Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May-01-09 04:36 PMOriginal messageJustice William Jefferson Clinton Anyone? Following in the Taft model...He is emminently qualifed as an attorney and especially having served as President.:patriot:
MarjorieG Fri May-01-09 04:37 PMResponse to Original message4. After impeachment and losing law license? Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top ddeclue Fri May-01-09 04:40 PMOriginal messageThat was temporary and there is no requirement that Judges and Justices have a law license read the Constitution...Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top SteppingRazor Fri May-01-09 04:40 PMResponse to Original message7. Meh. I'd say no for several reasons. Edited on Fri May-01-09 04:41 PM by SteppingRazor1) Clinton's doing great work as an ex-president, especially in bringing attention to the plight of the Third World. Why stop that so he can sit on the bench?2) Clinton may be qualified, but by that test, there are others who are far more so -- people who have judicial experience, for example.3) While any nomination will be controversial, as the GOP in Congress will likely try to shoot down even the most moderate of choices, picking Clinton is perhaps the least amenable route. It would stir up some of the most obstruction while returning a moderate investment, as Clinton is neither particularly liberal in his judicial philosophy, nor particularly young -- at 63, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee in decades.
I hate to burst the primitive's bubble but, isn't Clintoon a CONVICTED felon? Doesn't that make the moron ineligible?
Well he could nominate Michelle. Wm Ayers or Bernadette Dorhn....