Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS death watch (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But a 60 majority in 2016, with a Hillary or say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jgumby, Vince CA

    O'Malley could appoint (as someone suggested on another thread) Elizabeth Warren. The warren/Scalia discussions would be interesting.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:03:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ToG - Warren will be too old in 2016 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vince CA

      Warren will be 67 in 2016 and 71 by 2020. The trend is to appoint judges in their 50s. In addition, Warren has never been judge, so there is no paper trail on how she would decide cases, and she has ruffled many feathers including in the Senate. However, first and foremost the Senate is a club and if over the next four years Warren is able to do what Hillary Clinton did, be an inside player and club member in good standing, who knows?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:46:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Young judges (0+ / 0-)

      This is why judges like Diane Wood should be out of the question.

      It should be progressives judges in their 40's to early 50's. We need judges who will be on the court a long time and can make it through to retirement if a the republicans god forbid hold the white house for an extended period of time.

      We cannot have situations where progressive judges like Thurgood Marshall are forced to retire in a republican administration and be replaced by closed minded right-wing judges like Clarence Thomas.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site