MojoMan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Some Senator-type a-holes want Obama to nominate someone with "real life" experience like a Senator for the Supreme Court opening. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30603525 I can think of few positions less "real life" than being a Senator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Just as long as everyone realizes that empathy is more important than knowledge of the law, I don't think we will have a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 “Personal acquaintanceship or friendship was perhaps the dominant consideration in the selection of justices by Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, and it was an important consideration for both FDR and Kennedy. By contrast, recent presidents determined to shift the court's jurisprudence in a more conservative direction (Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush) have been willing to abandon friendship as a criteria in favor of ideological criteria.” Hmm . . some nominate friends, some nominate only according to conservative "purity". What happened to qualified individuals? It is very interesting that historically a lot of justices were not judges before serving on the Supreme Court, and that is largely a more recent phenomenon. So much for "fair and impartial" . . . . .lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Hmm . . some nominate friends, some nominate only according to conservative "purity". What happened to qualified individuals? It is very interesting that historically a lot of justices were not judges before serving on the Supreme Court, and that is largely a more recent phenomenon. So much for "fair and impartial" . . . . .lol. from the story you misquoted: Five of Franklin Roosevelt's nine nominees were poker buddies, advisers or political lieutenants. I'm sure his advisers and political lieutenants were impartial. I wonder if they were the same advisers that gave him the idea of adding justices to the supreme so he could stack it in his favor in order to pass his unconstitutional program? FDR and the courts should never be held up a good example. He had no respect for the courts, and had the chief justice not finally bent to FDR's will, the court would have been much different than what the founding fathers designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Perch, you need t6o read my post more carefully. When I said "friends" it WAS slamming FDR. When I sad "conservative purity", it was slamming GWB, Nixon and Reagan. Both were straight from the article. The fair and impartial comment goes for BOTH parties and who they have nominated to the bench. Hell, FDR also brought back his buddy Bill Donovan and gave him almost unlimited power to start the OSS during WWII whicg turned into the modern day CIA. he was one of the WORST aspects of cronyism in bringing in personnel. FDR brought in his buddies, the later reblican presidents mentioned only brought in judges that mirrored their conservative viewpoint. BOTH are full of crap, and led to my comment about "what happened to fair and impartial"?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Perch, I know you have some kind of vendetta against FDR, but I was in no way defending him or LBJ who was (gasp) a Democrat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.