Mr. Justice Gore

“The choice would be electrifying,” writes Michael Sean Winters at “In All Things,” the group blog of America, the Catholic (Jesuit) weekly.

The biggest objection to putting Al Gore on the Supreme Court, I assume, would be that he’s not a lawyer. But is this really a bug rather than a feature? Gore spent sixteen years in Congress, where he helped make the laws, and eight as Vice-President, where he took care that the laws were faithfully executed. His perspective would fill some giant blind spots on the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

OMFG

Has he been nominated? :eyebrow:

...the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience...

Which is as it should be.

Gore on the Supreme Court?

:lol2:

You guys crack me up.

xoxoxoBruce;562898 wrote:

Quote:
...the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience...
Which is as it should be.

...and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

Not saying its right or wrong, but that just seems odd. :eyebrow:

which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

You can say the first two things, and theoretically back it up with factual information. Who decides they have a narrow experience of life in general? Cite? :eyebrow:

which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.

Gore?!?!?!?! :lol2:

Hell, even Hillary Clinton would be a better choice, not that I would support that either.:bolt:

The Catholic Weekly? :lol2:

...the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience...

I dont see why federal bench experience should be a prerequisite, despite recent trends.

We've had some good or great justices w/o such experience:
[INDENT]Willam Rehnquist
Lewis Powell
Byron "Whizzer" White
Earl Warren (a politician, Gov of California)
William O Douglas
Felix Frankfurter
Louis Brandieis
[/INDENT]
By historical standards or at least in the view of many historians and judicial scholars, many of these guys were considered great justices (w/ Rehnquist being the least great of the bunch, IMO). Are Constitutional issues that much more complex now that federal bench experience should be required?

I would not mind at all if Obama looks outside the federal appeals courts.

I would almost prefer it - just not Gore - ewwww

There's nothing funnier than watching the right dream up scenarios to scare the shit out of themselves with.

Redux;563001 wrote:

I dont see why federal bench experience should be a prerequisite, despite recent trends.

We've had some good or great justices w/o such experience:
[INDENT]Willam Rehnquist
Lewis Powell
Byron "Whizzer" White
Earl Warren (a politician, Gov of California)
William O Douglas
Felix Frankfurter
Louis Brandieis
[/INDENT]
By historical standards or at least in the view of many historians and judicial scholars, many of these guys were considered great justices (w/ Rehnquist being the least great of the bunch, IMO). Are Constitutional issues that much more complex now that federal bench experience should be required?

I would not mind at all if Obama looks outside the federal appeals courts.

Outside the Federal Appeals Court is fine, but political experience? Fuck that, I want them making their rulings based on constitutionality, not political appeal.

The nominee certainly cant be gay...at least according to one Senator:

[C]onservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama's effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

"I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now," said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. "It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he'll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018065.php

Gays and lesbians cant possibly be in the judicial mainstream?

I think as long as they have some kind of experience with law in their background, then fine. I don't think they need to have been a judge in order to qualify, and in fact, it could be argued that we need someone outside of appeals courts in order to supply some balance, since most (or maybe all?) of the ones currently serving are from appeals courts.

I definitely think the next couple of picks should be women though, perhaps a latina and an african-american or maybe an asian or an american indian. We need a wide variety of opinions, and women have the court WAY stacked against them, even though they make up more than half the population.

Redux;563350 wrote:

The nominee certainly cant be gay...at least according to one Senator:

Gays and lesbians cant possibly be in the judicial mainstream?

Oh, a gay would be good. And how about having a damn atheist or agnostic for a change? Isn't it time we're due having someone NOT religious?

I think the Dems should nominate Chavez. It would be fitting.

TheMercenary;563385 wrote:

I think the Dems should nominate Chavez. It would be fitting.

I think they should nominate Jeremiah Wright, and then stomp on the GOP who really can't even filibuster anymore (Thank YOU, Michael Steel!).

The reason I want this to happen, of course, is to watch conservatards all over the country have foaming strokes.