Foul-mouthed DUmpass gets pushback even from the other defects
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219613247#post18Aviation Pro (13,229 posts)
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 07:28 AM
Michelle Obama should be the first nominee
For the first seat on the expanded SCOTUS. There would be no comity between her and Justice RV and Justice Upside Down Flag or their ****ed up wives.
Walleye (34,762 posts)
6. That's a political reason, but I would prefer justices that are older and wiser
Reply to madaboutharry (Reply #4)
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 08:07 AM
mucifer (24,651 posts)
2. Honestly, just because she is a lawyer doesn't mean she is qualified. But, by republican standards
Reply to Aviation Pro (Original post)
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 07:45 AM
she would be. Michelle Obama doesn't have the judicial credibility of Ketanji Brown, Sonya Sotomayor or Merrick Gardland (when he was nominated).
Ketanji Brown, Sonya Sotomayor or Merrick Gardland are your baselines for a honest and proper judge?
Fiendish Thingy (17,912 posts)
14. Nope.
Reply to Aviation Pro (Original post)
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 10:04 AM
She doesn’t want the job anyway.
We have a deep bench, and don’t need to look to celebrities.
My vote for next Justice goes to the current Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar.
She has argued for the government/Biden administration in numerous cases bef
onenote (44,184 posts)
16. Multiple reasons no.
Reply to Aviation Pro (Original post)
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 10:59 AM
Leaving aside the fact that she without any doubt wouldn't want the job and the fact that there isn't going to be an "expanded SCOTUS" any time soon.
First, age. She'll be 61 on inauguration day. The average age at appointment of the current court was 50.3. The average age at appointment of the current repubs on the court was 49.67.
Second, qualifications and experience. There are literally dozens of more qualified Democrats available for the position. Michelle Obama has never been a judge or even a clerk to a judge. She practiced law for less than five years after graduating Harvard Law School in 1988 -- her law license has been on "inactive status" since 1993. In other words, she hasn't practiced law in over 30 years.
Even the lamest of the recent repub nominees were substantially more qualified for the job than Michelle. The exceptions are Thomas, who at least had served as an appeals court judge for nearly two years when he was nominated in 1990 and Harriet Miers, who had never served as a judge when she was nominated in 2005, but did clerk for a judge for two years. She actively practiced law for 23 years prior to being nominated in 2005 to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor but she had no experience with constitutional law and little or no litigation experience. Her appointment was, rightly lambasted by both Democrats and some repubs, leading to the withdrawal of her nomination less than a month after it was submitted.
The fact that the repubs have appointed tenuously qualified candidates to the courts isn't a justification for a Democratic president following suit.
Two things stand out to me. First, that there are ANY DUmmies who would oppose a purely political appointment here.
The second being that even though some of them oppose such a DUmb move, they still offer alternative activists for the spot.
Dear DUmpasses: The Supreme Court has made what I consider mistakes over it's entire history. Roe being one of them. But, these are rarities and appear to me that they were swayed by ideology rather than actual law. SCOTUS has made many decisions that disappointed me, but those decisions are almost always grounded in law, and I accept that. I firmly believe that it is up to our lawmakers to actually write the laws, not a panel of un-elected judges, so I accept their decisions, even when my ideology "loses".
So learn to do the right thing, DUmmies.... even when it hurts. But we all already know you are incapable of such ethics, and that is why we can't stand the sight of you.
