http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_dems_court_outsider_tell_bam_not_to_pick_fed_judge_for_justice_souters_job.html

Quote :

"President Obama advised not to replace David Souter with judge BY James Gordon Meek DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Updated Monday, May 4th 2009, 7:28 AM WASHINGTON - Top Democrats advising President Obama on his first Supreme Court vacancy are urging him not to pick a sitting judge. "I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery - somebody who has had some real-life experience," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told ABC's "This Week." Picking up on the outsider theme, brand-new Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - who shepherded ex-President George W. Bush's two high court picks as the panel's former GOP chairman - agreed that the eight other justices on the bench who were lower court judges were plenty. Specter told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he'd like a replacement for retiring Associate Justice David Souter "who has done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives." Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" to elaborate, Specter replied, "Perhaps a statesman - or a stateswoman." A thinly veiled nod to Secretary of State Clinton? A Specter spokeswoman did not respond to a request for clarification. Aides to committee Democrats have told the Daily News it's a slam dunk that a liberal woman will be tabbed. "I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities," the unabashedly liberal Leahy told ABC's "This Week." A former Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), predicted Obama will "pick a more liberal justice" than Souter, "a pro-abortion justice." He said Obama's desire to find a candidate with "empathy" for the downtrodden was just "code" for wanting an "activist judge." A top contender is Bronx-born federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, branded a "radical" by one conservative group last week. Hatch, who voted for Sotomayor's confirmation to the bench in 1998, refused to go along with the "radical" label, suggesting he wouldn't try to block her appointment. jmeek@nydailynews.com"

Really? The highest court in the land should have people who aren't judges in it? Give me a fucking break! Half of the problem with the Supreme Court today is that the judges that are there barely respect the Constitution in the first place! How do you expect someone who doesn't know the law, or the Constitution for that matter, to properly deliberate on matters of law? This is absurd.

5/11/2009 8:41:46 PM

i think i missed the part where they are calling for someone who "doesn't know the law or the Constitution".

oh, right..... judges are the only people in the country who "know the law and the constitution"

5/11/2009 8:47:17 PM

I'd say that's all fine and good, if it weren't for the fact that they're already basically stipulating that it has to be a woman and/or minority. The affirmative-action-esque route in this situation is totally reasonable, but AT LEAST make sure the person is plenty qualified (in other words... judicial experience please? At least experience in Law in general).

I don't have a problem with either hiring strategy individually, but both at once seems a bit much.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 8:47:21 PM

^^ who do you think will likely know more about the law: a judge, or a person who has never been a judge?

5/11/2009 8:52:48 PM

beats me. depends what the other person was doing.

I think it's safe to say that in general, judges know more about the law than non-judges. However, that's not always true, and it doesn't sound like anybody is recommending to pick some random joe_schmoe off the street to appoint.

5/11/2009 8:55:24 PM

Hillary Clinton on the Supremes!!!!!!

5/11/2009 8:56:46 PM

^^^Or there's always... someone like an attorney, or some other legal profession that isn't technically a judge.

Any of those would be fine, though. That's totally relevant experience.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ^,^^]

5/11/2009 8:57:18 PM

So basically, they are narrowing down their search by eliminating qualified candidates first. You're a male? Sorry. You're white? Sorry. You're a judge? Sorry, you're out. What happened to getting the best qualified person for the position? Oh, I know what happened, they don't want someone who knows the constitution and the law, they want someone who supports their agenda first and foremost. Oddly, both of Bush's picks were actually, you know, qualified and have not been activists judges, go figure. One of the things Bush did right.

5/11/2009 8:58:09 PM

The supreme court quite obviously has not cared about the Constitution for (at least) 100 years now, so that's kind of a moot point.

5/11/2009 9:01:26 PM

Quote :

"Or there's always... someone like an attorney, or some other legal profession that isn't technically a judge."

I'm not even sure that an attourney would be good enough. Arguing for something is distinctly different than weighing the merits of two arguments.

5/11/2009 9:58:47 PM

AFAIK, there is no specifically defined requirement for judges to have any legal training and experience, and particularly on the local level, there are a lot of uneducated judges who just are able to get elected.

It's not really a big deal that they're looking for people who "aren't judges." It seems that some in the media are trying to exploit a technicality in the situation in order to be able to have a particular headline that convinces dumb people that this is a bigger issue than it really is.

Hooksaw could be a judge, if he had the wherewithal to get elected, for example.


[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 10:11:52 PM

yes, and we would equally criticize Obama if he picked hooksaw for SC. It just kind of seems that one of the requirements for being the top judge in the land is that you have at least, you know, been a judge before.

5/11/2009 10:27:26 PM

I would be okay with someone like a seasoned, well published, and respected law professor or constitutional scholar.

Quote :

"I'd say that's all fine and good, if it weren't for the fact that they're already basically stipulating that it has to be a woman and/or minority. The affirmative-action-esque route in this situation is totally reasonable, but AT LEAST make sure the person is plenty qualified (in other words... judicial experience please? At least experience in Law in general)."

Agreed, and there are several good sitting judges that would fit the bill.

5/11/2009 11:01:53 PM

^^ well unless I missed something, Obama hasn't picked a justice yet, much less one who is not a judge. But, if you want to preemptively criticize him for what others in his party are saying, completely independant of the White House's stated stance on the topic, please continue.

