How about a NON-LAWYER, NON-JUDGE for the Supreme Court?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

It would bring a pair of fresh uncomplicated eyeballs to the Court.
I think a lot of the issues that come before the Court get tangled
up with legalities, technical words, and abstract notions. A regular
but intelligent person who is free of lawyerly and judgerly thinking
would bring the decision-making down to earth. I think most of the
talking that goes on at the Court is just a bunch of lawyers and judges BSing and trying to show how smart they are anyway. If we can have actors
and wrestlers and other relative idiots being President and Governor,
let's have one on the Supreme Court and see how it goes for a while.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. yeah, let's not make a Federal case

out of it

[johnfunk]

63. Take the poll at APJ

First round, twelve candidates -- pick your favorite.

Rachel Maddow's doing pretty well...

[whopis01]

230. LOL n/t

[datasuspect]

2. if rodney dangerfield were alive, i would nominate him

[TheBigotBasher]

3. Howard Dean?

[Deep13]

4. Um, no.

I got pretty sick of amatuer govt. under Bush.

[MADem]

5. How about a "non judge." I think being a lawyer is helpful.

It makes it easier to wade through the briefs.

Put Bill Clinton on the bench--that'd make heads explode! Of course that's a nonstarter, but the idea makes me laugh.

[defendandprotect]

27. Lawyers are not only educated in law they are molded with rigid thinking . . .

like many other professions including doctors.

Many are already weeded out and vetted thru the legal tests, pre law school.

How legally educated do you have to be to be part of the Gang of 5 who told us

they were setting "precedent" in the Bush vs Gore case, but it was not to be

considered precedent for the future!

Got it --- simple corruption!

[TexasObserver]

40. Utter nonsense. The opposite is true.

Lawyers are taught to learn to ask the right questions, to define the issues, both factually and under the law.

[kestrel91316]

45. Doctors aren't "molded with rigid thinking", they are trained in analytical

thinking and taught skills that they damned well better be able to perform with exactitude. THANK GOD.

And yes, I am a doctor (of veterinary medicine).

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

98. Oh, ok. I'll carry on.

[omega minimo]

152. wow Odin2005 you managed to fling venom all over the place with that one.

Is all the hostility about these issues based on some perceived war b/w -- what? What's the breakdown here of who is "acceptable" and who is The Enemy?

What is the source of this bizarre, hateful arrogance?

[MADem]

47. I'm afraid I haven't quite "got it"--I don't believe that because Bush hired a bunch of asshole

lawyers, that all lawyers are assholes. Bush just happened to hire lawyers with that particular quality.

Obama isn't an asshole lawyer. Neither is his wife. Nor are Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Just because you believe a law education might turn YOU into a "rigid thinker" doesn't mean it has to be the fate of everyone who has studied law.

[wolfgangmo]

231. The doctors at my clinic

are very open minded (mind you we have a non-traditional, no insurance clinic) and I love my 2 lawyers as they have a gift for cutting through the BS and getting down to essential elements.

Having said that it is not the fault of individual docs or lawyers but rather the systems that they often find themselves in/fighting. In docs case, this is usually the medical system devised to kill people, i.e. insurance medicine.

Disclaimer - I think private medical health insurance companies are the devil and this opinion is based on working with them as a clinic manager as well as a stint inside a few of the bigger insurance companies. I liked the pay but came home every day feeling like I needed to sluice the fowl sludge of BC/BS off my back. What those companies do to both providers like clinics and patients should be criminal and often is. The problem is that it is so widespread that it is hard to prosecute piece by piece. We need someone to take them on. Obama, are you listening?

[flvegan]

6. Gary Busey or Denis Leary for SCOTUS!!!

[merh]

44. Dennis Leary would be awesome.

If George Carlin were still around, he would have been a good one.

Robin Williams would make a great justice - I think Robin Williams is who Obama should appoint.

[omega minimo]

147. Denis Leary is awesome, the bastid.

I voted for George too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

237. Not Denis Leary! It would be really weird for me to have a raging passion for a SCOTUS!

[BlooInBloo]

7. Good 'ol American anti-intellectualism. "America: Stupid and LOVIN it!!!"

[anonymous171]

49. Kissinger was an intellectual.

It swings both ways. Intellectuals are not automatically right.

[BlooInBloo]

51. Support for teh stupid lobby noted.

[Donnachaidh]

83. no kidding. Next up - wrestler *The Undertaker* for POTUS, because he's

AWESOME1111!!!!11111

:banghead: Gotta pull out my copy of Idiocracy and watch it again, just because this thread seems to REEK of that mentality.

[Matariki]

223. Hah! I wasn't the only one reminded of Idiocracy by the OP

:rofl:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

227. If that is your art...

you make some amazing, original, disturbing stuff.
I'll assume that an artist of your caliber & perception
will eventually see the sly light in which the OP was
written, but even if I'm wrong, your art is excellent.

[Matariki]

236. Thank you.

Very much. Sorry if I missed your 'sly light' ;-)

[realisticphish]

8. Yeah!

And my TV repairman can be my surgeon! None of that elite training for me, no sir!

[Fuzz]

9. Mel Gibson!!

[sammythecat]

25. Yes!!

:bounce:

We gotta get this guy.:woohoo:

[guitar man]

10. Lewis Black?

:shrug:

[grantcart]

16. Brilliant and the only non lawyer I would endorse

[guitar man]

24. the only other one

I would endorse would be George Carlin if he was still with us ;)

[defendandprotect]

36. Lewis Black --------- and George Carlin .... let the CLONING begin -- !!!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

57. Or Larry David---Curb Your BS. Imagine him doing that looking into your eyes thing on Antonin Scalia

to see if he's being honest.

Thank you for thinking outside the bocxz.

[Warpy]

11. Sorry, stupid idea

What we need is a lawyer well versed in constitutional law, preferably a youngish academic with good longevity genes.

We've already got one unqualified person on the bench, Thomas.

How's that working out for you?

[dorkulon]

64. Thomas was a lawyer and a judge.

How's that working out for you?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

67. Thomas actually spews the least BS of any Justice from the actual bench (or chair or whatever it is)

because he sleeps through the whole thing and never talks, except that one time he screamed in his sleep, "Has anybody noticed I left my fly open again!"

[defendandprotect]

106. Evidently, he also parrots Scalia . . .

both religious fanatics --- !

At least one a lover of hard core/in the booth porn!

