Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

[CanadaJohn]

So, Lynch was approved by a "mere" 56-43 margin for AG and that the AG is different from a supreme court justice and that is the full extent of your argument for why Obama would be idiot to nominate Lynch?

Doesn't need much more of an explanation, really - it's pretty self explanatory.

 

[shrubnose]

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.

Let's see the GOP block her. Bring it on.

:lamo

I'm going to have to buy some extra popcorn.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

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

dont be so obvious

 

[humbolt]

It doesn't matter who Obama nominates. McConnell isn't going to move on it.

 

[akrunner88]

SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News



Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.

The SCOTUS pick is likely to be played out politically by both parties, so the "punching bag" theory seems pretty reasonable to me. I have no doubt that she will be denied by the Senate, and that our side will cry foul, opening up a more moderate pick that the Republicans may pick due to perceptions that the American public is seeing the Republicans as obstructionist. I think both parties will try to play this out to their benefit politically. I also believe that when all is said and done, Obama will more than likely pick the next SCOTUS judge, but only after going at it with the Republicans for several months to come to a reasonable candidate. He/she won't be the conservative some Republicans would prefer, but he/she won't necessarily be a 100% bonafide liberal either.

 

[WCH]

Try Indian-American man, with Governors Jindal and Haley at his side .

One that's not conservative?

 

[Linc]

Not Law review at Harvard
NOt magna cum laude (HLS often has no Summa Cum Laude graduates in a given year)

SO how is she in the same league as Alito, or Sotomayor-both of whom were top in their classes at Princeton and Yale Law or even Kagan?

You make a good case for Sri--what do you have on him?
I think he would fit in well with the third wing of the USSC--Roberts and Kennedy.

Who is more moderate in your eyes, Kagan or Sotomayor?
I was intrigued by the news of Justice Scalia forging an RBG-type relationship with Kagan .

 

[Port & Starboard]

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

 

[Linc]

One that's not conservative?

Which President gets to make that choice?
And by all means, which Senate is obligated to at least act on that choice, up or down, beginning in committee ?

 

[akrunner88]

One that's not conservative?

It shouldn't matter if the pick is conservative or liberal, it should matter who is most qualified. And there are many picks on both sides of the ideological spectrum who are qualified. As a liberal, I myself will not support a pick who is ideologically biased to the extreme of either side, as I think our political system is partisan enough and this partisanship is damaging our country. Rather, I'd prefer to see candidates like Roberts, who I may not necessarily agree with 100% of the time, but whose decisions come from a place where ideology is less involved.

 

[akrunner88]

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

Who is doing that?

 

[Linc]

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

Pretty sad when "racist" charges are thrown around like the "liar" word in GOP debates .

 

[Gaius46]

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.

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.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

It doesn't matter who Obama nominates. McConnell isn't going to move on it.

lol, thats what mcconnell says now. just wait until the media gets worked up calling him (and repubs) this and that. maybe black folks will riot over it until they get what they want.

What makes her "highly qualified?"

dont forget, she gets 50 extra points for her skin color and another 50 for her virgina

 

[akrunner88]

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.

While I disagree with the Ted Cruz bit, I do agree with you on the whole. I do not think she is qualified nor worthy of the pick.

 

[shrubnose]

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. Frankly

Ted Cruz, who has argued before the court, is probably more qualified.

President Obama will not be nominating Ted Cruz for anything.

:lol:

 

[MrT]

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?

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?

 

[MrT]

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.

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

 

[MrT]

Doesn't need much more of an explanation, really - it's pretty self explanatory.

That you have no legitimate argument? I do see that quite clearly, yes.

 

[humbolt]

lol, thats what mcconnell says now. just wait until the media gets worked up calling him (and repubs) this and that. maybe black folks will riot over it until they get what they want.

All kinds of things can happen. As it stands today, Obama can nominate and McConnell won't move on it. I don't know if that will change or not. It'll be interesting to watch. I don't think the public will get nearly as worked up over this as some seem to think. I am also wrong as often as I am right - which, I might add, would make me better at foreign policy than Obama.

 

[akrunner88]

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

I do not think a "life long prosecutor" is qualified for the SCOTUS. A "life long judge," yes. I personally like Lynch and think she is a fine woman, but her qualifications in this regard do not meet my expectations for who I would like to see become our next SCOTUS judge.

 

[MrT]

I do not think a "life long prosecutor" is qualified for the SCOTUS. A "life long judge," yes. I personally like Lynch and think she is a fine woman, but her qualifications in this regard do not meet my expectations for who I would like to see become our next SCOTUS judge.

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.

 

[jet57]

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.

I think you're right. I think he will nominate a black woman.

It's gettin like the oscars.

 

[CanadaJohn]

That you have no legitimate argument? I do see that quite clearly, yes.

Yawn - most other posters seemed to see the legitimacy of the argument. Not my problem if it escapes you.

 

[Somerville]

President Obama will not be nominating Ted Cruz for anything.

:lol:

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