Yea, every time I come up with a reason to vote for Obama, he makes sure there is another one to make me vote against him.

I doubt that would happen.  I think all of the sitting justices have had judicial experience.  The nominee has to get the approval of Congress.  That is why Bush couldn't get Meyers on the court.   These pundits just have to float every ridiculous theory they can think of to get attention and people talking.  I guess its working. 

Me! I should be on the court!

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a liberal leaning, intelligent and all-around experienced individual like Hillary Clinton than those conservative morons that 'elected' Bush, as well as stripped youth rights down to nothing in a broken public school system.

Justice Stevens, Ginsberg and to some extent Chief Justice Roberts are the only respectable (competent) judges on that court, the rest are remnants of old political ideologies that have done more harm than good to American progress. Modern day Justices are all politically motivated (regardless of their life time appointments), which makes our country that much more sensitive to their decisions when they are comprised of mostly obsolete geriatrics a la McCain.

This isn't to say I want to say Hillary as a justice, I'd much rather see her named as Obama's running mate, a sure-fire way to unite the party.

You lost it there. Stevens I will agree with, but not Ginsberg. She is a quota kid.

Hate him or love him but Scalia is the most brilliant mind. Quite frankly we need Jurists that know and understand the law, not vote because of the way they "feel".

Eh, Scalia is a very intelligent man I'll give you that, but I've never been very partial to justices who practice such strict constructionalism.




I agree with that part though; Despite the way it was founded, even the supreme court has fallen prey to partisan politics. I also don't settle too well with the whole "appointed for life" thing: i don't think the founding fathers took into account just how long a lot of these judges were going to be living 200 years later. I think the way the Federal Reserve Board is handled would be an excellent way to handle the Supreme court, 14 years and such.

The reasoning behind it was to put them above the raging whims of society. In that I kind of agree. We dont want Justices that have to worry about re-appointment based on polls. (or maybe no re-appointment). And yea, they did not expect justices to be sitting there into their 90s. 14 years is enough to go beyond the latest whims though. It might be a good idea. But I dont think it will happen because of apathy. Most people dont care about them and except for some monumental decisions (like Roe, Dred Scott, etc.) no one but political junkies pay much attention to them.

Often, it all comes down to the one supporting your ideologies, and the ones against. You consider only your side's judges "competent", while the other ones are "dangerous ideologists"

Off course, there are exceptions that reach to both sides, but they are just too rare.

Not sure that animal exists today.

You have to grow up and pay taxes, to have someone pretend to feel your pain. I know i go to sleep every night worried some poor, almost average student might actually have to learn something and not be able to express themself properly. Kids just arn't happy with the liberal tilted education they are getting today off the publics dime, pity. Vote Obama for Hope and Change (your teachers will be glad you did).

Well I would hope that in the case of the judges their partisan allegiances do not interfere with their rationale, both in strict and loose interpretations of the constitution. That's why I still admire Chief Justice Roberts despite leaning on the conservative side of the spectrum; he does his job as intended.




Well Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley College and later attained her law degree at Yale...

Barack Obama attended Columbia University then attained his law degree at Harvard...

Intelligent? Yes. Whether or not they agree with all of your opinions on the other hand may or may not be the case.



lol well actually you don't have to grow up and pay taxes to have people hear you, when I was in high school we organized rallies, signed petitions, and basically annoyed local officials enough to change at least a few things in my school, like allowing a student newspaper, preventing a uniform policy, and allowing students to be part of (at least in an arbitrary way) the decision making committee.

Youth rights / Children's rights are far too broad of a subject though... I guess it just comes down to what do you think makes you different from an individual under the age of 18 (or 21 if we are discussing alcohol consumption).

TiTaNsFaN690 -


Does this mean you oppose the 'elected' Obama?

*imagens hillary as a surpreme court justice* The HORRORS! The HORRORS! An unitintelligent person rulling in a top of the line seat of goverment.

That would hit low on any proggression and most likely help nothing but impead our economy, what the constitution, and the freedom's of the American people. If that ever happens what a sad day it would be.



Now that happens all the time. Expressed(using very logical answeres and things that they told me to do) my self dozens of times and half of them I have receieved a detention for. So yeah Nitro that thing you worry about does happen often.

What on Earth would having Hillary Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice (a very intelligent person see above...) have to do with the economy or societal progression?



lol if I'm understanding you correctly then yes I do oppose the elected Obama, only because I was a Hillary supporter though

You appear to be either very young, or getting up there. SOunds like my High school days (and I am no spring chicken), but not the ones of the 80s or 90s. Ah, the idealism of youth.