Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

[Gaius46]

The lady is the Attorney General, a lifelong prosecutor, and a Harvard law grad and she has zero qualifications?

Not the right qualifications.

Prosecutors deal with criminal law. The SC deals with Constitutional law. They are very different animals.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I would note that, as attorney general, she would be on the front line for crafting the arguments and reviewing the briefs for constitutional arguments currently being made before the Supreme Court. But certainly it is possible to have a more qualified individual. On the flip side, it is also entirely possible to nominate someone that isn't a lawyer for the Supreme Court - no such requirement.

So you must have been terribly disappointed when the Democrat Senate refused to confirm GW Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, for the Supreme Court who had the same and better background than Lynch.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

I do not think a "life long prosecutor" is qualified for the SCOTUS. A "life long judge," yes.

all it takes to be qualified for SC is to be a life long judge? that must be tens of thousands. standards are pretty low

 

[MrT]

Not the right qualifications.

Prosecutors deal with criminal law. The SC deals with Constitutional law. They are very different animals.

Yes, but the Attorney General is on the front line of preparing and reviewing Constitutional arguments to be made in the immediate future for the Supreme Court.

 

[MrT]

So you must have been terribly disappointed when the Democrat Senate refused to confirm GW Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, for the Supreme Court who had the same and better background than Lynch.

Of course not. I get and recognize the need for political parties to filibuster and block candidates for the Supreme Court based on an individual review of that person's qualifications and beliefs. And perhaps Republicans can make that argument for Loretta Lynch individually; however, it is a wholly different animal to claim that Republicans can and should block every candidate nominated by Obama because...Obama. That strategy deserves criticism and it should endure the pain and punishment associated with being purely a party of obstruction.

 

[akrunner88]

I would note that, as attorney general, she would be on the front line for crafting the arguments and reviewing the briefs for constitutional arguments currently being made before the Supreme Court. But certainly it is possible to have a more qualified individual. On the flip side, it is also entirely possible to nominate someone that isn't a lawyer for the Supreme Court - no such requirement.

No, maybe not such requirement. But for me, on a personal level that is my requirement. And I'm not interested in seeing any more political brinkmanship than we already have in government, and her pick will promote this. I'd like to see Obama pick a fair candidate that both sides can reasonably agree to. And despite the rhetoric in government currently, there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats who deep down appreciate this that I believe will give Obama his shot at nominating a fair candidate.

Lynch will never become a SCOTUS judge, not now at least.

 

[akrunner88]

all it takes to be qualified for SC is to be a life long judge? that must be tens of thousands. standards are pretty low

Of course not, but I believe someone with judicial experience as an actual judge is more qualified than a prosecutor. I have many qualifications I'd like to see, and prosecutor happens to not be one of them.

 

[shrubnose]

What if he nominates Staci Michelle Yandle, presently a judge at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois?

Probably not going to happen but she has a lot better chance than Cruz.

 

[haymarket]

I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

No doubt your analysis is spot on. However, I still favor Sri2 as I think he would make it on the Court and that is what this is suppose to be about.

I also wonder if this is just being floated so if a Sri2 nomination does come down, there will be a sigh of relief and a feeling among the GOP that they dodged a bullet.

 

[Gaius46]

Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

Yes, but the Attorney General is on the front line of preparing and reviewing Constitutional arguments to be made in the immediate future for the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General represents the government in front of the court and while that person does report to the AG I wouldn't assume the AG has much detailed involvement in developing arguments simply based on that. She may - I honestly don't know but I'm not going to assume she does.

At the end of the day there are many people who have better resumes.

 

[Gaius46]

President Obama will not be nominating Ted Cruz for anything.

:lol:

Lol. No probably not. Maybe President Trump will.

Ugh. Did I just say that. I feel dirty

 

[Linc]

Conservatives on DP who are schooled in the law have clearly stated that Kagan and Sotomayor were highly qualified. There's no reason to think Obama's 3rd choice won't be the same .

To hell with qualifications! Let's nominate Lynch because she's a WOMAN and BLACK!

Obungle doing this would not surprise me one bit. He likes picking people who have zero qualifications. As long as they know how to kiss his ass or tow the party line, that's all that matters.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Of course not. I get and recognize the need for political parties to filibuster and block candidates for the Supreme Court based on an individual review of that person's qualifications and beliefs. And perhaps Republicans can make that argument for Loretta Lynch individually; however, it is a wholly different animal to claim that Republicans can and should block every candidate nominated by Obama because...Obama. That strategy deserves criticism and it should endure the pain and punishment associated with being purely a party of obstruction.

But Democrat obstructionism is okey dokey

 

[akrunner88]

But Democrat obstructionism is okey dokey

No one is claiming that and I'm more than willing to concede that Democrats do it just as much as Republicans.

I'm a liberal, for sure. But I am really tired of the political and partisan brinkmanship in this country that is being dictated by the far fringes of both sides. It's not healthy for our political system or our electorate and is dividing us further than ever before. I respect many members of the right wing and though disagree with their opinions and philosophy, give them their due credit.