[Warpy]

103. But NOT versed in constitutional law

My point stands. On the job training is inappropriate on the USSC bench.

[defendandprotect]

105. Thomas was also in a Catholic seminary at one point . . . later a

"lover of hard core porn" according to his friends -- !!!

Works out badly for me -- he's a total pervert!!!

[eridani]

12. And how about some non-civil engineers to fix up the I-35 bridge? n/t

[havocmom]

94. We have our WINNUR!

:rofl: & :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DrDan]

13. good idea - lets put those legalities aside as we rule on the law of the land . . .

Same with auto mechanics. I always take my car to a non-mechanic - someone who is more open to ALL possible avenues of failure, someone more unbiased.

Same with plumbers. Why let all that plumbing knowledge cloud your thinking.

Doctors? Who needs all that confusion surrounding all those years of medical school. I prefer someone not tied to all those complicated medical terms. I want straight, simple talk that I can understand.

[Donnachaidh]

14. uhh, no. I'm stunned that anyone would even suggest this,

"A regular
but intelligent person who is free of lawyerly and judgerly thinking
would bring the decision-making down to earth."

Yeah, let's put Joe the Plumber in -- he's looking for work. :sarcasm:

This is something I'd expect to hear from Fox News, or one of the blowhard rightwingers on radio. Sure, and next we can hire some guy through a temp agency to do cardiac surgery on YOU. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

18. Why . . . there's no requirement that the nominee be a lawyer . . .

[Donnachaidh]

72. because they at least need to be familiar with case law.

Doing that job entails quite a bit more than carrying around a copy of the Constitution in your back pocket. Someone who just came in *off the street* wouldn't know how to research previous cases, in order to argue their points. They would be totally at the mercy of law clerks. Would YOU have a surgeon work on your child with NO background in surgery, just a Dummie's Guide, and a clean scalpel?

[defendandprotect]

107. And how difficult do you think that is? How many clerks do they have, as well?

You're comparing a Judge with a surgeon . . . ???

You might also recall that some of our surgeons had to have the equivalent of
"joe the plumber" on hand to help them do knee/hip implants -- which they couldn't
figure out without the company salespeople showing them how they worked!!!

Most of all what you want on the court is a human being --
lawyers are trained in thought that doesn't necessarily benefit humanity --
too often it benefits the wealthy/corporate side of life.

Think on the SAT tests, for one, which pretty much are about how wealthy your parents are.

[Paladin]

218. You've Crossed The Line From Naivete To Dangerous Thinking.

The highest court in the land demands the best legal minds. Are you happy with Clarence Thomas on the court? Clarence Thomas is what happens when you throw a concern for first-rate legal thinking down the toilet.

And I don't know where you got your income-based SAT results notion from, but it's every bit as convincing as your opinion that we ought to just appoint Really Really Nice Folks to the Supreme Court, and let legal credentials go by the wayside......

[A-Schwarzenegger]

219. I Believe There's A Law Against Such Dangerous Thinking.

Or There Certainly Oughter To Be If There Aren't.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

62. I wouldn't hire Justice Souter to do surgery on me either.

On the other hand, I don't think a good heart surgeon
would be out of the question to be on the Court, considering.

[Donnachaidh]

73. ...

:eyes:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

75. ---

:*

[anonymous171]

15. Because the supreme court sometimes handles cases that require

broad legal knowledge. Non-law people wouldn't know what was going on.

[defendandprotect]

20. Nonsense . . . any intelligent person can understand the cases ---

and if they are so complicated that normal citizens can't understand them,
then we need to simplify things!

[Raskolnik]

58. Being able to understand a case is not the same as being able to rule on it.

I'm not sure you have a good understanding of how complicated (by necessity) the cases before the Supreme Court often are, and how important it is to have judges that can craft opinions that will sustain a coherent legal system.

[defendandprotect]

108. If our law is so complicated that an ordinary intelligent person can't understand it . . .

it needs to be changed!

Are you saying that you couldn't understand MOST of the cases that have been before
the court in the last years ---

including Bush vs Gore?

Perhaps you should also reflect upon the corruption of the court -- corruption of our
system of justice in general.

Did you understand the issue with the AGs under Bush?

[Donnachaidh]

77. it's not JUST understanding the cases.

There is the whole process of not only coming up with your own opinion - you need to be able to reference BACK to previous cases, and utilize them in your argument.

The Supreme Court is NOT American Idol. I know some would like to think of it that way, but it's far more complex than Yea or Nay.

Jeez, get a copy of the movie Idiocracy. That will give you a good idea of law *simplified* for the masses. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

112. I've never seen American Idol . . .

The justices argue among themselves -- their have clerks -- they listen to opinion by
lawyers and organizations . . .

They can certainly read and research --

In fact, the public should be more aware of the cases that are argued before them--
the Supreme Court should be televised.

And, let me ask you, as well -- are you saying you don't understand Bush vs Gore?

That you wouldn't understand a challenge to Roe vs Wade?

That you wouldn't understand the aspects of a case lowering the penalties/fines on
ExxonMobil for the oil spill in Alaska?

You couldn't make a decision in a case about a strip search of a young girl in school,
falsely accused?

Maybe you also don't understand how many of these cases go forward in corruption --
Danforth and Thomas, for one?

And, would no non-lawyer not be better than having a "lover of hard core pornography"
on the court -- someone African-Americans call a "Judas" . . . ???

[Odin2005]

81. Legalese is complex and convoluted for a reason, to remove ambiguity.

That's why more modern constitutions are much longer then ours. Make things too simple and you leave too much room for interpretation where personal biases can come in.

[COLGATE4]

193. This is one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard

A Supreme Court Justice doesn't need to know/understand law, so long as (s)he has law clerks. Incredible! This demonstrates an underlying anti intellectualism that normally characterizes the extreme Repukes. By this logic, anybody can be a judge/justice.

What the writer fails to understand is that law is like any other profession which by definition means having the intellectual ability to understand and act on situations for which there is no clearly established outcome. While it's true that a Justice has law clerks, this does not negate the fact that (s)he must understand the legal arguments presented by both sides, and be able to come to a ruling which is consistent with case law, precedent and often statute. There is no substitute for professional legal training in order to be able to do that job - merely having a 'good heart' or being intelligent won't cut it. To acquire the background necessary to effectively carry out the job there is simply no substitute for formal legal training, and hopefully lots of experience. This above all else is why there has never been a Justice of the Supreme Court that has not been an attorney.

