Posted on 05/04/2009 8:02:13 AM PDT by Selkirk
The topic du jour is whether the President might choose a non-judge, or perhaps even a nonlawyer, to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice David Souter. And there is reason to think that it might be a possibility.
Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee, indicated his own preference on the Sunday morning circuit that the appointment be made outside the "judicial monastery." And the President himself has indicated that one of his core criteria will be "empathy," rather than the typical nods too judicial temperament or judicial philosophy.
It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with Kos, but I think we see eye-to-eye on this one
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.politicalcastaway.com ...
Hillary?
Our Federal Government is such a complete joke right now, it would be hilarious if it weren’t so damaging.
Or Bill.
She’s a lawyer.
That’s been my thought all along. She didn’t give up her opposition to the Bambster to be SoS, she got promised something muuucchh bigger.
I would agree that we need a person both knowledgeable of the law, but accutely aware that our burdensome legal process does nothing but enrich lawyers, and hire judicial process pushers and bureaucrats, all at the expense of justice.
He used to be a lawyer. Got disbarred, though.
“empathy” = willingness to ignore the law and the Constitution to impose the desired politically-correct result.
Sure, why worry about that silly constitutional law thing? It's just a hindrance to the goals of the left.
Whoever is the choice, it will be someone who views the constitution as an impediment to justice.
Whoever is picked is going to be a train wreck and it doesn’t really matter what their background is. Picking someone from outside legal circles might be beneficial when their nutty, leftist opinions are examined. They won’t have the fig leaf of a “distinguished judicial record” to provide cover for Obama’s radicalism and idiocy.
“The topic du jour is whether the President might choose a non-judge...”
Why not? The POtuS is a non-leader...
Souter, Ginsburg, Breier, Stevens and often Kennedy have made it common practice to ignore the Constitution when rendering a decision. Obviously non-lawyers can do so as well! Why not put Chavez on the court. It’s only in session a few months out of the year. He’d have plenty of time to pillage, seize and destroy. Besides, like the rest of the court’s leftists, he could phone in his decisions too!
The role of the supreme court is to ensure that legislation affecting US citizens is CONSISTENT with the CUNSTITUTION. It is not to judge the laws on their own merits.
Do you have to be a lawyer? I don’t think so. I’m not certain but I think there’s not too many qualifications for the job. It’s just a matter of getting nominated and approved is it not?
No, my point was if he is going totally off the reservation the Clintons actually have law degrees so they may not be as unqualified as he would prefer.
Depends on what the definition of is is.
IIRC, billy jeff turned in his license rather than go before a disciplinary board and in all likelihood, get disbarred. Technically, he can claim that he wasn't disbarred.
Bill’s name comes up fairly often in this respect. I had never heard of Hillary for SCOTUS until last night actually. Either prospect is kind of scary. And like they were so fond of pointing out- you get one of them, you get the other.
He has "empathy," you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.