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.
Who are YOU thinking? Hell....there are literally MILLIONS upon MILLIONS out there who would be considered qualified.
"The Constitution does not list or specify any formal qualifications to become a justice on the Supreme Court, just like it does not specify the number of justices that make up the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers left those decisions to Congress. However, from the beginning of the Court,, justices have all been lawyers and many have had legal and political careers prior to serving on the court. An "informal" qualification is that the President consult with the Senators from the state that a prospective justice is from, before making his/her nomination official. The Senate must confirm appointments to the Court so they usually take into account the legal expertise of the person nominated by the President."
Yes, there are surely many who would be considered qualified, including Sotomayor. You thought there would be many MORE qualified. I suggested we should all participate in naming a few.
So I'm looking for someone with more than 17 years of federal judicial experience, whose record is superior. I've been working the search engines. Can you steer me toward anyone in particular?
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,076,944 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Yes, there are surely many who would be considered qualified, including Sotomayor. You thought there would be many MORE qualified. I suggested we should all participate in naming a few.
So I'm looking for someone with more than 17 years of federal judicial experience, whose record is superior. I've been working the search engines. Can you steer me toward anyone in particular?
I'm doing the same thing you are as fast as my Google will work....
In response to some of the questions she was asked, specifically the ones about her comments that included references to ethnicity/backround, it seems to me that she did a lot of back pedalling and misdirection. She was asked a few of those questions again and/or told she didn't answer the actual question. What do you think?
She came off badly in my opinion. I found it aggravating to listen to hear ramble on, and then back track to better choose her words. She does not seem to have a good command of the English language, and seems unable to follow a train of thought for 30 seconds with out misspeaking, and then going back and reword what she just said.
She is trying to sound like Justice Roberts, a true constructionist, and the democrats seem to be winking, and nodding as they already know the ruse is working.
Was it just me, or were many democrats giving detailed excuses for things Sotomayor said, and at the end of their statement was a leading question for Sotomayor to answer in the affirmative. In other words, "We know you botched your answer, or were caught saying something stupid, so follow me with an explanation to what you meant to say, and then you can agree with me... okay??" and Sotomayor would of course agree.
6 different speeches, I challenge you to link to three different speeches.
In one of the questions about her "wise latina" statements, it was said to her that she made that statement in 5 different speeches between 1994 and 2003. She in no way, shape, or form denied making that statement 5 times, so I'm going to believe it as true.
I hate to say this....but this "judge findin' " is harder than it looks
I'm onto '.gov sites, looking for the lists of current federal appeals judges. I realize that this isn't the only pool, but all of the current SCOTUS judges came from this pool. Federal judicial experience is clearly considered one of the qualifications, even though we've had judges without it. But part of the uproar over Miers was her lack of such experience. Interestingly, Souter only had three months federal judicial experience. And that may be why we have trended to wanting people with more judicial experience. More judicial experience translates into more rulings, an established record that can be examined to hint at how a judge will rule when on the Supreme Court. Souter surprised many SCOTUS watchers by being more liberal than expected.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,076,944 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I'm onto '.gov sites, looking for the lists of current federal appeals judges. I realize that this isn't the only pool, but all of the current SCOTUS judges came from this pool. Federal judicial experience is clearly considered one of the qualifications, even though we've had judges without it. But part of the uproar over Miers was her lack of such experience. Interestingly, Souter only had three months federal judicial experience. And that may be why we have trended to wanting people with more judicial experience. More judicial experience translates into more rulings, an established record that can be examined to hint at how a judge will rule when on the Supreme Court. Souter surprised many SCOTUS watchers by being more liberal than expected.
Here's the problem I'm running into....when I find someone that looks like he or she is the one,then you have to start back tracking and looking their positions over....this MAY not be MY forte.
Here's the problem I'm running into....when I find someone that looks like he or she is the one,then you have to start back tracking and looking their positions over....this MAY not be MY forte.
I actually find it fascinating. Time-consuming, but fascinating.
In one of the questions about her "wise latina" statements, it was said to her that she made that statement in 5 different speeches between 1994 and 2003. She in no way, shape, or form denied making that statement 5 times, so I'm going to believe it as true.
She didn't make the statement over and over. She made the statement once in a speech. The same statement was included in a draft of a speech, but was edited from that speech. She used the phrase "wise women" several times in other venues. During confirmation, this kind of detailed response would be taken as defensiveness and weakness, and wouldn't be well-received. Here in the forum, this kind of detailed response hopefully would be taken as an attention to detail that denotes integrity.
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.
Hell....there are literally MILLIONS upon MILLIONS out there who would be considered qualified.
