The New American Politics thread

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Being a lawyer seems like it would be a pre-requisite? To sit on the SCOTUS bench?

Even the most nakedly political nominees have decades of experience as appellate level judges. How would Bernie Sanders write a 60 page decision on some narrow issue of debtor-creditor law? Why not just send him n to the operating room to separate conjoined twins too?

Seems like an awful idea. I don't think people understand what SCOTUS is

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Being a lawyer seems like it would be a pre-requisite? To sit on the SCOTUS bench?

Even the most nakedly political nominees have decades of experience as appellate level judges. How would Bernie Sanders write a 60 page decision on some narrow issue of debtor-creditor law? Why not just send him n to the operating room to separate conjoined twins too?

There is no Constitutional pre-requisite to be a Supreme Court Justice. No age, experience, or even Citizenship requirement exists. Literally anyone in the world could be nominated.

However, every single Justice ever has been a lawyer, either having attended law school, law classes, been admitted to the bar, or practiced law.

http://www.npr.org/sections/politica...reme_cour.html

[Itse]

While I do think being a lawyer seems like a good prerequisite for being a judge (duh), politicians read and write laws as part of their job, and Sanders has been at it for a long time. I would not be at all surprised if he had studied law quite a bit.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by driveway

There is no Constitutional pre-requisite to be a Supreme Court Justice. No age, experience, or even Citizenship requirement exists. Literally anyone in the world could be nominated.

However, every single Justice ever has been a lawyer, either having attended law school, law classes, been admitted to the bar, or practiced law.

http://www.npr.org/sections/politica...reme_cour.html

Thanks for that. Interesting (and surprising). Certainly markedly different than Canada.

Still doesn't change my view that Bernie Sanders, or anyone without extensive experience as an appellate judge, would likely be a terrible choice to sit on the SCOTUS.

For the record, I would be a terrible choice too.

[MarchHare]

Even in an alternate reality where Sanders was a graduate of Harvard Law and had thirty years of distinguished judicial experience prior to becoming a senator, there's zero percent chance that Clinton would nominate a 74-year old to fill a supreme court vacancy. Clinton will surely nominate someone in his or her late 40s or early 50s.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Drak

I know a close to die hard republican from SC who typically defends and supports republicans in every race. To his credit, he did vote for Obama in 2008 but claims to have regretted his choice months later and even hopped on the birther train.

He despises Trump and is voting for Clinton, although he's not fond of her, he realizes they are not on par. Sounds like the same message is coming from many of his friends and family.

I don't think he's alone in that. Trump is unbelievably unqualified. The GOP had (in my opinion) the perfect candidate to defeat Clinton in John Kasich and those buffoons still chose Trump.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'm pulling for the Democrats to win. The GOP has been taken over by a bunch of lunatics. As Trump would say, SAD!

[peter12]

A lot more to the allegations that Clinton sold access and influence while Secretary of State.

I mean, honestly, if the Republicans were running anything (sic) else this wouldn't even be close.

The release of the correspondence follows previous disclosures of internal emails showing a similar pattern of access for foundation contributors, and it comes as Republicans allege that Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, used her perch in the Obama administration to trade favors for donations. Clinton and the foundation have vigorously denied the charge.

[GGG]

The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting.

I think this is the key part. Also that the staff repeatedly rejected requests from people trying to get Visas and rejected Bono broadcasting from the space station.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think this is the key part. Also that the staff repeatedly rejected requests from people trying to get Visas and rejected Bono broadcasting from the space station.

But they got a meeting. Pay to play.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

But they got a meeting. Pay to play.

Do you find this different from when the Koch brothers line up the republican candidates to blow them before they decide who gets their super pax money?

[Gozer]

Any case before the Supreme Court has been adjudicated by several other judges, and argued by dozens of lawyers.
The Supreme Court consistently disagrees on the intrepetation of law (unanimously rulings are relatively rare, otherwise they wouldn't have reached the Supreme Court)

Furthermore, the justices have an infinite number of clerks and Lawyers working for them.
Most court-watchers agree that on the most polarized cases, the Justice identifies how he wants to rule and works backward to the case's standing. For example, Chief Justice Roberts and the key Obamacare case; he wanted to rule with a judicial philosophy that would minimize the impact of the court, yet limit the purview of the government (compelling a citizen to purchase, for his own good).
Once Roberts identified that was his goal, he found a way to rule thusly. (a ruling I think was correct) But he was the only one that made that ruling (1/9), because the Justices generally work backward.
See also: Marbury v Madison

This methodology is certainly not true for all cases. Many cases do require technical parsing of legalese, such as a debitor-creditor issue.

I do realize that Bernie would not be approved by the Senate, and would likely not accept the nomination. Even if he thought he could be a Justice, he probably wouldn't want to be remembered as Harriet Miers.

But I'd still like to see it. Garland isn't worthy of consideration because of President Blackenstein? How's this?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you find this different from when the Koch brothers line up the republican candidates to blow them before they decide who gets their super pax money?

Well, no need to be crude.

But no, not at all. It's all incestuous, corrupt, and venal. It is destroying America.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, no need to be crude.

But no, not at all. It's all incestuous, corrupt, and venal. It is destroying America.

So why Hillary?

You have had 250 years of people selling access, you have all of the senate and the house and every candidate all doing the same thing. Yet Hillary is the one people complain about.

it really comes down to Hillary being just another politician vs Trump the buffoon.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

So why Hillary?

You have had 250 years of people selling access, you have all of the senate and the house and every candidate all doing the same thing. Yet Hillary is the one people complain about.

it really comes down to Hillary being just another politician vs Trump the buffoon.

Oh man, the martyr complex is unusually strong with the Clintons.

[Gozer]

Rob Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson Jr., and hundreds of other 'just another politician selling influence' end up in jail.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh man, the martyr complex is unusually strong with the Clintons.

I disagree.

The persecution complex of those that oppose them reeks of petty jealousy.

The Clintons are a dynasty and newt Gingrich's historical value is as a huckster.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh man, the martyr complex is unusually strong with the Clintons.

Sexist!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I disagree.

The persecution complex of those that oppose them reeks of petty jealousy.

The Clintons are a dynasty and newt Gingrich's historical value is as a huckster.

Bizarre.

I've said on the record that this election was really just a referendum on Clinton's ability to govern. Trump never comes into the picture. She is awful, but she gets a pass because of her opponent. That is it.

BTW you aren't supposed to have dynasties in democracies. Unfortunately, us Canadians have just moved into a gigantic glass house.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Sexist!

Hey I'm not the one calling her Hillary. I used her surname, respectfully.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hey I'm not the one calling her Hillary. I used her surname, respectfully.

My pitchfork was sarcastic.