Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,579,302 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Until now. Republicans are uplifting the young, helping them up the ladder. Why haven't Democrats done so? Republicans nominated and confirmed the first woman SCOTUS Justice young enough to have school-age children. Democrats wouldn't ever do that.
A. No one envisioned justices serving for 40+ years, that's an invention of tRump.
B. We've wanted justices with extensive experience!
Garland! And your precious justice is going to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges, no matter what she says now
holy hell thats a giant leap. i bet anything your precious rights to same sex marriage and abortion are safe. its crazy what people think is important.
Newsflash, the majority of Supreme Court nominees regardless of gender are old, what is the percentage of 55-60 year olds who still have children in school (not counting college of course)?
55 is about the oldest they appoint a nominee. They want someone who will stay on a long time.
A. No one envisioned justices serving for 40+ years, that's an invention of tRump.
B. We've wanted justices with extensive experience!
A. No justice has served more than 37 years, and the first one to serve more than 30 was placed on the court in 1798, which was 11 years after the ratification of the US Constitution. All the people who did the envisioning of this or that were around when that 30+ year justice was named to the court. Pretty sure they envisioned people serving 30 years or more. Lifetimes being decently long even back in the day.
Exhale, relax, read a history book.
B. Already slapped this down once, but we'll go again - 9 of the 17 Chief Justices to ever sit on the court had zero prior judicial experience when nominated. Elena Kagan had zero judicial experience.
Pretty much, throughout history, the nominee is someone the President chooses, and they get on the court because the Senate agreed. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any sort of rule for their legal/judicial resume. None.
Newsflash, the majority of Supreme Court nominees regardless of gender are old, what is the percentage of 55-60 year olds who still have children in school (not counting college of course)?
Now, that puts an interesting twist on things. Haven't the youngins been saying that the people in government are too old and they need to be younger?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,579,302 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
But Justice Barrett was born in 1972, right? So she's 48......that seems pretty young to me. Heck, she's younger than former President Obama!
Too young, she's the least experienced justice in court history. That's a fact, not opinion
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
