Guess the next scotus justice.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Can Obama appoint himself? |
Anonymous
He could try as there isn't anything in the Constitution which would prevent this. We need to get this trending on Twitter and let the frivolities ensue. |
Anonymous
|
As an Indian-American man, it would be great to see Sri Srinivasan get the gig, but honestly it should be a woman.
6-3 male-female balance is not acceptable. |
Anonymous
|
Good read this, from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-farm-team SCOTUS Farm Team. Sri Srinivasan, age forty-seven, D.C. Circuit Paul Watford, age forty-six, Ninth Circuit David Barron, age forty-six, nominated to the First Circuit My Pick: Jane Kelly, age forty-nine, Eighth Circuit. A 1991 graduate of Harvard Law School, i.e., Obama’s class, Kelly has an unusual and welcome background for a Supreme Court Justice. She’s a career public defender who has practiced almost entirely in Iowa. Most important for confirmation purposes, she has an enthusiastic fan in Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who may well be chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the G.O.P. takes control. Last year, she was confirmed 96–0 for her seat on the Eighth Circuit. Patricia Ann Millett, age fifty, D.C. Circuit. |
Anonymous
| Patricia Ann Millett, age fifty, D.C. Circuit, advocate for military families, sounds like a safe bet if you follow the New Yorker story. |
Anonymous
That's an interesting article from Toobin, but he's now saying he thinks it's Sri Srinivasan. Mostly because he was confirmed 97-0 just 3 years ago. Cruz and Rubio voted for him. |
Anonymous
| I'm surprised Sri Srinivasan has so many fans on DCUM considering what the general attitude towards Indians/Indian-Americans is on DCUM |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
There's really only one guy and as long as Srinivasan isn't on a H1-B visa, even he is probably cool with it. |
Anonymous
I'm just parroting Jeffrey Toobin (CNN, New Yorker Supreme Court correspondent). I assume he knows best. |
Anonymous
| The judge for whom Jane Kelly clerked did Sen. Grassley a major solid years ago. He campaigned extensively for Grassley when he was laid up in the hospital. Chuck never forgot. For whatever reason, the judge cashed in that chit to benefit Kelly. |
Anonymous
| Can we please move this to the Off-Topic forum? The Third Branch simply does not pay attention to politics. Thus, it's not fair to sully their good name here. Place this in the Off-Topic forum so people can discuss the likely change in LEGAL philosophy. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
That's an interesting perspective. In my opinion, laws are produced by our political system and, as such, are political. But, I'm not adverse to having my intellectual horizons expanded. If you want to start a new thread in Off Topic with a clear indication it is only for discussing the legal philosophy aspects of Scalia's death, I'm not adverse to the idea. However, if it turns into a duplicate of the threads we have here, I'll lock it. Edit: Also, I am not adverse to using the word "adverse". |
Anonymous
Are you serious? Of course they pay attention to politics. They hopefully don't base their decisions on politics but they are certainly aware of the implications. Many judges were very political creatures before they were appointed -- you don't get appointed without knowing someone. The judge I clerked for did a stint as treasurer for one of Arlen Spector's campaigns back in the day. It's the very rare federal judge who is appointed just because he or she is an outstanding lawyer. It happens, but usually they know someone or know someone who knows someone. |
Anonymous
+ 1. Obvious choice. |
Anonymous
Of course justices are not political, but their nomination is. That's what this thread is about. |