You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: She'd make a good Associate Justice. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. She'd make a good Associate Justice.
In fact, she'd make an excellent Chief Justice.

Don't you think she'd be better than John Roberts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Caroline Kennedy for the Supreme Court Octafish  May-01-09 04:47 PM   #0 
  - based on what exactly?  dysfunctional press   May-01-09 04:49 PM   #1 
  - She'd make a good Associate Justice.  Octafish   May-01-09 04:55 PM   #9 
     - I think a pile of dogshit in my backyard would be better than John Roberts  MajorChode   May-01-09 08:50 PM   #69 
        - How profound.  Octafish   May-01-09 09:54 PM   #74 
  - meh  YDogg   May-01-09 04:50 PM   #2 
  - She'd carry out what the country lost on November 22, 1963.  Octafish   May-01-09 04:58 PM   #11 
     - Oh god not more Kennedy cultism. nt  anonymous171   May-01-09 05:22 PM   #31 
     - hey it's just a suggestion.  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:29 PM   #37 
        - Completely serious.  Octafish   May-01-09 07:58 PM   #62 
     - DU would be calling JFK a DINO if he were pushing today the same policies he did as president  WI_DEM   May-01-09 08:06 PM   #64 
        - No. Kennedy did all he could to keep the world at peace.  Octafish   May-01-09 08:43 PM   #68 
  - Perfect.  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 04:50 PM   #3 
  - Oh this will be good.  Inspired   May-01-09 04:52 PM   #4 
  - indeed  fishwax   May-01-09 05:16 PM   #27 
  - And why is she qualified for that ?  UndertheOcean   May-01-09 04:52 PM   #5 
  - Are you aware that you dont even need a law license to be a USSC Justice?  DJ13   May-01-09 05:01 PM   #14 
     - She is an attorney.  OmmmSweetOmmm   May-01-09 08:59 PM   #72 
  - Too controversial - both sides would have a field day with it.  polichick   May-01-09 04:53 PM   #6 
  - They had a field day with Thomas, and he was seated.  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 04:58 PM   #10 
  - Oh yes, it's possible - I just don't think "No drama, Obama" would do that.  polichick   May-01-09 04:59 PM   #12 
  - Well, since we're supposedly in the middle of a worldwide pandemic,  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:04 PM   #18 
     - LOL - Well, Caroline would be okay with me. I worked with her during the campaign...  polichick   May-01-09 05:14 PM   #26 
  - Well, nothing like setting the bar (as it were) -there-...  konnichi wa   May-01-09 05:16 PM   #28 
  - Yes I suppose that's a fairly low bar, but if Thomas got over it,  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:21 PM   #29 
  - Just what we need,on the Supreme Court of the United States  Thothmes   May-01-09 06:51 PM   #59 
  - Right, let's just go right to Ken Starr and get it over with -- no drama there  nichomachus   May-01-09 05:31 PM   #39 
     - Apparently you didn't read my post #12  polichick   May-01-09 05:35 PM   #40 
        - Not sure why that's "apparent."  nichomachus   May-01-09 05:41 PM   #43 
           - Huh? It's apparent why it's apparent. :)  polichick   May-01-09 05:49 PM   #49 
              - Apparently, it's not  nichomachus   May-01-09 06:16 PM   #51 
  - surely you forgot this?  mzteris   May-01-09 04:54 PM   #7 
  - BLAGO  boomerbust   May-01-09 04:54 PM   #8 
  - Only if they televize the sessions  JustABozoOnThisBus   May-01-09 05:02 PM   #16 
  - Why is she qualified for this??? NT  Mike 03   May-01-09 04:59 PM   #13 
  - Have you read her bio?  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:03 PM   #17 
  - Yes. She is an attorney but has no legal career to speak of.  anigbrowl   May-01-09 05:23 PM   #32 
  - Her singular "achievement" professionally was as.....  Smarmie Doofus   May-01-09 05:36 PM   #41 
  - Why is she NOT qualified?  polmaven   May-06-09 07:39 AM   #89 
  - why does her name have to keep coming up?  crimsonblue   May-01-09 05:01 PM   #15 
  - "Kennedy" not other explaniation,  Thothmes   May-01-09 06:52 PM   #60 
  - She is in no way qualified for the position.  960   May-01-09 05:04 PM   #19 
  - Had you heard of Roberts before he was nominated?  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:05 PM   #20 
     - Yes, and while I strongly disagree with his views, he had judicial experience.  960   May-01-09 05:07 PM   #21 
        - He didn't have enough to administer an oath without fumbling.  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:09 PM   #22 
           - I love Caroline Kennedy.  960   May-01-09 05:10 PM   #23 
              - Ok, it's not personal. I think she's perfectly qualified.  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:12 PM   #24 
                 - Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah she's a Kennedy. blah.  cherokeeprogressive   May-01-09 05:22 PM   #30 
                    - So why should that disqualify her?  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:24 PM   #33 
  - NO. nt  madinmaryland   May-01-09 05:14 PM   #25 
  - There are plenty of qualified people. Do we really want American politics to be based on dynastic  struggle4progress   May-01-09 05:24 PM   #34 
  - Have you heard of our new Secretary of State?  bottomtheweaver   May-01-09 05:26 PM   #35 
     - Hillary Clinton was a Senator and a First Lady. nt  anonymous171   May-01-09 05:49 PM   #47 
     - I think she's highly qualified, and I would have supported her for President, absent dynastic issues  struggle4progress   May-01-09 05:49 PM   #48 
  - Or, search the phone book for a younger Kennedy who is Hispanic and black!  L. Coyote   May-01-09 05:27 PM   #36 
  - I'm as much of a Kennedy fan as anyone, but no. (nt)  Lavender Brown   May-01-09 05:31 PM   #38 
  - Okay, okay, she might be qualified: Do we want anyone who is qualified or do we want the best?  Mike 03   May-01-09 05:37 PM   #42 
  - Nothing more  obliviously   May-01-09 08:42 PM   #67 
  - Why? Oh yeah, she's a Kennedy--  kiva   May-01-09 05:42 PM   #44 
  - What Obama needs to do  nichomachus   May-01-09 05:46 PM   #45 
  - No need for Obama to pull gimmicks  Chemisse   May-01-09 06:32 PM   #53 
     - You haven't been paying attention  nichomachus   May-01-09 06:37 PM   #55 
        - Why? He has a majority in both houses of Congress  Chemisse   May-01-09 06:48 PM   #56 
           - My advice for you: Stay out of poker games for money  nichomachus   May-01-09 06:55 PM   #61 
  - I don't think that's a very good idea.  Danger Mouse   May-01-09 05:47 PM   #46 
  - Oh geez, Caroline again?  Beacool   May-01-09 06:08 PM   #50 
  - Surely you jest  BooScout   May-01-09 06:20 PM   #52 
  - Do you have any reason to believe that she would be a decent justice?  LostInAnomie   May-01-09 06:35 PM   #54 
  - No, never, just a thought.  Thothmes   May-01-09 06:49 PM   #57 
  - Sounds good to me.  formercia   May-01-09 06:49 PM   #58 
  - I heard her cousin call Scalia's father a supporter of the fascist cause in the USA during WW II.  Octafish   May-01-09 08:02 PM   #63 
     - RFK Jr. would be a better choice than Caroline  Jim Lane   May-01-09 08:40 PM   #66 
  - I Like This Idea  Me.   May-01-09 08:29 PM   #65 
  - Who'd a thought a racist vote-suppressing turd would become Chief Justice?  Octafish   May-02-09 10:57 AM   #82 
     - Good Description Of Caroline  Me.   May-02-09 06:09 PM   #85 
  - Can you say Harriet Miers part 2?  SpartanDem   May-01-09 08:52 PM   #70 
  - lol. get real  paulsby   May-01-09 08:56 PM   #71 
  - how about an actual progressive jurist? nt  tomp   May-01-09 09:53 PM   #73 
  - Why not Octomom?  SoCalDem   May-01-09 09:54 PM   #75 
  - Octomom would be better than Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito,  Octafish   May-02-09 10:53 AM   #80 
  - hopefully a very brief one  ruggerson   May-01-09 10:26 PM   #76 
  - She wrote a Constiutional-based book on privacy issues  Samantha   May-01-09 10:37 PM   #77 
  - You've got to be joking, Octafish. Not all lawyers are qualified  JDPriestly   May-01-09 11:52 PM   #78 
  - There are more qualified choices, my Friend...  Octafish   May-02-09 10:49 AM   #79 
     - I don't know much about her. Just how her sitting on the Supreme  JDPriestly   May-03-09 12:54 AM   #86 
  - It's not going to be any sort of media darling.  Marr   May-02-09 10:56 AM   #81 
  - I don't see how her assets would be useful on SCOTUS.  aikoaiko   May-02-09 11:10 AM   #83 
  - Diana Ross would be a better pick.  Kablooie   May-02-09 02:40 PM   #84 
  - She is not qualified, imo.  Control-Z   May-03-09 02:43 AM   #87 
  - Let's hold out for Arnold.  Orsino   May-03-09 07:36 AM   #88 
  - No. And the desire for an American royal family that takes whatever office it fancies  Raskolnik   May-06-09 08:04 AM   #90 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC