|
|
|
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ High: 80°F ~ Low: 51°F Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2016 |
|
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 Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires free registration:
|
Bedford Ramblings  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to Steve Mills - Login Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter and live on a farm outside of Bell Buckle. 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.
Hot topics Presidential debate. Thoughts?(28 ~ 6:02 PM, Sep 28)
Introducing.... Barbie the kitty cat!!!
Are the National Anthem "demonstrations" well placed or off target?
With all the talk about health records, should we be looking closer at the Vice Presidential candidates?
So how is it going for Clinton and Trump?
|
Email link
Read comments (5)
Blog archive
Ron Paul would be the only one that comes to mind that would make a good justice, only because he is a strict constitutionalist.
Ron Paul has a decent shot according the Republican straw polls in becoming President.
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.
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.
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.