What about Dennis Kucinich for the SCOTUS position?

[Kansas Wyatt]

1) He would stand up for average Americans.

2) He would counter the Conservative Justices, and get vocal about it.

3) He has progressive views.

etc. etc.

Why not? :shrug:

We need someone on there who will argue against, 'what is good for Corporate America and the Wealthy Elite, is good for America' crap.

[bigwillq]

1. He's not homosexual.

Or a woman. Or Latino.

[Kansas Wyatt]

10. In all fairness...

I doubt that any Chic Special Interest group would dare question his credentials.

But since you brought it up... Here goes the Democratic Party placing certain "groups" ahead of the very people who put the Democrats in the White House and gave them Congress. Yes, after being shit and pissed on for the last thirty plus years, the average working people of this country, should do the right thing and step aside, so a homosexual, woman, or latino can fill the spot. I'm positive any one of these groups would stand up and look after the average working class American... NOT!

In a few years, the Democratic Party will be asking once again, 'Why do those poor working people vote against their best interests?' If the Democratic Party is too stupid to figure out why, then they deserve what they get. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

[bigwillq]

11. My post was supposed to be sort of comical

I've seen a lot of posts here today saying that the SC nominee HAS to be a woman or latino and even someone saying they need to be homosexual.

You make some good points, though.

[Pierre.Suave]

2. One teeny tiny problem

Dennis is not a lawyer, nor a judge.

[Kansas Wyatt]

4. During the last eight years...

He had a hell of a lot more knowledge about the law than anyone else in Washington, and called a spade a spade.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Knowing that labor laws are unfair is not remotely the same

as understanding the intricacies of Constitutional law. You might as well say that he should be the head of a hospital's surgery department because he understands that our health-care system is flawed. I mean, that's great, but that's not what the job calls for.

[Kansas Wyatt]

26. See post #22

[Occam Bandage]

29. It's kind of sad you think that's worth linking to. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

37. Yes it's true. Dennis does not have the superior knowledge, experience, or skill....

That Clarence Thomas has. Yep, you are right. Clarence would make Dennis look like the village idiot.

Is that what you are telling me?

[Occam Bandage]

43. Yes.

Clarence Thomas is very good at comprehending legal frameworks, at finding trends across hundreds of cases spread throughout the decades, at distilling complex cases into their core arguments, and at reducing his ideas to precise and unambiguous arguments.

He is also completely and totally married to a blind, petty, pathetic bit of political hackery called "strict constructionist philosophy." That is what makes him a bad justice.

DK is also married to a political philosophy, but one that is far better suited for the country than Thomas's is. He also has zero proven ability to be a competent legal thinker. I suppose if I had the choice I'd prefer DK to Clarence Thomas, but I'd rather set the bar a bit higher than "possibly better than the worst Supreme Court justice in living memory."

[Kansas Wyatt]

48. My ultimate point was...

To get a progressive on there to oppose all the conservative hacks. One who will stand up and stand their ground to Tony or any other conservative on there.

[Occam Bandage]

58. Sure. But we can get a progressive who actually has a con law background. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

64. One that will stand up and beat back the conservative oppression?

Or a progressive who has a law background, but is only interested in raising hell about Chic Special Interests?

I do not give a damn who it is, as long as it is someone who WILL NOT just go along with the, 'what is good for Corporate America and the Wealthy Elite, is good for America' crap.

[Hissyspit]

5. "Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President"

"may nominate anyone to serve." - Wikipedia.org

[Occam Bandage]

14. Did you think the Harriet Miers appointment was smart? That she was qualified?

She at least had practiced law.

[Hissyspit]

21. I was just pointing out a fact about the Constitution.

That said, Obama will not nominate Dennis Kucinich, but not because he is anything like Harriet Miers. Kucinich seems to know the law or at least how to research it thoroughly. It will be interesting to see the reaction to Obamas first SCOTUS nomination no matter who it turns out to be. He should be able to get whomever he wants.

[Occam Bandage]

24. It's true the Constitution doesn't demand it, but that's not why it's important.

Barack Obama is not going to appoint someone without any sort of Constitutional law background whatsoever.

[Hissyspit]

28. I concur.

[ProSense]

36. The Constitution doesn't state a lot of things specifically, but these are implicitly understood and

the historical precedent exists.

[OnyxCollie]

30. She was appointed as a fail-safe CYA for bushco.

She was appointed because she was corrupt and knew where all the bodies were buried. Being a lawyer just helped to keep down suspicions.

[Occam Bandage]

34. And her appointment became a joke because it became obvious

that she had absolutely no background in Constitutional law whatsoever, to the extent that she was completely unfamiliar with major Supreme Court cases that occurred while she was practicing law. Washington didn't laugh her off the Hill because "she knew where the bodies were buried," they laughed her off because she couldn't even figure out the difference between Earl Warren and Warren Burger.

I'm sure Dennis Kucinich could figure out who his favorite Supreme Court justice was; I at least think he wouldn't fail the Cosmo-quiz questions Miers botched. I don't, however, think he'd survive confirmation hearings.

[OnyxCollie]

40. I didn't say that.

I explained why she was appointed, not why she was rejected.

Being a lawyer made the appointment a little less ridiculous than say, deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz being named president of the World Bank.

[Occam Bandage]

47. OK. So we can agree that she was rejected

because she didn't know her ass from third base when it came to Constitutional law.

[OnyxCollie]

52. Yup.

A useful idiot for bushco.

I'll tell you who I would like to see appointed to the SCOTUS: U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

[sabrina 1]

8. You don't have to be a lawyer to become a judge

as far as I know, even a SC judge.

[TahitiNut]

19. Indeed. Some of the absolute worst have been lawyers.

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

17. that's not a requirement for the job

I'm not favoring him, but that's not a reason to say not to him.

[Occam Bandage]

23. A high-school education is not technically a requirement to be President.

Some of our worst Presidents have gone through high school!

[stray cat]

33. Actually no schooling is required - just a natural born citizen and a certain age

[Occam Bandage]

35. Yep. You don't need to go to school to be President.

But yet a candidate who had not graduated high school would not be a very successful candidate as a result of that deficiency, despite it not being a Constitutional requirement.

[-..__...]

25. "One teeny tiny problem"

What's his height got to do with being qualified or not?

[Pierre.Suave]

56. I sure hope you are joking...

[Arkana]

3. We'd have to get him a booster seat for the bench.

Yeah, I went there. :evilgrin:

[Danger Mouse]

6. He'd never do it.

[G_j]

49. no, we need a Department of Peace

Obama should utilize Kucinich for positive change in approaching violence and conflict in the world.
If ever there was a time for a DOP, especially as Kucinich envisions it, it's now. But, I certainly doubt we'll see that remotely soon, if ever.
Maybe after WW 3? :-( The idea has been around since the days of George Washington, .

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/
http://dop.kucinich.us/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[WeDidIt]

7. Will. Not. Happen.

There is no way in hell Dennis Kucinich would ever get out of committee, let alone gain confirmation.

[flvegan]

9. I'd be happy with that.

As much as I like having him in the House, it's tough to be effective amongst such a crowd of complicit idiots.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Eeek!! Too liberal!! Too liberal!!

[TahitiNut]

15. As if there was such a thing in Congress, huh?

:rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Much to the dismay of the apologists for the "liberals" of political convenience.

And, are ever ready with excuses of pragmatism when their favorite "liberals" vote with the right wing and condemn the left as "purists" while demanding party loyalty.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Other than his complete lack of knowledge, training, or experience with con law, great idea!

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

16. That's what law clerks are for.

:evilgrin:

[Occam Bandage]

20. "Who cares if he doesn't know how to fly a 747? That's what the manual is for."

