Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton?
cnn ^
| 1/3/08
Posted on 01/03/2008 9:13:11 AM PST by LouAvul
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
If those two pimps make it back to the White House, that'll be the least of our worries. Their raids on the US re Arkansas and DC will seem like child's play compared to what they've got in store for us now.
1
posted on
01/03/2008 9:13:11 AM PST
by
LouAvul
To: LouAvul
Obscene headline. Should come with a warning label.
2
posted on
01/03/2008 9:14:53 AM PST
by
AU72
To: LouAvul
One might think that being disbarred would be a disqualification. But not with this bunch...
3
posted on
01/03/2008 9:15:11 AM PST
by
tips up
To: LouAvul
The 2008 Presidential election is about
1) The Courts
2) Our sovereignty, and
3) Our national security.
Simple.
4
posted on
01/03/2008 9:15:54 AM PST
by
llevrok
( "In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom. In water, there is bacteria." - Ben Franklin)
To: LouAvul
Sorry...Bubba’s disqualified forever from the Supreme Court.
5
posted on
01/03/2008 9:16:21 AM PST
by
Sacajaweau
("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
To: LouAvul
He could add to his "firsts" ...
1. First US president accused of sexual assault.
2. First elected president ever impeached.
3. First disbarred attorney appointed to the Supreme Court.
I would expect a Republican filibuster of such nomination.
To: LouAvul
Now that is one scary thought!!
To: LouAvul
William Howard Taft, who called his time as chief justice, from 1921 to 1930, the most rewarding of his career. He was president from 1909 to 1913. William Howard Taft was never impeached or (effectively) disbarred.
8
posted on
01/03/2008 9:18:34 AM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: Sgt_Schultze
Oh I don’t know, if Huckster were the president he’d probably nominate Bill.
To: LouAvul
I doubt he even wants a job, especially that one.
10
posted on
01/03/2008 9:18:57 AM PST
by
stuartcr
(Election year.....Who we gonna hate, in '08?)
To: LouAvul
Yup. The Red Chinese are licking their chops.
11
posted on
01/03/2008 9:19:27 AM PST
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
To: LouAvul
Well, just as long as he’s in the mainstream of current legal jurisprudence.
12
posted on
01/03/2008 9:19:46 AM PST
by
Dr. Sivana
(Not a newbie, I just wanted a new screen name.)
To: LouAvul
There is precedent for such a nomination: William Howard Taft, who called his time as chief justice, from 1921 to 1930, the most rewarding of his career. He was president from 1909 to 1913.Was Taft was disbarred for five years just like Clinton?
13
posted on
01/03/2008 9:19:46 AM PST
by
Maceman
To: Sacajaweau
I thought it was a 5 year suspension but I could be mis- remembering.
14
posted on
01/03/2008 9:20:32 AM PST
by
NEPA
(Save a cow, tip a beer)
To: LouAvul
I shudder at the very thought. I was praying this was scrappleface.
15
posted on
01/03/2008 9:21:22 AM PST
by
dforest
(Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
To: LouAvul
I think his aim is much higher, like running the UN? Maybe?
16
posted on
01/03/2008 9:22:13 AM PST
by
southlake_hoosier
(.... One Nation, Under God.......)
To: LouAvul
Answer: Less than Zero.
Question: The number of qualifications Bill Clinton has for a Supreme Court position.
17
posted on
01/03/2008 9:22:21 AM PST
by
Bryan24
(When in doubt, move to the right..........)
To: LouAvul
A lawyer who has never served as a judge and was disbarred for committing perjury in a Federal court will win nomination to the Supreme Court. Yeah, right. Dream on, CNN...
18
posted on
01/03/2008 9:22:37 AM PST
by
andy58-in-nh
(Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
To: Maceman; NEPA
As I recall, he “surrendered his law license” for five years, which could probably be considered a temporary disbarment. I don’t know if he’s reinstated it.
19
posted on
01/03/2008 9:22:45 AM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: LouAvul
Would XXX-42 recuse himself from any case involving the federal government (with his wife-in-name-only as president)? Ethics would demand it much as when any other relative of a supreme court justice is involved. But then ethics mean nothing to the Clintons.
Completely different from Taft being named to the court.
20
posted on
01/03/2008 9:24:18 AM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson