|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Rex_Goodheart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:53 PM Original message |
Wouldn't it be great if Obama appoints both Clintons to the USSC? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
galactical (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
1. Would bill take it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofcool (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:17 PM Response to Reply #1 |
14. doubtful and Hillary probably would not either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cosmocat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 08:25 AM Response to Reply #1 |
30. Not a chance for Bill,and I will repeat this again ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
2. Political appointees are never good options. I want solid jurists. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC_SKP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
3. NO. Not great, not even close. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dansolo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
4. Please, enough with the Clintons |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msallied (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
5. Um, no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
last1standing (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
6. It would be good spectacle but poor judgement. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blondeatlast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:56 PM Response to Original message |
7. No. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unsane (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:56 PM Response to Original message |
8. No. Appointing old, moderate federal judges is what's gotten us into this mess. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mojambo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:58 PM Response to Original message |
9. Wasn't there another ex-president who served on the court? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShadowLiberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:07 PM Response to Reply #9 |
12. Yes, I believe Taft was put on the SC, I think after leaving office, but could be wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LostinVA (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:18 PM Response to Reply #12 |
15. Yup, Taft |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:58 PM Response to Original message |
10. No, it wouldn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Genevieve (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 09:59 PM Response to Original message |
11. No, and I doubt either Clinton would want the position. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Buck Laser (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:17 PM Response to Original message |
13. I'm all for making republican heads explode, but... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LostinVA (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:19 PM Response to Original message |
16. HRC -- yes, I'd love that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
obiden (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:25 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LostinVA (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 07:42 AM Response to Reply #17 |
25. I don't believe I mentioned Bill Clinton -- I think Hillary would be a good Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
olkaz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 08:13 AM Response to Reply #25 |
28. I agree wholeheartedly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
asdjrocky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:28 PM Response to Original message |
18. Wow. I never thought of that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
genna (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:30 PM Response to Original message |
19. I don't want the third way on the court. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ichingcarpenter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:32 PM Response to Original message |
20. Wow the education level is low in your state |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
donco6 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:36 PM Response to Original message |
21. No thanks. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
iiibbb (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-06-08 10:38 PM Response to Original message |
22. There are plenty of qualified judges out there... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bowens43 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 05:15 AM Response to Original message |
23. No, it would't be great. Neither is qualified. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vanderBeth (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 05:18 AM Response to Original message |
24. No. That is a terribled idea. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blueclown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 07:45 AM Response to Original message |
26. We need young liberal justices on the USSC. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYCGirl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 07:45 AM Response to Original message |
27. No. That is a TERRIBLE idea. NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Perky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 08:16 AM Response to Original message |
29. That is a really stupid reason to select someone to SCOTUS, N/T |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Beacool (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 08:34 AM Response to Original message |
31. No, I want Hillary to run again for president in the future. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benEzra (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:16 AM Response to Original message |
32. Not just no, but HELL no. (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mkultra (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:25 AM Response to Original message |
33. i think hillary has a role in the upcoming adminstration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
freestyle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:27 AM Response to Original message |
34. No. They are too old. The repubs appoint 40 and 50 somethings. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hepburn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:28 AM Response to Original message |
35. Bill Clinton is disbarred.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:29 AM Response to Original message |
36. Not really. He should find someone younger. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:31 AM Response to Original message |
37. No, it would be inflammatory and inappropriate to even consider when there are so many |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blue_onyx (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 10:42 AM Response to Original message |
38. I think this is very unlikely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Beacool (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-07-08 11:43 AM Response to Reply #38 |
39. Hear, hear!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:34 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
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