http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...eme-court/

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said she “loves” the idea of appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court if she’s elected president.

“I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor,” she added. “So he’s got all the credentials, but we would have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”
-- wash times

OH NO

I think President Obama wants a breather. Maybe to replace RBG, not Scalia.

If I'm Mitch McConnell, I'd start penciling in a hearing in October for Judge Garland. Because if HRC wins, Garland might not be the nominee.

You might get Vinita Gupta.

(08-02-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think President Obama wants a breather. Maybe to replace RBG, not Scalia. If I'm Mitch McConnell, I'd start penciling in a hearing in October for Judge Garland. Because if HRC wins, Garland might not be the nominee.
You might get Vinita Gupta.

Regardless of the outcome in November, I think we can count on a supreme court that, going forward, will be doing its best to run roughshod over the will of the people in its zeal to turn us into a socialist/communist regime.

Yes, that's what I wrote, and yes, I mean precisely what it says.

Obama has no business on the Court.

His only real work is in critical legal theory, which is all bunk and not even considered anymore.

It's like saying we should put a flat-earther as the nation's top topographer.

His accomplishments as a "constitutional scholar" consist of teaching a course as an adjunct. I've done that.

Has he published anything on constitutional law? I don't think so. I have.

Has he argued a case before the supreme court? I don't believe so. Neither have I.

Is he admitted to practice before the supreme court? I don't believe so. I'm not either.

Has he argued a case before a circuit court of appeals? I don't believe so, neither have I.

Has he briefed a case before the supreme court? I don't believe so. I have worked on a team to present one brief to the supreme court. It was an amicus brief. Our side won.

Bottom line. I'm not a constitutional scholar, and would not pass myself off as one. Neither is Obama.

(08-02-2016 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  His accomplishments as a "constitutional scholar" consist of teaching a course as and adjunct. I've done that.

Has he published anything on constitutional law? I don't think so. I have.

Has he argued a case before the supreme court? I don't believe so. Neither have I.

Is he admitted to practice before the supreme court. I don't believe so. I'm not either.

Has he argued a case before a circuit court of appeals. I don't believe so, neither have I.

Has he briefed a case before the supreme court? I don't believe so. I have worked on a team to present one brief to the supreme court. It was an amicus brief. Our side won.

Bottom line. I'm not a constitutional scholar, and would not pass myself off as one. Neither is Obama.

You post as if the Demon-crats care about anything but to further their agenda, screw everything else.

(08-02-2016 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think President Obama wants a breather. Maybe to replace RBG, not Scalia.

If I'm Mitch McConnell, I'd start penciling in a hearing in October for Judge Garland. Because if HRC wins, Garland might not be the nominee.

You might get Vinita Gupta.

Nope. Too late. Garland is off the table. Time for Hippie McLiberal.

Sure gets his ass kicked in front of the Wise 9 a lot for a constitutional scholar.

Yes, let's appoint the guy whose administration repeatedly argued that oversight for his "secret kill list," the program in which he granted himself the power to assassinate American citizens without due process, belonged to...wait for it...the EXECUTIVE Branch. Then we'll complain about how dangerous corporations are to our freedom!

A far left liberal won't get by the Senate.