 

[chromium]

who thinks that someone who didn't even graduate with honors from Harvard law school (let alone not being an editor on the law review) really should replace a man who was First in his class in College, and first in his class at Harvard Law school?

if scalia was first at anything that doesn't reflect well at all on the thing

 

[Linc]

But Democrat obstructionism is okey dokey

How far back do we go with who did it first?
The civil war, when we didn't have 9 Justices?

So, here's mine.
The GOP has been threatening a 2nd civil war, with numerous best-sellers on the topic, since Clinton was elected .

 

[TurtleDude]

What makes her "highly qualified?" She's spent most of her life as a prosecutor or in private practice. Neither necessarily gives someone the experience with Constitutional questions that an SC justice needs. As far as I know she's never held a judgeship, let alone sat on an appeals court. Nor does she have, again as far as I know, significant experience as an appellate lawyer. Frankly Ted Cruz, who has argued before the court, is probably more qualified.

If you weren't at the very very top of the very very top law schools you really shouldn't be considered for being on the supreme court. The supreme court should be reserved for people who would say merit appointment to the top constitutional law professorship at a place Like Yale, Harvard, or Stanford Law schools

 

[TurtleDude]

Your litmus test is the person's grades while attending Harvard Law School?

Tell me truly TD, if Obama could somehow nominate Scalia himself - do you think the Republicans would still try and block?

are you saying an affirmative action pick who didn't graduate in the top 100 of her class at Harvard Law school is one of the best legal minds in the USA? at least Sotomayor had a claim to that being Summa Cum Laude at Princeton and at the top of her Yale Law school class

 

[TurtleDude]

if scalia was first at anything that doesn't reflect well at all on the thing

gay rage at Scalia is not a convincing argument. I realize you don't like him because he wasn't sympathetic to the recently "discovered" civil right of gay sex and gay marriage. But tell us why Harvard Law looks bad because Scalia was one of the top students in the history of that esteemed institution

 

[akrunner88]

are you saying an affirmative action pick who didn't graduate in the top 100 of her class at Harvard Law school is one of the best legal minds in the USA? at least Sotomayor had a claim to that being Summa Cum Laude at Princeton and at the top of her Yale Law school class

I don't see Lynch being a serious pick, if one at all. Maybe a precourse for a real pick to drum up media attention towards the Republicans. So I see her potential pick as a way to play politics.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't see Lynch being a serious pick, if one at all. Maybe a precourse for a real pick to drum up media attention towards the Republicans. So I see her potential pick as a way to play politics.

that's an interesting argument that has merit

 

[akrunner88]

that's an interesting argument that has merit

I mean I certainly don't see her as a serious pick, as a liberal. I would like to see as impartial of a pick as possible, if that even is possible. No "conservative or liberal" bonafides. Just someone with an outstanding record of impartiality and fairness to the arguments. There will always be biases in one direction or the other, but our justice system is supposed to be about impartiality and I respect that notion.

 

[Bucky]

Pretty sad when the liberals always revert to using the racist/racial narrative.

Liberals and Democrats who say it would be racist to oppose Mrs. Lynch because of her race/gender are the same people who demanded we Lynch Clarence Thomas during his nomination hearing.

This again goes to the point: Liberals LOVE blacks, hispanic, gays, etc.... as long as they tow the company line.

If you are a minority/gay that goes against liberalism, you are a uncle tom, traitor, [insert any derogatory/racial name]

One example is this story: Two wealthy gay hotel owners threw a rally for Ted Cruz. Here is what happened:

No Tea Dance at the Sip n’ Twirl? Hard to believe, but that’s LGBT politics for you.

As if that weren’t enough, Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS went one step further, canceling their their "Broadway Bares Solo Strips" benefit. It had been scheduled for May 10 at the Out Hotel, which Reisner and Weiderpass own. “I have never considered that all of our many supporters would ever vote monolithically,” executive director Tom Viola wrote on his Facebook page. “But when any politician publicly holds so many of us in contempt… we cannot be misunderstood as standing with him/her.”

Why Are Two Wealthy Gay Men Hosting a Benefit for Ted Cruz? Israel. - The Daily Beast

Liberals like to accuse Christians of being intolerant but Liberals are the most intolerant/bigoted people I know.

In defense of liberals, I don't call think real liberals are like this. These are the liberal fascist who have a manifestation and hatred towards Christians.

As a Christian I have respect and love for everyone. I wish the liberal fascist did so as well.

 

[TheHammer]

I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

You're a "centrist?" Yeah right!

 

[Gaius46]

If you weren't at the very very top of the very very top law schools you really shouldn't be considered for being on the supreme court. The supreme court should be reserved for people who would say merit appointment to the top constitutional law professorship at a place Like Yale, Harvard, or Stanford Law schools

We're in complete agreement