Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice - Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I have been reading quite a few articles lately pondering Hillary Clinton being appointed to the Supreme Court.  What are your thoughts on that?   

[Fallaya]

What a great idea.

[D.O.E.]

for me, (and i dont even live in the states) it is mostly because she IS in politics and was obamas right hand woman, we cant know for sure where her loyalties lie, lets say for instance she was to rule on something, like.......i dont know.......lets say she ruled in favor of a father who does not want the woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. 

this sets presidence so that any other guy can legally say, "no, you arent getting an abortion!"

and thats just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot more important issues she could rule on which would not be good for the american people. and we dont know who's pocket she is in.

so in a way, she could be dangerous in the role as supreme court judge

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Anyone saying no, why?  Just curious. 

[Anonymous - Original Poster]

So when the Republicans got all upset that Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare - that was OK.  He was supposed to be in the republican pockets because he was nominated by a republican president - right?  So he should be removed, right?

Quoting D.O.E.:

for me, (and i dont even live in the states) it is mostly because she IS in politics and was obamas right hand woman, we cant know for sure where her loyalties lie, lets say for instance she was to rule on something, like.......i dont know.......lets say she ruled in favor of a father who does not want the woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. 

this sets presidence so that any other guy can legally say, "no, you arent getting an abortion!"

and thats just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot more important issues she could rule on which would not be good for the american people. and we dont know who's pocket she is in.

so in a way, she could be dangerous in the role as supreme court judge

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Anyone saying no, why?  Just curious. 

[D.O.E.]

i dont who the hell roberts is. and who ruled in avor of what. i do not live in the states, but hillary has made the news a lot, and at risk of sounding like a tin foil hatter, i do not trust the woman. 

there is something about her which does not sit well with me at all. 

*IF* some people were right and the govt wanted to strip eople of their arms and do god knows what, i think Hillary would be right there in the thick of it. 

Quoting Anonymous:

So when the Republicans got all upset that Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare - that was OK.  He was supposed to be in the republican pockets because he was nominated by a republican president - right?  So he should be removed, right?

Quoting D.O.E.:

for me, (and i dont even live in the states) it is mostly because she IS in politics and was obamas right hand woman, we cant know for sure where her loyalties lie, lets say for instance she was to rule on something, like.......i dont know.......lets say she ruled in favor of a father who does not want the woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. 

this sets presidence so that any other guy can legally say, "no, you arent getting an abortion!"

and thats just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot more important issues she could rule on which would not be good for the american people. and we dont know who's pocket she is in.

so in a way, she could be dangerous in the role as supreme court judge

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Anyone saying no, why?  Just curious. 

[Anonymous - Original Poster]

Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Maybe I should have asked if any moms here actually know who the supreme court justices are before they provide an uninformed opinion....  *sigh*

Quoting D.O.E.:

i dont who the hell roberts is. and who ruled in avor of what. i do not live in the states, but hillary has made the news a lot, and at risk of sounding like a tin foil hatter, i do not trust the woman. 

there is something about her which does not sit well with me at all. 

*IF* some people were right and the govt wanted to strip eople of their arms and do god knows what, i think Hillary would be right there in the thick of it. 

Quoting Anonymous:

So when the Republicans got all upset that Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare - that was OK.  He was supposed to be in the republican pockets because he was nominated by a republican president - right?  So he should be removed, right?

Quoting D.O.E.:

for me, (and i dont even live in the states) it is mostly because she IS in politics and was obamas right hand woman, we cant know for sure where her loyalties lie, lets say for instance she was to rule on something, like.......i dont know.......lets say she ruled in favor of a father who does not want the woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. 

this sets presidence so that any other guy can legally say, "no, you arent getting an abortion!"

and thats just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot more important issues she could rule on which would not be good for the american people. and we dont know who's pocket she is in.

so in a way, she could be dangerous in the role as supreme court judge

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Anyone saying no, why?  Just curious. 

[brandydesiree]

I put yes. I could think of a lot worse candidates.

[chalisa0]

Works for me.

[D.O.E.]

like i said, i dont live there.

Quoting Anonymous:

Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Maybe I should have asked if any moms here actually know who the supreme court justices are before they provide an uninformed opinion....  *sigh*

Quoting D.O.E.:

i dont who the hell roberts is. and who ruled in avor of what. i do not live in the states, but hillary has made the news a lot, and at risk of sounding like a tin foil hatter, i do not trust the woman. 

there is something about her which does not sit well with me at all. 

*IF* some people were right and the govt wanted to strip eople of their arms and do god knows what, i think Hillary would be right there in the thick of it. 

Quoting Anonymous:

So when the Republicans got all upset that Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare - that was OK.  He was supposed to be in the republican pockets because he was nominated by a republican president - right?  So he should be removed, right?

Quoting D.O.E.:

for me, (and i dont even live in the states) it is mostly because she IS in politics and was obamas right hand woman, we cant know for sure where her loyalties lie, lets say for instance she was to rule on something, like.......i dont know.......lets say she ruled in favor of a father who does not want the woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. 

this sets presidence so that any other guy can legally say, "no, you arent getting an abortion!"

and thats just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot more important issues she could rule on which would not be good for the american people. and we dont know who's pocket she is in.

so in a way, she could be dangerous in the role as supreme court judge

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Anyone saying no, why?  Just curious. 

[kryptomom]

I thought her law license was suspended.  Can she still be a judge without a law license?

[rgba]

She was a practicing attorney for many years, with a great reputation.

That said, I am inclined to think it should be someone who has spent more time in practice, at least in recent years.

Quoting louzannalady:

She has been a politican. Not a practicing attorney! If she had been a practicing attorney, then maybe I would not think so ill of the idea. She has not been on any bench in any number of decades- if ever. It would not be appropiate for her to become a Supreme Court Justice. She is not qualified for the job. They look at how the nominated person has ruled on cases and what kind of judge he or she is. There is no way to assess that, since that has not been her career goal. 

Quoting Anonymous:

She is actually an attorney and has a specialty in constitutional law, just like Obama.  Most sitting judges have knowledge regarding their state laws, but they are not required to have any true constitutional law knowledge beyond the basics.  

Quoting louzannalady:

Or, how about we have someone who has actually sat on a bench the bulk of their career and can actually see the long-term benefits and risks to making decisions that affect the Constitution? She is a politican- not a judge.