Plan B Forum

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:34 pm**

Based on today's projections, it appears the Democrats are likely to flip 6 currently-GOP seats in the Senate, giving them a majority.

Once the election is called, how many hours do you think it will be before the Republicans vote to confirm Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOUTS? Or will B. Barry Bamz get a chance to pull it back first (so Hillz can nominate him)?

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:43 pm**

I also note that The Trump/Penz ticket has coattails so short the cannot even pull a victory for the GOP senate candidate.

I predict the lame duck senate will continue to stall and fail to bring the nomination on the SCOTUS to a vote. No advice and no consent. The GOP is continuing the straight line progression that brought Trump to the top of their ticket. The major plank in the GOP program will continue to be that anything the Prexy wants must be stopped. The greater good be damned. We ain't seen nutin yet. The 2018 congressional campaign will be brutal.

(later edit--the Indiana Senate race)

snailgate

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:52 pm**

I hope Merrick Garland gets his seat, he deserves it. I think he would be a good justice, too.

Ginsburg will retire under Clinton and she can nominate Obama then.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:08 pm**

If Ginsburg and Breyer both retire she can nominate BOTH Obamas and watch Republican heads explode.

Or hopefully Clarence Thomas will get hit by a bus.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:17 pm**

I would love to see a good history of the process of filling seats on the US Supreme Court. It seems to me to be a recent choice that the nominee must have a record of as federal judge and from Harvard law school.

Politicians with no record as federal judge, and even ex-president have been on the court in the past. The 'Warren Court' was considered terribly liberal by many. I remember the Impeach Earl Warren billboards. Yet here in the Corporate State of Delaware, (with a special court system just for issues between businesses) the Warren Court is remembered fondly as very favorable to the overall interests of big business.

snailgate.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:35 pm**

Elena Kagan is one who comes to mind who did not previous sit on a federal bench (although she did clerk for Thurgood Marshall). Bill Clinton had nominated her to DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but in a now familiar story, a Republican Senate took no action on her nomination.

Not sure if there are other relatively recent examples of SCOTUS appointees who had never sat on the federal bench.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:36 pm**

Burning Petard wrote:It seems to me to be a recent choice that the nominee must have a record of as federal judge and from Harvard law school.

Ginsburg got her law degree from Columbia (although she started at Harvard). Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas all went to Yale.

Kagan was never a judge in any state or federal court.

Hillary's supposed "short list" includes several state supreme court justices and a couple of sitting Senators, as well as the usual suspects among the federal judiciary.

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:47 pm**

From what I understand, one does not need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. Is that true?

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:54 pm**

oldr_n_wsr wrote:From what I understand, one does not need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. Is that true?

The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.

Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx

Posted: **Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:08 pm**

Thanks for that Sue U

ETA
Learn something every day.

Plan B Forum

The Senate and its discontents

The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents

Re: The Senate and its discontents