"And we can be sure he'd always fly the plane where the PEOPLE want the plane to go."

[Kansas Wyatt]

22. Who was it that got the Patriot Act right?

Which lawyer? Which judge? Which government official? Which representative?

Hmm... Who was it that said 'Hell NO!' to it, based on his knowledge, training, and experience with the law?

Meanwhile, all those with the alleged "knowledge, training, or experience with law" just followed right off the cliff.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Completely unrelated.

There is a wide gulf between "knows whether a law is good policy" and "can see the wide-ranging legal and Constitutional ramifications of a law when seen in context of the history of similar laws and court decisions related to those over the past two hundred years."

And leaving that aside, it's true that a lot of Congressmen thought the Patriot Act was good policy. But nobody's supporting any of them for SCOTUS, so what's the point?

[Kansas Wyatt]

32. Well it is so nice to know that Progressives have the bar set higher...

Than all the Conservatives sitting on the SCOTUS.

I'm sure Clarence Thomas nailed all your prerequisites.:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

38. Two things are important about anyone in Washington:

where they're aiming, and how good they're going to be at getting there. Success in one aspect does not excuse failure in the other.

[Kansas Wyatt]

42. How many questions does Clarence ask?

Okay, so he said that he will always be against abortion, during a republican pick. Since then, he's just been a wealth of legal knowledge on the court.

'Hey, how you voting Tony? That's how I see it too.'

[Occam Bandage]

46. Yep. He's a pretty bad justice, all right. No vision.

What's your point? That legal knowledge is not sufficient for a good justice? I agree. It is, however, necessary.

(Similarly, "a basic knowledge of anatomy" is not sufficient for a good surgeon, but it sure as hell is necessary.)

[Kansas Wyatt]

53. A true progressive on the SCOTUS.

That is my point. Not only that, but one that will stand up for the American People and go toe to toe with any conservative on there. No middle of the road or soft spoken justice will do.

More SCOTUS positions will eventually have to be filled, but the republican party has made it very clear that they are going to put the strictest conservatives on there with their picks. So why should the Democrats stay close to the center or put someone on there who won't throw a hay-maker at Tony when he jabs?

[Occam Bandage]

59. I'd rather have a "true progressive" who also knew what he was doing when it came to con law.

No sense in wasting one-ninth of the court on a "true progressive" who only understands the issues insofar as his aides can explain them to a lay person, and who doesn't have the background necessary to write opinions.

[stray cat]

31. Russ Feingold of course - along with a few others

between the two I'll go with Russ for the court - he is even a lawyer I think.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. If Russ wasn't so valuable in the Senate, I would definitely agree

[jbnow]

39. He is too old, 63 this year. Someone in their 40's or early 50's tops

would have longer to serve. The new conservatives are around 50 and we need to outlast them

[Kansas Wyatt]

45. That's a reason I can concede on.

Preferably someone in their 40s.

[WI_DEM]

41. I would prefer a woman since there is only one currently on the court.

[MazeRat7]

44. Not qualified for the job...

No credentials. You kind of need to be a working judge or lawyer to sit on the highest court in the nation.

Nice thought, but lets look for folks that are well versed in the law of the land and leave the ideology out of the equation.

Peace,
MZr7

[G_j]

51. the hearings would Rock !! nt

[Occam Bandage]

60. Yes, they would. But not for the reason you think they would. nt

[dionysus]

54. dumbest idea i have ever heard...sorry...

:rofl:

[Alexander]

55. What about Ralph Nader? Don't make me laugh.

Neither of them are remotely qualified.

[lib2DaBone]

57. Dennis Knows....He knows that the politicians are raping the USA..

[Joe the Revelator]

61. oh god no

[Liberal_in_LA]

63. So the supreme court can remain 8 males and 1 female?

[mmonk]

65. One less vote for the right things in the House.

[rucky]

66. He's honest and has a good sense of fairness.

why not?