[wolfgangmo]

232. It's the fallacy of the expert.

There is a belief that if someone is an expert is one field then they are also qualified in other fields.

There is a reason I take my car to my mechanic, my body to my doctor, and my taxes to my accountant. I don't take advice on my transmission from my accountant.

There is also the myth of the wisdom of the common man, the belief that all opinions are equally valid no matter the source, of which Twain said, "there is not thing so uncommon as common wisdom." I also don't take advice on cancer from the clerk at the health foods store. One should always consider the source of the information. For example, some people might consider Rush Limpballs to be a credible source. I do not and my opinion of that is based on his track record and he entire lack of credible sources.

These 2 fallacies are 2 sides of the same coin and both exhibit an incredible ignorance.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. It's like a POT OF FROGS. If you put a bunch of frogs into a pot

and slowly heat it up, they all think they know what's going on, because
everybody else in there acts like nothing's wrong. Then you drop a
fresh-eyed frog in there and he goes nuts and hops out because he
knows the damn water's HOT. I.e., People who don't know what's going on
can have the clearest view of what's going on.

[anigbrowl]

92. Fine -e elect that person as your representative

I do not want a court where the judges don't even have a law degree. What next, appointing people with no medical experience to the AMA? this whole thread reeks of 'Joe the plumber'.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

93. Elect a frog? Let's not jump to conclusions.

You don't need a frog to know how hot the water is.

[wolfgangmo]

233. Although to be fair.

There are a lot of people with no medical experience on the AMA - drug reps and insurance company reps for example. Not that the AMA is corrupt. No sir. Why they have never been corrupt. Heck, it's not like they were formed by a snake oil salesman like Morris Fishbein. (sarcasm).

The AMA is a good organization in theory but they need to clean their house. Just my 2 cents. I agree with you on everything else.

[prayin4rain]

110. Creating TV programs and advertising with the lowest common denominator

in mind works... why not our justice system as well?

[defendandprotect]

113. Are you saying ordinary citizens are inferior to lawyers . . . ???

[prayin4rain]

117. At legal reasoning... definitely.

I get tired of everyone thinking... hey I've never trained or put any hardwork into X ... but I am sure that I could do it just as well as the people who have devoted their lives to learning X. Everyone is an armchair everything these days, literally without leaving their armchairs, just because they are them and that is special. So special, hey I bet they could even be a Supreme Court Justice without even going to law school. Yeah, why not? It just reeks of the Palin philosophy.

[defendandprotect]

131. Lincoln was never in law school --

WikiAnswers - Where did Abraham Lincoln go to law school
First Ladies question: Where did Abraham Lincoln go to law school? Answer Lincoln never went to law school. He was self-taught (you could do that in those days) ...wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_Abraham_Lincoln_go_to_law_school - Cached


The basis of democracy is that any citizen -- given some basic intelligence and common sense --
should be able to fulfill most government positions . . .

There is NO requirement that a SC justice be a lawyer -- think about that.

And, basically, it would be quite disappoint if you told me that you have understanding of
Bush vs Gore - or Roe Vs Wade . . .

and couldn't possible listen to arguments: for instance - one of the next cases up is a young
girl strip searched in her school after being falsely accused --

[prayin4rain]

133. Training/schooling to be a lawyer was quite different 150 years ago

... just as training/schooling for all professions was quite different 150 years ago. It is just a silly comparison. And I would think it takes more expertise, in addition to law school, than understanding a few cases to be a Supreme Court justice. I wouldn't mind a legal expert/scholar with a PhD (or who had aqcuired expertise in the law) instead of a JD sitting on the Supreme Court. I don't think 90% of law school graduates are qualified to sit on the SC. I don't think anyone is insulting the intelligence of people who do not go to law school becuase they do not want to put them at the head of our justice system. No more insulting than not wanting the head of neuroscience at a hospital to be an ordinary joe.

[defendandprotect]

168. Again, this is exactly what democracy is all about ---

the average person ---

not someone trained in corporate-think tanks --

And, again, do you fail to understand Roe vs Wade -- or Bush vs Gore?

Could you not possibly decide a case of a young girl being strip searched in her school?

You couldn't decide labor laws -- ?

If you support democracy, you should understand it --


Coming back to Lincoln -- he was a humanist which is what we need most of all on the Supreme
Court.

Training to be a lawyer was by apprenticeship at that time, pre-corporate take over of our
educations.

[prayin4rain]

180. Democracy is not about average people in top in positions.

By your post below... YOU clearly fail to understand the opinion in Bush v Gore. You sound like a Glenn Beck type, bashing higher learning and the education system. Who needs education, it's all corrupt blah, blah, blah. You and I will obviously not agree as I am very pro-education. And continuing to compare today to 150 years ago is simply not effective.

[defendandprotect]

210. Actually, it is ---

if you understand the Greeks and democracy ---

Everyone was expected to step in if needed --

However -- this is simple discussion about the fact that since there is no

requirement for a legal degree to be on the court that you can think about

other possibilities and what benefits they might bring --

On the other hand, some here seem even too frightened to give something like this

a moment's thought!

I'm also very pro-education -- that's why I'm anti-corporate education.

Didn't anyone ever circulate here at DU the article on the truth of education -?

I'll see if I can find it!

[whistler162]

205. Actually Justice Robert H. Jackson never went to

law school.

The last Supreme Court justice not to have graduated from law school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson

[prayin4rain]

207. Yes, even only 100 years ago training to be a lawyer was very different.

Had he gone to law school it would have been around 1915? Training/Schooling was much different in the early 1900's. I am not disputing that the vast majority of lawyers in the old days trained through apprenticeship. I am claiming that how people trained to be lawyers 100 years ago is not relevant. The case law and intricacies of the legal system were miniscule compared with what we have now 100 years later.

[defendandprotect]

211. The basis of your thinking should be that the people have to understand what is going on . . .

if the average person can't, then things have been made complex for other than

honorable reasons. Like our tax laws. Do you need a lawyer to do your taxes?

Shouldn't you be able to understand our laws without a lawyer?

It kinda parallels -- "If you're too big to fail you're too big!"

I doubt Solomon went to law school either!!

[prayin4rain]

212. The average person can go to law school if they want to be on the SC.

It's not that the average person does not have the ability to gain a full and deep understanding of our legal system. Ordinary people fill our law schools and med schools. It's that people who do not make that effort, should not sit on the Supreme Court. I don't understand why it is so important to you that somebody without a legal education sit on the Supreme Court.

[defendandprotect]

213. Again -- it is NOT a requirement that a SC nominee be a lawyer . . .

there is no such stipulation.

Try to focus on how much of our education today is corporate --

our universities are now corporate, for heavens sake!

This is merely discussion, which seems to be frightening the hell out of some here.

Why?

It is so impossible simply to think about something like this on a website without

major panic?

Nor is it "important to me that someone who isn't a lawyer or judge" be appointed --

THIS IS A DISCUSSION . . . HYPOTHETICAL!!!

[prayin4rain]

214. I never said it was a requirement and I am not panicking. n/t

[defendandprotect]

17. Right . . . good idea . . .

Ellie Smeal, Fund for the Feminist Majority, tho she's a bit up in years now - Damn!

Elizabeth Holtzman -- tho a lawyer, I think.

I'm sure the women's organizations will have lots of recommendations for females ---

You know who I love -- "ZELDA" ... CALIFORNIA!!!

And her real name just went right out of my mind!!!

Is it Shelia something? I think she's also a lawyer, tho.

AND SHE'S A LESBIAN . . . THAT'S HOW SHE GOT BOUNCED OUT OF HER OWN SHOW AND OUT OF
SHOW BUSINESS ENTIRELY, I THINK . . .


Sheila James Kuehl
Actress: "The Stu Erwin Show: The Pearl Necklace (#4.25)". Visit IMDb for Photos, Filmography, Discussions, ... Kuehl was slated for her own spinoff, Zelda, ...www.imdb.com/name/nm0473861 - Cached

[tekisui]

19. No, they need a legal background.

[defendandprotect]

28. They don't "need a legal background" . . . it's not an official requirement for the nominee --!!

[depakid]

30. There's never been a non-lawyer on the US Supreme court (for good reason)

[defendandprotect]

114. There was never a SC that put a president in the Oval Office . . . for good reason . . .

in a case which set a "precedent" . . . which was never to be repeated!!!!

Presumably, you're saying you are mystified by the facts surround the Bush vs Gore decision?

That you couldn't possibly have understood the case?

Or maybe you're saying that without a license, no one would have trusted or have had faith in
your decision for Bush?

[rvablue]

33. No, it's not an official requirement. But remember, if a Dem POTUS does it

there could come a time when a Rep POTUS might come along and do the same thing.

Applying that logic, I think we had best stick to individuals with constitutional law and judiciary experience.

If you're not buying my argument, chew on this: Justice Sarah Palin. Or how about: Justice Rush Limbaugh.

Well, under the idea you are forwarding these nightmare scenarios would be more than plausible.....

[defendandprotect]

115. Do you think Americans would accept a Limbaugh nomination?

It depends on who is nominated ---

Robert Redford, for instance or Michael Moore -- what would reaction to that be?

You're arguing fear-based concerns . . .

[tekisui]

96. No, it's not required, but it would be stupid to put someone

without a legal background on the bench.

[defendandprotect]

116. Why . . . . ?

[tekisui]

124. I would only let a doctor operate on me.

It is one thing for elected officials, I think they should come from all areas of life.

But, the Supreme Court deals with the intricacies of Constitutional Law. What is in the Constitution and previous precedents as well as the reasoning behind those rulings must be understood. It is not like a judge determining whether an individual committed a crime based on evidence. It is determining the balances and separation of power, the rights of individuals and the rights of states, the rights of Congress and the rights of the executive. Not based on how one feels or the evidence or someone being right and wrong. But, based on the Case Law and the Constitution. Those from non-legal backgrounds would likely act on emotion rather than law, and that would be dangerous.

[defendandprotect]

129. A surgeon isn't part of government . . . the basis of democracy is that

EVERY citizen should be able to fill our positions --

in fact, at one time lawyers were self-selected -- and apprenticed . . .

there weren't law schools.

Are you saying you can't understand the Constitution?

Are you saying that though they may understand the Constitution they are never
corruptly influenced by private preferences or political alliances?

So you're saying that the Supreme Court never acts on "emotion" rther than law???

Think about Bush vs Gore -- !!!

And think about the many political alliances Scalia had there ... with his sons
working for law companies involved in the election.

Also, rethink Scalia and Cheney -- !!!

Obama occasionally taught Constitution law . . . he was of the opinion that there was "NO BASIS"
for impeaching George Bush!

Obama voted for the new FISA law which gave immunity to the corporations involved in wiretapping.
The original FISA law was already a violation of our Constitutional protections.

Law was at one time a matter of self-selection and apprenticeship -- there were no law schools.

The basis of democracy is that every citizen should be able to fill any of these roles ---

Are you saying you don't understand Bush vs Gore?

You don't understand the Roe vs Wade case or "partial birth abortion" --
also known as "partial truth abortion" . . . ?

You couldn't understand the upcoming case of a young girl strip searched in her school after
being falsely accused?

And you didn't understand Bush vs Gore???????

[tekisui]

162. Are you saying everyone understands the Commerce Clause,

and its changes over the years? How about the Takings Clause? Tax and Spend? Each amendments and its implications. I

It is more than just listening to your heart. An opinion cannot ignore 200 years of previous rulings. I suggest you take a Constitutional Law class to better understand how complex these issues become. I would never support someone without a legal background for the highest court in the land, it will never happen anyway. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea has no idea.

[defendandprotect]

170. We don't understand corporate interests . . . is that what you mean?

Any intelligent person can read the background on these cases -- actually they
have tons of clerks to do the research --

but briefs -- friends of the courts which will argue the best of both sides of
the issues.

Again, there is NO requirement that a member of the Supreme Court be a lawyer . . .
you should give some thought to why that is. Did you think they simply overlooked
the need for it?

Meanwhile, again -- democracy is a matter of the everyone participating.
We should all be able to understand our government -- from top to bottom.
And, be able to fill most of these positions.

Also keep in mind that when our laws become so complex -- such as our tax laws and
corporate laws, they should be simplified. Often this complexity has to do with shutting
out all but lawyers understanding it. That's part of what access to information and
open government is about.

It parallels "if you're too big to fail you're too big!" --

i.e., if yours laws are too complex for the average person to understand then they are
too complex.

However, I fail to believe that you didn't understand Gore vs Bush --

Or that you don't understand Roe vs Wade?

