Friday open thread

Well, I think it's already established that certain parts of the Democratic Party don't want lawyers on the court - recall that Clinton himself did everything he could to put a politician on the court (Cuomo, Babitt et al) before he finally buckled.

Clinton on the SCOTUS would be a good idea, BTW. As you said, his losing of his law license is a strike out right there, not to mention his lack of of judicial experience.

Besides, his talents would be wasted on the Court. Now, Ambassador to the UN is more up his alley, and I'm entirely serious on this one.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Four law clerks would be too much I guess...LOL

Yes, SCOTUS should not be a patronage club. I would feel more comfortable however, with Bill rather than Miers. I agree that Dems wrongly see the court as a critical player in the political struggle to reshape the social paradigm, but they also fear the converse by ideologically-bent conservative judges Republicans rail to pick.

The NIE, SCOTUS and news media have all been politicized to a growing extent. I can't lay this blame largely on Democrats though they consider it "their turn". In fact, I would argue Biden's recent verbal romps would make him less persuasive a SECSTATE than Bill were the latter given a clear mission. The real problem would be a divergence between Hillary's and Bill's tact on a particular negogiating subject which is why special envoy would make more sense. I would like to see Hillary and Bill double team Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Hu. I wonder if Biden's support would give him either SECDEF, SCTOTUS or SECSTATE. Lately, I have a problem with all three.

I'm not sure we can trust anything any candidate says these next few weeks. Bill saying he opposed the war from the start gives Hillary a bit of slack, but makes him sound flipping. I have a good record of what Bill actually said on Iraq at the time. Everything is about politics and of course, the court has and will be a grail to fight over. There is a large segment out there that side more with those who would be more likely to pick a judge that would protect privacy, environmental law, voter's rights, hate crime, torture and capital punishment bans as well as more regulation of firearms and technology related to crime and terrorism. It is the failure to compromise in Congress that has both sides politicizing the court. Newt has made control of the court a prime mission.

I worry that were we to lose objectivity in all three branches, government might escape Contitutional constraint and labor under the cycle of partisan elections and national crisis.

I have always favored a McCain candidate. Whereas Hillary has gained by the writer's strike, McCain has lost being the Republican darling of Comedy Central crowd. Congressional disapproval ratings as well as the present freefall of Pelosi and company (Iraq, NIE, NK, Pakistan eventually playing for the Republicans) will emerge as the voting begins. Judges are one thing both sides can rally around. Al Gore will undoubtedly bring up the issue of SCOTUS deciding elections and threatening Roe. Funny if he stumps later with Hillary for what position? Justice Gore? UN? Holy Snore!

I suspect McCain or Hillary with a divided Congress will stay closer to the middle. Huckster or Obama would fair worse if either's holding much Congressional sway. With eight years in mind, however, the pick could be a base play and in that case, the Democrats have more of a legitimate worry should a Republican win, -thus the use of the issue now.

I was joking Pat, because Spitzer obviously made a deal with Clinton to retract immigration plan just before the debate. You should read the fighting between Cuomo and Spitzer. NY has some pretty strange politics. I would say that picking Miers over Clinton might be construed as tacit support for socons, though I am sure you did not mean it as such. The filling of positions in the Justice Department with graduates of that religiously connected law university, might also be seen as tacit support by those Republicans that saw no issue. I do not see Kos or Huffington given important positions in a Clinton administration. The issuse of judges is also about the courts in general and the belief that given Congressional gridlock, courts will decided the course of law rather than rule on consistency between 21 century law and the Constitution.