Posted on 09/25/2014 5:42:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
See, this is how a master scares his audience. When an amateur like me tries to do it, it tends to devolve into lame “Romney 2016? trolling. As if Romney isn’t, relatively speaking, the most appealing RINO in the field. (Seriously, would you prefer Jeb Bush or Chris Christie?)
That said, I am and will forever remain proud of how effective my many “Huckabee 2016?” posts have been in getting readers to pee their pants. Rush may be a master but I’m at least semi-pro.
After you perform your six years of government service, you then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it. People hire you who are grateful for what you did or you go back to your law firm where you are a rainmaker, don’t even have to do any work.
They put your name on the letterhead, on the door, and you attract clients and get a percentage of what walks in the door. There is any number of ways this can happen. But there’s also another possibility regarding Eric Holder. I just want you to prepare yourself. It may happen. We still have two years to go.
There may be a Supreme Court vacancy, and I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it, and it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private sector law firm rainmaker after six years at DOJ to the Supreme Court, than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court. I don’t know how much that would matter, but don’t rule any of that out. I don’t think there’s any scandal. I don’t think it’s Fast and Furious. I don’t think he’s worried about the Republicans investigating anything if they win the Senate.
Making the jump directly from the DOJ to SCOTUS would be a headache because Holder would have to recuse himself for the first few years from ruling on federal prosecutions he oversaw as Attorney General. (Elena Kagan, who served as Solicitor General, had a similar problem.) That’s why Rush is imagining a few years in private practice for Holder; the cases he supervised at Justice could work their way through the system in the interim and then he could be appointed with a clean slate.
Any chance this could happen, then? If nothing else, it would be a master stroke of presidential trolling for O to send a guy who was held in contempt by the Republican House into a confirmation battle with a newly Republican Senate. Holder is so despised by righties, though, that it’s hard to imagine any GOPers voting to confirm, even the squishes like Murkowksi, Collins, and Kirk. Obama could nominate him anyway, expecting that he’ll be blocked; that would be a nice GOTV play for his base ahead of 2016. (“The GOP voted down the would-be third black justice in American history!”) But … why would Holder subject himself to that after battling Republicans for six years? Hard to believe he’d willingly endure the ignominy of being voted down in front of the country just to help Democrats with a campaign talking point, especially since his nomination would give the media an excuse to revisit his most dubious moments as AG — starting with his investigation of reporters like James Rosen. Besides, as a Twitter pal pointed out to me, Holder’s set to turn 64 in a few months. You might get 20 years out of him as a Supreme Court justice. Why not appoint a much younger liberal if you’re O and aim for a 40-year tenure? As much as lefties enjoy how Holder drives the right nuts, longevity on the Court is worth way more to them than annoying the GOP.
Having said all that, though, I understand and appreciate the appeal of “could [hated liberal] end up on the Court?” arguments. I’ve made ‘em myself in the past about Bill and Hillary Clinton, both of whom are also too old now to be viable SCOTUS nominees. In fact, my very favorite entry in this genre was this 2010 op-ed by Jeffrey Rosen wondering if Obama might not appoint … himself to the Court. Not going to happen, needless to say — but imagine if Hillary gets elected in 2016 and then Ginsburg finally steps down. The One will be just 55 years old on Inauguration Day 2017. There’s precedent for presidents joining the Court too, per William Howard Taft. I bet there’d even be a few Senate Republicans who’d vote to confirm him purely on grounds that a Harvard Law grad who was twice elected by American voters to the country’s highest office is qualified to join the Court, notwithstanding any ideological objections. If you want to worry about a big name being appointed to fill a vacancy, I’d worry less about Holder and more about O down the line. How’s that for masterful SCOTUS-related trolling, eh?
While you try to compose yourselves, via RCP, here’s the new host of “Meet the Press” reflecting on how remarkably non-political Eric Holder was as AG.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in
large groups.”
Someone should have told Hari Seldon. Maybe he could
could have predicted the mule.
Obama the Mule. Could he be a eunuch? He throws like one.
All three of them are POSs. For rats, it appears that criminal behavior, is a prerequisite for employment.
d:^)
For rats, it appears that criminal behavior, is a prerequisite for employment.
Yep, they run everything they touch just like the Mob operates. In fact, they make the Mob envious.
Bookmark
WHAT? LOL!
To the left, nothing is more offensive than......the truth
No way ,not even with 100 Dem Senators
An understatement!
If Holder is involved, I can imagine 100,000 citizens with pitchforks surrounding the Supreme Court building --- indefinitely.
Then we can see if all the military officers who were asked (by Obama) if they "would shoot at American citizens..." or be dismissed, actually meant it.
Pay closer attention, Lab. Rush said “...it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private sector law firm rainmaker after six years at DOJ to the Supreme Court, than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court.” He clearly DID NOT say it was a requirement to resign from DOJ to be eligible for SCOTUS. Where did you get that idea?
Ha ha ha!
Too bad for them!
He can't be pardoned unless he's been convicted.
And I'm sure the statute of limitations for the many crimes that a*****e has committed under color of authority, runs longer than two years.
And they WILL be prosecuted...
...one at a time!
Good luck with that, morons.
That makes even less sense. Think about it.
So Rush averages 2,500.000 listeners a show , if you have more views on your show you must be Bill OReilly or maybe spungbob square pants.
Which is it.
I assume you signed a bigger deal than Rush's 400.000,000 deal also.
In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
Shame!
Thank you for that reply!
I am not a lawyer, nor even stayed at the Holiday Inn last night.
Now I have something to look up and read; perhaps even get input from other legal types for the legal morass since 1866.
Say... did Thomas B. Reed have any part in that adventure?
Did Abraham what'shisname play a role in the case going to the Supreme Court?
Yes, I actually plan to read it all...
LOL, of course the Mob is envious. The government gets away with criminal activity all the time. The Mob only gets away with criminal activity some of the time.
be one bruising conformation hearing.
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.