How can Obama pick this person for the Supreme Court?

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Oct 3, 2009
3,384
228
83
Why Obama is picking this new person to be on the supreme court is beyond me. Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case.
 
Well, you would think that if anyone was welled versed in Constitutional Law and familiar with the Supreme Court it would be the Solicitor General...
 
What on earth does a fair and partial jury have to do with the Supreme Court?

And it's obvious why he picked her. She is like him.
 
This was the best idea you had for a thread?
 
Many who have served on the Supreme Court have spent time as an Attorney General on the state or federal level. I would assume she would step aside on any case she had been involved with in the past. You can't expect that a Justice practices law in a vacuum.
 
Last edited:
I like the thread question itself. What exactly is 0bama's reasoning behind choosing Kagan? I would have thought it to be:

1. To give the court a strong liberal voice similiar to Stevens. As some have already said, this is doubtful that she can function at that level.

2. To promote gay rights.

3. To protect the health care reform package.

4. Give Harvard elitism a boost.
 
Obama also has no experience relevant to the position he now holds and apparently hopes to put a puppet in place. Someone with no experience in the job they will fill will be prime for manipulation. Standard Lib operating procedure.
 
Geico caveman sez: "You. Stoo-pid."

geico-caveman.jpg
 
Why Obama is picking this new person to be on the supreme court is beyond me. Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case.
Using your logic, there would be a conflict of interest if a district attorney served as a judge, or an attorney general, or a lower court judges, or anyone who argues state cases before the court, etc..

A mark of a good judge is to form legal opinion based on law and not personal preferences, personal ties, and political philosophy. Judges take this pretty seriously. There is nothing any more damaging to the career and the integrity of a judge, than to rule base on personal preferences.
 
Why Obama is picking this new person to be on the supreme court is beyond me. Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case.
Thurgood Marshall was Solicitor General before his appointment to the Supreme Court.
 
What on earth does a fair and partial jury have to do with the Supreme Court?

And it's obvious why he picked her. She is like him.
You can ALWAYS tell a mindless DittoTard drone parroting the talking points they were programmed to echo. :cuckoo: :rofl:

Barack Obama Chooses Himself
May 10, 2010
RUSH: Look, Obama has chosen himself in a different gender, sexual gender.* Identical.
 
Why Obama is picking this new person to be on the supreme court is beyond me. Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case.

:wtf:
 
Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case.
I might regret asking (and ignoring that the Supreme Court is not a trial court and does not have a jury and does there is no prosecution or defense), but I gots to know:

Are you claiming that no former prosecutor should ever be a judge because his/her sympathies would always be with the prosecution? And wouldn't that equally a apply to former defense attorneys? Wouldn't their sympathies lie with the defense team and be biased that way? You certainly can't claim it could only apply to former prosecuters and not former defenders.

Where do you think judges should come from, if they can't be former prosecuters or defenders?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top