[northzax]

215. You ever hear the old adage

that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?

The reason the law is complicated is because there are a lot of laws. And there is 240 years of US case law, built on a thousand years of English Common Law. You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court is supposed to decide what is right. That's not true. They're supposed to decide what's constitutional. Those two things don't always match.

[Xithras]

52. I agree that a legal background is needed, but judge experience isn't.

I would personally make a terrible Supreme Court justice.

That said, what is required for the job is a solid understanding of American legal theory and principles, and a lifetime of dedication to the profession. Judges are great at this, but there are plenty of scholars and lawyers who are equally qualified.

[defendandprotect]

118. Clarence Thomas makes a "terrible" SC justice . . . he was rated very low by ABA . . .

which is why Bush knocked them out --

Are you saying that Michael Moore wouldn't have made a better SC Justice than
Clarence Thomas . . . ???

Who, btw, is also a "lover of hard core pornography" according to his friends --
the "in the booth kind" while he was at Yale!

[hfojvt]

22. why compare a non-lawyer, non-judge to a "relative idiot"?

A professor of Mathematics would be trained and have experience in reason and logic and proof, and neither be an idiot or a lawyer or a judge.

Then again, if SCOTUS is deciding things on stare decisis, then it's probably better to have somebody well versed in what the precedents are. Based on past experience, Obama will probably pick somebody like Russ Feingold, a current Democratic office holder.

[defendandprotect]

119. Certainly Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn would make fine SC Justices . . .

right now the one problem with them would be age -- but that's all!!

We don't so much need people who "know law" -- we need people who are human --
who have working hearts and souls!

[lpbk2713]

23. Phil Donahue? Bill Moyers?

If the rethuglicans can make a Class B actor a President then why the hell not?

[defendandprotect]

31. Robert Redford ...

Michael Moore . . .

unfortunately, can't think of any women of their calibre ---

Wow ... we're low on leadership - especially female leadership ---

Barbara Boxer?

[niyad]

86. wow, you certainly travel in narrow circles--how about gloria steinem? gloria allred?

mary travers? katarina van den heuvel?

consider some of the names on this list:

http://www.nwhp.org/whm/honorees.php or this one: http://www.womensenews.org/21leaders2009.cfm

[defendandprotect]

120. I'm a strong feminist but not a Steinem fan -- tho she would have been better than Thomas--!!!

Don't know Mary Travers --

LOVE Katrina van den Heuvel -- great!

Nice website -- thank you, I've faved it --

Meanwhile, please see my OTHER recommendations in my other posts here --

[Maru Kitteh]

26. How about a non-college, non-medical person to do my next surgery?

Oh. On second thought, I'd rather have an expert.

[MADem]

50. Sure, I can handle that little problem for ya--hand me that ginsu knife!

Who needs an anesthesiologist, either....run down to the package store and buy yourself a half gallon of your favorite poison!

[Maru Kitteh]

65. At it turns out, I'm getting ready to do that very thing right now.

When you stitch me up, could you use purple thread please? It's my favorite color.

[MADem]

95. Sure--bring the thread along with your anesthesia!!!!

It's a no-frills chop shop I'm operating, here! Sign the waiver right here on the old dotted line!

[1]

29. better yet, don't replace souter... let's just use a cnn internet poll as the ninth "judge"...

that way we could all weigh in on decisions!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

34. See, now, I can tell you're not a lawyer---coming up with such a simple brilliant proletariat idea!

:)

[namahage]

132. I see you live in CA.

How did "rule by mob" work for Prop 8?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

137. I think you may have tooken 1's post a little more seriously than I did.

As too this whole thread maybe. Peace.

[Codeine]

225. "Tooken?"

:eyes:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

226. So I left off the "ed".

Shoote me.

[Codeine]

228. Ok. You got me.

Well played. :hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

229. Gottened.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

32. If we could CLONE someone . . . it would be Barbara Jordan . . .

who was a lawyer, however -- I think.

[TahitiNut]

55. Yes, Barbara Jordan was a lawyer ... an excellent one. A professor of law.

She would be my IDEAL model of a nominee.

Obviously.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Non-Judge-maybe, non-lawyer-probably unwise

I think you need a legal background to dig into these complex issues. I could support a law professor or maybe even a pol but over-reaching for "horse sense" isn't good for the country.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

37. No horses!

[defendandprotect]

121. So . . .

you're saying you can't understand any of the cases that have been before the Supreme Court --

and it's probably useless to put the court on TV cause most Americans wouldn't get it?

You didn't understand Bush vs Gore?

Or any of the challenges to Roe vs Wade?

How about corporate cases . . . the dropping of the penalties on ExxonMobil for the
ExxonValdeze/Alaska?

You couldn't understand the strip search case coming up of the young girl falsely accused
of having -- was it aspirin? -- on her person?

You couldn't understand a torture case -- ?

[Stinky The Clown]

38. I gots uncommunicated eyeballs ..... pick me.

Funnyeyeguyz allus dun gud for are kuntry.

[TexasObserver]

39. Thanks, Joe the Plumber, for that sage advice.

Your comments display a painful ignorance of how the process works. Understanding how the constitution came into being, the major cases since it came into being, and the amendments and how each has impacted the law as we know are all part of the process.

How about a really smart mechanic operating on your heart, and a really good dentist working on your car?

[kestrel91316]

41. I expect my Supreme Court justices to have more than a passing

familiarity with the Constitution. These days, being a lawyer who has studied the Constitution at the graduate level is a minimal job qualification, IMHO.

[defendandprotect]

122. Well . . .

Obama occasionally taught Constitution law --- and he saw NO BASIS for the impeachment

of Bush ---

And he voted for legislation which expanded the FISA law -- which was already a violation

of the Constitution -- and gave immunity to the communications companies which performed

the wiretapping of citizens. Keep in mind also, Bush began wiretapping IMMEDIATELY upon

entering the White House! Seven months BEFORE 9/11!!!


What we need is a fearless humanist on the court!

[Hugabear]

42. Sure, I'll take the job.

Do I get to wear a powdered wig?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

46. Those powdered wigs were good enough for George Washington--a NON-LAWYER.

He didn't wear the wig when farming, I don't believe.

[Donnachaidh]

80. Washington was far better educated than Americans today.

And when EXACTLY was he on the Supreme Court?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

82. I thought you said you didn't want people like George Washington on the Supreme Court.

It's nice to see you change your mind, but he's no longer eligible. :*

[Donnachaidh]

84. nice dodge on the question

guess American History wasn't a class you took, huh?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

85. Probably neither of us is as dumb as we seem to think the other is.

[MADem]

97. George never sat on the Supremes, though! Wig or no wig! nt

[TimesSquareCowboy]

43. You probably need a lawyer, but not a judge.

I agree that we shouldn't keep appointing life-long jurists to the SC.

[blindpig]

48. Willie Nelson

Seriously, wtf not? Hell, you'll still have 8 lawyers, and that's too many. Face it, lawyers by education and pay, largely identify with the ruling class, we don't need no more of that. Willie, otoh, is the salt of the earth, and that is what is needed.

[Raskolnik]

53. Please tell me this is satire.

Please.

[Blackhatjack]

54. As soon as Heart Surgeons start operating without going to medical school, let me know...

... how that works out for you.

[TahitiNut]

56. Is this the beginning of a "Jon Stewart for Supreme Court" campaign???

I like it.

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

123. I'd take Jon Stewart --- humor and humanist -- ????

[Bunny]

59. Love it!!!

And I love reading the responses from people who don't know you. ;)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

61. All it takes is one frog in the pot of frogs who asks "Is this water getting really fucking hot?"

:*

[BlooInBloo]

60. Sorry - we tried it your way - teh stupid way - for 8 years. No more.

[tkmorris]

89. I don't agree with him either, but that is not called for

[A-Schwarzenegger]

90. Thank you. Plus, there is different varieties of stpuid.

No sizes fit all. :*

[Karenina]

66. How about a NATIVE AMERICAN?

[niyad]

88. ward churchill

[anonymous171]

68. Should college professors be just random guys pulled off the street?

Academia is very close minded. I think they could use some fresh blood. It's not like you need to know anything to teach college level courses anyways.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

71. I've had profs I think somebody pulled off on the street randomly as it is.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Codeine]

69. And the Secretary of Education can be illiterate! nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

78. That's going two far.

:*

[harun]

70. If they go non-judge, Michael Moore, John Conyers or Dennis Kucinich would be my picks.

[Odin2005]

76. No. I want someone who understands the law.

What you want is exactly what should NOT be on the SCOTUS

[A-Schwarzenegger]

79. What I want, what I need, and what I get is two different things.

:*

[LanternWaste]

87. I'd rather have someone who has studied the appropriate...

I'd rather have someone who has studied the appropriate and relevant discipline.

Although I'm sure there are many people who would rather have someone who flips burgers for a living decide court cases, or someone who sells shoes perform an appendectomy, or a high school gym coach deciding the agenda for NASA, or one of your pro-wrestlers doing your yearly taxes (all of which would, as you say,"bring the decision-making down to earth") , I happen to not be one of those people...

[Starry Messenger]

91. Patton Oswald.

Who wouldn't trust Justice Oswald? It just screams gravitas.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

99. If you need surgery, as many here apparently do, you don't need a lawyer OR a so-called doctor.

There are plenty places on the internet that show you step by step how to perform everything from burning a boil or hemorrhoid off with a curling iron to brain surgery with a jigsaw, a mirror and fingernail clippers. Let's try to get beyond thinking that only so-called professionals can perform certain so-called technical matters.

[Political Heretic]

195. Let me perform exploratory brain surgery on you then.

Seriously. I'll pull up google, and you let me operate on you, okay?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

197. Okay. I'm curious what's in there. I doubt a little amateur exploratory brain surgery now & then

ever hurt anybody. :)

[Danger Mouse]

100. OMG WTF BBQ JOE TEH PLUMBER FOR SUPREME COURT!!

[DireStrike]

101. Don't feed

[A-Schwarzenegger]

102. Physician, heal

"Ignore the rabbit." -Elmer Fudd

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Completely AWFUL idea

What we need are people who actually understand the law - particularly the Constitution.

I want someone scary-smart and totally and thoroughly dedicated to upholding that law/Constitution, because he (or preferably she) really understands it.

"Lawyerly" thinking tends to be rigorously logical. Unfortunately we have at least one on the court who doesn't have that capacity, and wasn't in the least qualified for the position he holds (Thomas) and we have at least two who are perfectly willing to toss aside that logical thinking when it conflicts with their ideologies.

Give me a Constitutional scholar with lots of real-world experience to boot.

[defendandprotect]

125. Let me assure you that they all understand the Constitution . . .

they are just not basing their decisions on those understandings of it --

PLUS unenumerated rights -- privacy, for one!

Obama occasionally taught Constitutional law -- yet he saw NO BASIS for impeaching Bush --

and voted for expansion of FISA to give immunity to corporations which broke the laws of

the original FISA. And, btw, the original FISA was already a violation of the Constitution!!!

So -- who would you prefer, Clarence Thomas or Noam Chomsky? Clarence Thomas or Howard Zinn?

Clarence Thomas or Phil Donahue?

Clarence Thomas or Barbara Boxer?

We need a humanist on the court -- and a lot of them should be female!

[Political Heretic]

109. Um..... how about my plumber performs your brain surgery?

Fail.

[defendandprotect]

126. Evidently you're saying that you can't begin to understand any of the cases

that have been before the Supreme Court --

You don't understand Bush vs Gore ?

You don't understand Roe vs Wade ?

You wouldn't understand a case about the strip search of a young school

girl falsely accused ?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

128. And any technical matters, just go to lawguru.com. It isn't brain surgery, although

I'm astounded at how many people in this thread apparently need brain surgery. For God sakes, people, don't go to a lawyer for that. Go to
doityourselfbrainsurgery.com ...

[defendandprotect]

130. You might recall that law was a matter of --

self-selection and apprenticeship -- there weren't law schools --

Lincoln certainly wasn't in law school --

Who would you take -- Clarence Thomas or Lincoln?



PS: And, I'm taking for granted you couldn't understand any of these cases ... ?????

[Political Heretic]

136. The law is infintely more complicated now than it was then.

There is simply no reason NOT to appoint a strong liberal who also happens to have expert experience in the law and in practice of the law.

I am constantly amazed at the level of anti-intellectualism that abounds in the US.

Yes, god forbid we actually pic someone with expertise in the field and years of experience, because any fucker can do it. So what if any one can? What is it about education and field experience that you feel disqualifies someone for the highest judicial position in the land?

[defendandprotect]

169. Too complicated . . . ? You're saying you didn't understand Bush vs Gore--?

You don't understand Roe vs Wade --
or the current case of a young girl strip-searched in her school?

You don't understand the right to be free from search and seizure --?

Keep in mind that Bush threw out ABA recommendations after Clarence Thomas because
he was so poor rated by them -- bottom of the barrel!

On top of that he's a "in the booth" lover of hard core pornography -- according to his friends.

Again, if you understand the concept of democracy, you understand that each and every one of us
should be able to understand the laws and systems we live under -- fully understand our
"people's" government and its functioning.

What we need most of all on the court is a humanist -- and someone with intelligence and
common sense. With that all legal issues can be understood.

[Political Heretic]

194. You're suggesting an either/or where none exists.

You're exactly right, I don't understand any of those cases well enough to write a legal opinion as to the legal foundations, precedent and reasons of law for why each one should be decided in what my heart tells me is the appropriate way.

What we need is an appropriately experienced legal scholar who is also a humanist, someone with intelligence and common sense. But any notion that someone with no legal experience in an area as complicated as United States law is preferable to someone with such experience is simply ludicrous.

But hey, feel free to represent yourself in court in a capital trial and see how well just "knowing what's right" works out for you without knowing the law.

[defendandprotect]

209. What "either/or" . . .

More than likely the justices don't write their own opinions, either -- !!!

They have clerks who run drafts by them ---

No one is saying that you can't have a lawyer or judge -- what we are saying to you
is just open your mind to other possibilities -- and why they may be beneficial.

Clarence Thomas was trained in the law -- I think he was also a judge?
You can educate a fool, but you only end up with an educated fool.

Again -- there is no requirement that the nominee be a lawyer --
all we're doing is giving it some thought --

And as far as I can see many here are even too afraid to even think about it --!!!

[Political Heretic]

134. That's exactly what I'm saying. Not well enough to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

[varkam]

145. The stupid. It hurts me.

So I'm guessing you can square the holding in Raich v Gonzales with prior SCOTUS precedent on the Commerce Clause in dealing with whether there needs to be an actual effect on commerce or whether Congress just needs to have a "rational basis" for such a conclusion?

[prayin4rain]

111. Isn't this the same concept that the Republicans just used for the VP position?

Hey, who said the VP had to have some great education... let's just get an ordinary person for the job.

[defendandprotect]

127. We got Bush/Cheney because the corrupt Supreme Court put him in the Oval Office --

not to mention the stolen election!

Would you approve of Bush or Cheney for the SC . . . I doubt it --!!!

Would you approve of Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky?

I'd guess a "maybe" on that . . . ?

[prayin4rain]

135. They did not put him in office, they remanded, and there was a ferocious dissent.

I am a Michael Moore & Noam Chomsky fan although I do not want either on the SC. Nor am interested in any pet theories that Scalia may have on linguistics.

[defendandprotect]

171. The Supreme Court did not put Bush into the Oval Office . . . ????

Then you're absolutely right -- only Scalia and Thomas -- and other neo-cons are

qualified to judge what's happening in America!!!!

:sarcasm:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

138. How did such potato-droppings get 2 recs?

:eyes: :crazy: :wtf: :nuke: :scared: :loveya: :puke:

[Occam Bandage]

139. How about a NON-MED-SCHOOL, NON-DOCTOR surgeon next time you're injured? nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

140. There are plenty of do-it-yourself surgery sites on the internets.

Brain surgery is not rocket science. But yours is an original thought,
for about the 18th time on this thread.

[Occam Bandage]

141. "Brain surgery is not rocket science."

Please tell me I am missing the sarcasm here.

On edit: Yes, yes I am.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

142. It almost sounds like something from ... Alice.

:)

[anigbrowl]

143. I have actually done some autosurgery...

...but while it proved both practical and safe in my own case, you probably wouldn't want me to operate on you, I think. My expertise in practicing on others doesn't go much beyond first aid. Similarly, I don't want a court staffed by people who can't think in legal terms.

[defendandprotect]

173. Presumably, they forgot to make being a lawyer a requirement to be on SC???

You think they forgot ????

If you reflect on it, you'll also recall that it's a requirement that you have
a medical license to practice surgery!

[defendandprotect]

172. You have to have a license to practice medicine . . . you don't have to be a lawyer to be on SC . .!

[donheld]

144. Really really bad idea

Let's nominate someone who knows nothing about constitutional law to tell us what the constitution says. Why not Joe the Supreme Court Justice.

[defendandprotect]

174. Think about democracy . . .

and what it is saying to you that there is NO requirement that a Supreme Court member

be a lawyer...

Democracy is about citizens being able to understand and participate in their government -

the founders didn't simply forget to make having a law degree a requirement --


Doctors/surgeons on the other hand aren't part of government --
and they do require licenses to practice medicine!

[omega minimo]

146. Too bad George Carlin died.

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

151. Amen.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

153. I'm #3

:loveya:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

155. I suspected as much.

Incorrigible! :)

[omega minimo]

157. Well

you were whinging :pals:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

160. I had to look that up.

:daily: :weekly: :tv: :radio: :web:

We need a whinge smiley.

[omega minimo]

161. .

:( :cry:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

187. grumpy + sad = whinge ?

x( + :9 = :*

[omega minimo]

192. #

:* + :* =:woohoo:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

199. &

:o + :eyes: + :think: + :P + x( + ;( + :boring: = Supreme Court Justice

[omega minimo]

203. +

:spray:

[varkam]

148. I'm going to guess this is sarcasm.

Scratch that. I'm going to hope that this is sarcasm.

[Matariki]

149. Great idea! Maybe a judge from American Idol?

Or someone else from TV :eyes:

[omega minimo]

154. Susan Boyle!!!

O8)

[omega minimo]

150. Jello Biafra

:patriot:

[Warren DeMontague]

156. I think it's time for Justice Clinton on the Supreme Court.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

158. Supreme Funkourt.

;)

[unapatriciated]

167. Ya no see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY
He already has the wig.

We just have to get around that citizenship thingy

[defendandprotect]

175. A DLC-corporate candidate . . . ? Don't think we need more of that -- !!!

Souter, appointed by Bush, is now the most liberal member of the court --
more liberal than the two justices appointed by Clinton.

Souter helped limit the damages/awards from lawsuits on ExxonMobil re
the damage done to Alaska with the oil spill.

