*Menu
Search
Submit
Shelbyville Times-Gazette
*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills
Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter. They previously owned two coffee/ice cream shops, currently operate an internet sales company and teach classes, but his primary job involves the paper industry worldwide. Hobbies and interests lie in gardening, photography, recorded music and of course, their pets.
Recent posts
Archives

Is a "dyed-in-wool" politician a wise choice (from any political party) for Supreme Court Justice?

Posted Monday, April 12, 2010, at 12:49 PM

The name of Hillary Clinton is being thrown out as a possible candidate for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court. It seems she has declared her stand on so many subjects during political races, that she could not be seriously considered as an impartial judge.

The same could be said for Newt Gingrich or any other "professional" politician. Any thoughts?

Comments
View 5 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • Ron Paul would be the only one that comes to mind that would make a good justice, only because he is a strict constitutionalist.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Apr 12, 2010, at 12:58 PM

  • Ron Paul has a decent shot according the Republican straw polls in becoming President.

    -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Mon, Apr 12, 2010, at 4:43 PM

  • I believe that when Senator Hatch brought her name up, the Obama administration went on the defensive.

    I don't believe that a politician should be elevated to the Supreme Court simply because of the possibility of them deciding on a law that they helped to pass (or shoot down).

    We've had one person, President Taft, that has been both President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I still say it's a bad idea because if they recuse themselves from that particular ruling, they would leave the court with only eight votes...the possibility of a tie is much greater since the court has generally maintained a 5-4 split in recent years.

    -- Posted by Thom on Mon, Apr 12, 2010, at 7:40 PM

  • The test for the impartiality of a judge on the bench is the same whether the court is state or federal or located in Shelbyville, TN, or in Washington, DC. The test is: is the judge willing and able to decide the case based upon the facts and the law in the record of the case, and not outside of it? Some who have served previously in elected office and are trained as lawyers have the moral and intellectual character to do this (see Senator Hugo L. Black of Alabama); others, not (see Securities Exchange Commissioner William O. Douglas of Oregon). It is a fine line. Only by reading their opinions can you tell.

    -- Posted by zzoop on Mon, Apr 12, 2010, at 8:01 PM

  • From ABC news: The White House denied reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be tapped as the next Supreme Court nominee, despite widespread speculation.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Apr 13, 2010, at 1:30 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: