DACP View Post
          They keep talking about a judge out of Chicago.

          Judge Ann Claire Williams, 59.problem is right now she has some slum lord issues with a condo she used to rent.
          ‘Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.’
          Oscar Wilde

          Comment


          • #6
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Claire_Williams

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano (she has my b day)

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor (grew up in a housing project in the bronx)


            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
            ‘Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.’
            Oscar Wilde

            Comment


            • #7
              Those won't do. They are in the process of cloning Ginsburg.

              Comment


              • #8
                SCOTUS Nominee


                I saw on TV yesterday that Obama was asked about a potential nominee and he did not confirm or deny that a justice of a certain race or ethnicity would be selected (which is good).

                On the other hand, he did say it would be "someone who looked out for the American people." What about looking out of the US Constitution? That is much more important than a short-term issue or populist sentiment.

                While I hardly expect Obama to put forth a "Scalia" or "Alito" type nominee, I shudder to think about some of the hard-left 'activist' types he may consider. There are far too many out there who believe that the US Constitution is an 'outdated obstacle' to social justice - instead of a blueprint for responsible government, individual rights and the rule of law.


                The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                ------------------------------------------------

                "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post
                  On the other hand, he did say it would be "someone who looked out for the American people." What about looking out of the US Constitution? That is much more important than a short-term issue or populist sentiment.
                  That's a good point and the crux of the matter. Leftists see the courts as a way to further their political aims, the Constitution is to be used or re-interpreted to suit that purpose. While Obama says he admires Scalia the most I think he's not being honest about it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    a good judge does not allow the personal view cloud the LEGAL out come of the case. That is called being objective. That is what a Judge's job is.

                    my .02 on the issue.
                    ‘Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.’
                    Oscar Wilde

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by texaschickeee View Post
                      a good judge does not allow the personal view cloud the LEGAL out come of the case. That is called being objective. That is what a Judge's job is.

                      my .02 on the issue.
                      LOL That's a good theory, but it doesn't work that way for the SCOTUS. SCOTUS usually only handles cases that are highly political so the divide will usually be obvious. When it gets to that level, you can spin the decision any way you want. There's plenty of reasoning for both.... it's just a matter if you agree with it or not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Isn't there the question of whether it follows our Constitutional principles or not? That should be their role as it was designed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                          Isn't there the question of whether it follows our Constitutional principles or not? That should be their role as it was designed.
                          "principles" is subjective... laws are interpreted.... as time and people change so do interpretations

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jannino View Post
                            "principles" is subjective... laws are interpreted.... as time and people change so do interpretations
                            Those aren't principles or laws, those are agendas.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well in his opinion, even the Warner Court wasn't radical enough because it failed to tackle the issue of redistribution of wealth, so I would say just look at his view of the Constitution if you want an idea of what type of person he will nominate. Obama wants to interpret the Constitution to be about what the government should be able to do for or to a citizen (or illegal aliens if we are talking health care). Those who founded our nation clearly intended the Constitution to be a compact of negative liberties...what the government cannot do to you.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5440 users online. 389 members and 5051 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X