5/11/2009 11:06:45 PM

Quote :

"I'd say that's all fine and good, if it weren't for the fact that they're already basically stipulating that it has to be a woman and/or minority."

5/11/2009 11:16:56 PM

Someone who has real-life experience disqualifies Hillary Clinton.

He should pick bill clinton.

5/11/2009 11:20:56 PM

you know what? it's obama's prerogative to pick whomever he wants. and it's the senate's prerogative to determine if they're qualified. and i think the president (who was a constitutional law scholar at one point) and the senate will do just fine in picking a candidate with the relevant experience to fill the position.

not to mention that PLENTY of supreme court justices before about 50 years ago had never been judges prior to their appointment to the supreme court.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : m]

5/11/2009 11:24:20 PM

You can't really point to Obama's time as a "Consitutional Law Scholar" when he doesn't even fucking believe in "innocent until proven guilty."

5/11/2009 11:40:36 PM

Talk about being ignorant of history. We've had plenty of non-judges on the Supreme Court, most lately in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

In other words, shut the fuck you up ignorant tart.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 11:47:51 PM

^^oh. nevermind then. you probably know better.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 11:48:10 PM

yes. let's ignore a great qualification so we can get a vagina in there! w00t!

5/11/2009 11:50:14 PM

keep moving the goal posts, Harriet Meyers.

5/11/2009 11:51:14 PM

whatever you say dear. face it, the reason they are saying "don't pick a judge" is because they want to pick a vagina. Well, that and they don't believe in the Constitution, anyway. What better way to subvert it than to put an activist with contempt for it on the Supreme Court

5/12/2009 12:07:47 AM

Are you legitimately arguing that there are no female judges in this country and in order for a female to be placed on the court they much go with a non-judge?

Not only are you ignorant of American history, you are also ignorant of the Constitution, and the realities of life.

5/12/2009 12:30:13 AM

^^^niiiiiiiice

5/12/2009 12:31:26 AM

Susan Sarandon.

5/12/2009 7:01:49 PM

no, smackr, I'm saying that they want to pick a non-judge because it will increase the pool of vaginas from which they can choose.

5/12/2009 8:53:19 PM

Can we angelina jolie up in here? since there are no real qualifications for SC judge other than they have to get approved, let's go with the chick in america who has the best dick sucking lips.

5/12/2009 9:18:35 PM

i love how this is all based on what a couple people (not in the obama administration) said about who obama should pick.

5/12/2009 10:20:58 PM

Quote :

"who do you think will likely know more about the law: a judge, or a person who has never been a judge?"

Well, although I suspect he's busy at the moment, Barack Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar of some renown. He's not a judge, but I suspect he knows it as well as any.

5/13/2009 12:33:52 PM

wrt to this:

Quote :

"AFAIK, there is no specifically defined requirement for judges to have any legal training and experience, and particularly on the local level, there are a lot of uneducated judges who just are able to get elected. It's not really a big deal that they're looking for people who "aren't judges." It seems that some in the media are trying to exploit a technicality in the situation in order to be able to have a particular headline that convinces dumb people that this is a bigger issue than it really is. Hooksaw could be a judge, if he had the wherewithal to get elected, for example."

The NC constitution requires you to be allowed to practice law in order to be one of these kinds of judges:

Quote :

"Sec. 22. Qualification of Justices and Judges. Only persons duly authorized to practice law in the courts of this State shall be eligible for election or appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Judge of the Superior Court, or Judge of District Court. This section shall not apply to persons elected to or serving in such capacities on or before January 1, 1981."

I'm not sure if there are other kinds of judges, I just remembered reading that the other day when I was bored.

5/13/2009 1:19:19 PM

Quote :

"Well, although I suspect he's busy at the moment, Barack Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar of some renown. He's not a judge, but I suspect he knows it as well as any."

I would take Obama's title as "Constitutional Scholar" with a grain of salt. He doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty..."

5/13/2009 6:56:35 PM

^Based on what?

5/13/2009 9:48:20 PM

Based on his own fucking words where he said that anyone who "isn't cooperating" with the IRS will be assumed to be evading their taxes. Straight from his mouth

5/14/2009 12:16:21 AM

like Geithner, Sebelius, Solis, Kirk, right?

5/14/2009 8:56:18 AM

^^and what would the action be if they're suspected of evading their taxes? throw them in jail? no? they'd go to trial? just like how the law works with everyone else?

5/14/2009 9:54:51 AM

I know, he could pick Harriet Meiers!

5/14/2009 1:10:06 PM

^^ actually, no. Obama said that he would direct the agencies to assume guilt, and then put the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence. That's pretty fucking huge. Even if the guy goes to trial, going their with a presumption of guilt is hardly Constitutional. Thus, my point.

5/14/2009 7:40:07 PM

I think John Jay would have something to say about non-judges joining the Supreme Court. I know there were plenty of others too but he's the first one that comes to mind.

5/15/2009 7:53:00 AM

^^i find that hard to believe, so i'm going to assume innocence on the obama admin part until you prove to me otherwise. i mean would he invent a new legal system for them?

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2009 10:43:13 AM

I guess his own words just aren't good enough for you?

5/15/2009 6:20:13 PM

until you've produced his words that you feel prove your point i'll just assume that your argument isn't very strong.

5/15/2009 6:35:56 PM

well, at least he picked a judge... one who thinks courts should make policy (as in, write the laws), but a judge none-the-less.

5/27/2009 11:34:25 PM