[TacoD]

177. Whoosh!! (eom)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

182. George Parliament Funkadelic Clinton is a DLC-corporate candidate?!

:*

[Warren DeMontague]

190. ...

:spray:

[bridgit]

159. Very well: Louis CK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

[Hubert Flottz]

163. Mr. Ed would be an improvment over long dong Thomas

or Madd Tony!

[KansDem]

178. Yeah, and Justice Ed will never speak, unless he has something to say! (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. I think we need a reality TV show to decide it

It's the obvious next step.

I propose Diana Ross in place of Paula Abdul (the pun possibilities are just too endless), Joe the Plumber in place of Randy Jackson (both balding and a little on the plump side), and Clive Stafford Smith in place of Simon Cowell (as the token Brit - just get him to pull his belt up a little more, and no-one will tell the difference). I see 'American Idol' now has a fourth judge - just bring her straight over, to pull in the existing fans. I'm sure she has excellent views on judges from the previous program anyway.

Then we get the contestants to rerun old 'Judge Judy' decisions, 'Law and Order' episodes, and dance with a computer-generated baby in a unisex bathroom. This gives a good overall view of the American legal system, I feel.

All we need is a snappy title. "I'll Be the Judge of That!"? "The Supreme Sacrifice" (maybe just for the early auditions, when there are lots of no-hopers for everyone to laugh at and humiliate publicly)? "Court in the Act"? Or "Act in the Court"?

Suggestions on a postcard, please.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

186. Excellent ideas! There's no reason the Supreme Court has to be so haughty & elitistical.

Let's drag them off their stools and down here in the muck with the rest of us.

[olegramps]

165. How about me performing your next surgery in my garage?

[olegramps]

166. I believe that Manson is available with lots of experience with the law.

[Hepburn]

176. The person IMO has to have a law degree and be a member of some...

...state bar and in good standing.

Other than that...I have no problem with this, but I do think having a minimal legal background is essential. There are some theories which are very difficult to understand and apply for a person who has -0- legal background and/or experience.

Just like I could NEVER engineer a building because I have no background which enables me to understand what is required, the same goes for anyone dealing with the building blocks of the law when the person has -0- background in the law. IMO, the Supreme Court should not be an "on the job training" place of employment.

JMHO

[no name no slogan]

179. How about

Only if you hire an electrician to fix your toilet, or a plumber to fix your car, then we'll talk about a non-lawyer on the SCROTUS.

[cherokeeprogressive]

181. Let's have a Native American.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

183. I think an attentive lifelong TV watcher picks up enough knowledge from law shows

to be able to fake it as well as some of these old snoozers on the Court now. Don't underestimate yourself. Keep it simple. Hold your chin up into the unknown winds of the future.

The law is just a lot of words, like anything else that involves writing, talking, and cogitating. Sometimes the best cogitating doesn't even involve words, but more a kind of mental tide or mystical current.

Also, why do you think these old folks have so many clerks to help them find stuff & figure things out? For two reasons: because they don't know, and because they forget, just like you and me.

I know somebody who knows somebody, and they say most of these so-called Justices couldn't get out of a barn with both hands and a map. And don't forget, they're naked under their robes just like everybody else, with all the peccadilloes that happen to everybody going on under there. In fact, they were all once screaming babies who didn't know anything, not even any words. Think about that. Would you trust nine screaming babies to be on the Supreme Court? I didn't think so.

[Political Heretic]

196. Now I've confirmed what I've thought - that you're just having a go at us.

Good one. :thumbsup:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

198. Does that mean you're not going to perform the exploratory brain surgery on me?

I already shaved my head! :hi:

[Taverner]

184. Actually I think that's a horrible idea

Its like having a non-doctor to head the AMA, or a non dentist head the ADA

[DS1]

185. Yeah, a NON-ACTOR Governing California is working out so well

[tammywammy]

188. No thank you

I prefer someone with a good grasp on Constitutional Law on the bench. Non-judge, fine, but they should have a law degree.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

206. Thank you for being so courteous in disagreeing

unlike a few sarcastic people that could sprinkle some manners
on top of their rhetoric florouish. You show that you don't need to be right to be polite.

[DFW]

189. Clone Barack Obama

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. Brilliant idea - they could use it for the presidency too

You just need a few years for them to mature, and then you could have a production line - every 8 years, they turn out another one for the presidency (and have them do the vice presidency beforehand), and one every 3 years or so for the Supreme Court.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[defendandprotect]

208. Why?

Obama evidently occasionally taught Constitutional law . ..

but he saw "no basis" on which to impeach Bush!!!

And, he voted for the new FISA law -- giving immunity to those involved who broke

the first law --

which was already a violation of the Constitution!!!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

200. Okay. I pick Clint Eastwood.

Just so I could read about pithy, one-sentence comments from the bench like "Does council for the plaintiff feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

[A-Schwarzenegger]

201. Heh.

[varelse]

202. Better yet, how about a

NON-HUMAN?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

204. I asked him.

He said he would not run unless chased, would not judge
lest he be judged, and would never wear no robe but perhaps a
red plaid vest ensemble. He did nod at the "Supreme" part.

[backscatter712]

216. No. Barack Obama's got this one.

Out of the President's we've had for the past few decades, Barack Obama is probably the one that is the most qualified of all to pick a Supreme Court Justice. He was a civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor, head of the Harvard Law review, and in those jobs, researched and wrote volumes about Supreme Court cases for a living before he ran for elected office.

He knows his shit. And I'm certain that he, like I, will want an experienced, respected judge for the position.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

217. I know somebody who knows somebody,

and apparently Barack Obama read my OP & was both
amused & inspired by it, if that's any help. A person
who knows themself and their strengths & weaknesses
is not averse to the helping hand of fresh uncomplicated eyeballs.

[ZombieHorde]

220. Spiderman! nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

221. Don't be silly.

Spiderman is French.
That's not as bad as being a lawyer or a judge,
but still ...

[dweller]

222. Bailiff... thwack his pee-pee.

I'm available after i finish up my current gig.

and i look cool in a robe.
dp

[A-Schwarzenegger]

235. Who doesn't

look cool in a robe? Although
there should be a casual Friday now & then.

[Canuckistanian]

224. Diana Ross. She already has Supremes experience

Close enough for me.

[aikoaiko]

234. I think 'judging' is complicated job and I want someone with experience