New Justice
As in the supreme court.
Rumor has it the Won wants a woman. Well, that leaves out Marx and Trotsky and Lenin, who else will he be able to dig up to fill the spot? maybe they still have some DNA on Old Sparky from Ethel Rosenberg. Her judgement was the kind that Wingnut head would doubtless find good.
It’s good think Jane Fonda doesn’t have a law degree; they’d be looking at her.
If memory serves you don’t have to be a lawyer, or have a law degree to serve on the Supreme Court.
The following is from Wikipedia: “Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate.”
So, technically, Jane Fonda could be appointed!! If that day ever comes, I will be found on a bell tower, waiting for the right moment to “voice my displeasure”.
We all know he will appoint a flaming lib to the bench. This will not affect the balance of the court significantly. We can only hope & pray that no other justice dies or retires in the next 2 years 8 months.
What Wikipedia doesn’t tell you is that the ABA generally vets all candidates for judgeships. So Hanoi Jane probably wouldn’t pass muster anyway.
The only administration lately that has spurned ABA vetting was GWB’s. For all the good that did.
Here’s four words that will strike terror in your heart:
Associate Justice Michelle Obama
Why not? She fits the selection criteria. That separation of powers of thing is so passe’, anyway…
Nathan, the point I was trying to make was, there is no specific requirement for serving as a Justice on the SCOTUS. Yes, perspective nominees are “vetted” by either the ABA and or the Senate (in it’s process of approving the Presidents selection). Given we have at this moment in time a Senate controlled by the very forces actively destroying this country from within … well, they may very well “rubber stamp” any one Obambi sends their way.
I heard on the radio, yesterday, one of the professors of history (or perhaps law) from the University of Chicago, was saying he feels there is a very good chance the President will suggest a “moderate” or even a “centrist” or “slightly right leaning” candidate for the seat, in order to try and reclaim the moderate vote(s) he lost due to the passing of the health care bill (and his sagging approval ratings in general).
I think, as evidenced by his past record, that he will do no such thing. He has willfully ignored the will and voice of the people before, I see no reason why he won’t do it again.
He will nominate someone far worse than our darkest nightmare.
And that’s my optimistic take on the matter.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX