SCOTUS

Feb 24 2016 Published by under Uncategorized

In the interest of eliciting the most hilarious hypocritical illogic from the Republicans, Obama should nominate .....?

My nominee is Senator Lindsay Graham.

29 responses so far

  • Thomas says:

    Trump

  • qaz says:

    Cough. Cough. Gag.

    But that sets up the ultimate punking of all time! What if they approve him?

  • drugmonkey says:

    Maybe I'm ok with him. šŸ™‚

  • Former Technician says:

    There has been a lot of conversation among court watchers locally who want "balance" on the court. Balance is a relative term based on the perspective of the individual.

    In the interest of balance, I would like to nominate Anita Hill to balance Clarence Thomas.

  • jmz4 says:

    Ronald Reagan?

  • odyssey says:

    Jeb!

  • OlympiasEpiriot says:

    Judge Judy

  • Microscientist says:

    Hillary. Just think about it for a moment. Which is more important to the GOP, the court of the Presidency?

  • Dave says:

    Sally Rockey

  • eeke says:

    Whoever it is, I think the nominee should be a woman. There aren't and have not been enough women serving as SC justices (RBG says that all 9 justices should be female to balance out the last 200 years when they were all male). So Jane Kelly. Since repubs are going to block whoever it is, Obama will likely pick a conservative male since he will never be approved by the current senate. And then Hillary or Bernie can select the most liberal female they can find instead. There. I said it. That's my plan.

  • DJMH says:

    Mittens!

    You know he's just at home watching the Klown Kar primary and weeping, anyhow.

  • Susan says:

    himself. Or Michele.

  • Dave says:

    I miss Mittens!!! šŸ™

  • drugmonkey says:

    Nobody likes the "Draft Sandra Day O'Connor" thing that has been going around?

  • Ola says:

    Kanye

    You know you want it!

  • drugmonkey says:

    No. Maybe a political cartoonist if you need an artist

  • DJMH says:

    IKR? takes a primary season this kooky to make one long for the time when Republicans only flirted with the loony-bin-crazies.

  • becca says:

    Richard Posner.
    Bloggers for SCOTUS!

  • DJMH says:

    Being real though, although I'm liberal, I think a moderate would be great. For the past few years so much power has been vested in Kennedy because he's THE swing vote. A second moderate would make Kennedy somewhat less influential, and create a lot more opportunity for interesting outcomes.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Agree his pivotal role has gone to Kennedy's head. But a liberal majority would do that as well as a second moderate.

  • DJMH says:

    Well, I think a second moderate would bring about interesting coalitions on the Court. The presence of another moderate forces both sides to work on crafting their arguments rather than just shouting into a vacuum....The frustration that a lot of people (on both sides) feel about 5-4 decisions would, I think, be mitigated if they saw a serious discussion in the middle, rather than wholly partisan/predictable outcomes. And I think it's better for the Court to be respected, even if that means the Court doesn't always agree with me.

    We wouldn't be in this nasty mess in the first place if most of the appointees were moderates--it just wouldn't be seen as a huge triumph to get to name a new judge.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I am one that thinks that 5-4 splits should be rare if this is a Court that works. The politicization really bothers me. But it is also clear that this politicization started in recent times when H.W. stepped out of the door at Kenebunkport and said Clarence Thomas was the best qualified. Relatedly, this is also the marker of when journalism died.

  • DJMH says:

    Agree, agree, agree except Bork rather than Thomas. Dude was involved in carrying out Nixon's tricks--hard to see how that seemed like a good choice.

    But, just because it's been broken for a while doesn't mean we can't try to fix it. I was happy with Kagan and Sotomayor because they're great, but now ready to try a moderate. A court composed of 2-3-2 (lib-mod-con) would be my ideal.

  • DJMH says:

    Except #math, so 3-3-3.

  • Bagger Vance says:

    Was this the post that was supposed to be entitled "In which I again punch down at some totally sympathetic character"?

  • Grumble says:

    Obama should nominate an eminently qualified constitutional scholar with a great deal of experience with the American political system, and whose moderate views are generally in line with the majority of Americans. It wouldn't hurt if the candidate were a minority, too. In other words, he should nominate Barack Obama.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I am overwhelmed by your logic. Obama would be a good selection.

  • imager says:

    best would be this scenario: Reps block everyone. Trump becomes GOP's nominee, Hilary wins the Presidency - and nominates Obama..

  • drugmonkey says:

    Sadly, she already said she would consider him and he declined.

Leave a Reply