Hilary for Secretary of State?

that's a way better job that veep!  what do you think?

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by bobs9895:

I don't think that makes them qualified for the Supreme Court either.

What are the qualification requirements for a SCOTUS Judge?

As far as I know, there are no qualifications per se.  However, again, that doesnt mean that any Tom, Dick or Hillary should be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Original Post by bobs9895:

As far as I know, there are no qualifications per se.  However, again, that doesnt mean that any Tom, Dick or Hillary should be appointed to the Supreme Court. 

 Or Harriet, for that matter.

So, is the main thing against Hillary the fact that she never sat on a bench, or are there other aspects that are lacking, IYO?

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by bobs9895:

As far as I know, there are no qualifications per se. However, again, that doesnt mean that any Tom, Dick or Hillary should be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Or Harriet, for that matter.

So, is the main thing against Hillary the fact that she never sat on a bench, or are there other aspects that are lacking, IYO?

Harriet Myers at least had a more distinguished background and, apparently, she wasn't good enough.

I personally do not think she is qualified. That's just my opinion. But those that do think she is qualified, I want to know how.

Just give me one legal decision she has made. Tell me one paper she has written that was significant. Tell me anything other than she had a "distinguished career" that can be said about thousands and thousands of others.

John Roberts:
Clerk for 1 year
Rehnquist clerk for 1 year
Assistant to Attorney General 1 year
Associate Counsel to Regan for 4 years
Associate counsel at big law firm in DC for 3 years
Principal Deputy Solicitor General for 4 years
Became a Partner at big law firm in DC for 10 years
Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for 2 years
Became Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Samuel Alito:
Clerk for 1 year
Assistant to US attorney 4 years
Assistant to Solicitor General for 4 years
Assistant to Attorney General 2 years
Attorney for NJ 2 years
Judge for 16 years while teaching Law
Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court

Hillary Clinton:
Staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund
Worked on the impeachment of Nixon (irony?)
Failed DC bar exam, passed Arkansas exam
Began teaching Law in Arkansas
Worked at the Rose Law Firm
Served on the board of directors for the Legal Services Corp
Became partner at Rose Law Firm
And other things I'm to bored to list

She wrote plenty of papers.  "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" being one of them.

She hasn't made a legal decision because she's never been a judge.  John Roberts had never made a legal decision either.

What specifically makes her unqualified?

Harriet Miers:
Clerk
Passed the bar and began working as attorney
Became a partner in her law firm
Helped create and fund a women's study lecture at Uni
Became President/Leader of Law Firm
Settled a law suit against her firm for "aiding a client in defrauding investors"
Represented clients like Disney and Microsoft
Became President of Dallas Bar Association

So she is "more distinguished" than Hillary?

Original Post by jewelsmcblah:

John Roberts:
Clerk for 1 year
Rehnquist clerk for 1 year
Assistant to Attorney General 1 year
Associate Counsel to Regan for 4 years
Associate counsel at big law firm in DC for 3 years
Principal Deputy Solicitor General for 4 years
Became a Partner at big law firm in DC for 10 years
Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for 2 years
Became Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Samuel Alito:
Clerk for 1 year
Assistant to US attorney 4 years
Assistant to Solicitor General for 4 years
Assistant to Attorney General 2 years
Attorney for NJ 2 years
Judge for 16 years while teaching Law
Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court

Hillary Clinton:
Staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund
Worked on the impeachment of Nixon (irony?)
Failed DC bar exam, passed Arkansas exam
Began teaching Law in Arkansas
Worked at the Rose Law Firm
Served on the board of directors for the Legal Services Corp
Became partner at Rose Law Firm
And other things I'm to bored to list

She wrote plenty of papers. "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" being one of them.

She hasn't made a legal decision because she's never been a judge. John Roberts had never made a legal decision either.

What specifically makes her unqualified?

Haha.  If you think Hillary is as qualified as Roberts  or Alito, you're delusional.  Seriously. 

At the minimum they were both Court of Appeal Judges.  To say Roberts never made a legal decision is obviously erroneous.  He was a Judge!

As I've already stated, I do not think she has the experience to be a Supreme Court Judge.  I do not think that having a "distinguished career" (which is debatable) qualifies one for the Supreme Court. 

Sara Palin was not qualified to be VP, even with what little experience she had as a mayor and as governor.  And that job would have been for 4 years, maybe 8.

Hillary has no judicial experience yet she is qualifed to be on the Supreme Court for life?

I don't get it.

If I'm delusional then you're an asshat.  I didn't say she was qualified.  I don't even like the woman and I think it's a terrible idea to toss her on the SC (which will not happen anyway).  I asked what specifically made her unqualified.  Because she wasn't a judge?  Because that's just your opinion?  What makes Harriet Miers "more distinguished?"

I don't get it.

I'm on your side, bud.

Original Post by jewelsmcblah:

If I'm delusional then you're an asshat.  I didn't say she was qualified.  I don't even like the woman and I think it's a terrible idea to toss her on the SC (which will not happen anyway).  I asked what specifically made her unqualified.  Because she wasn't a judge?  Because that's just your opinion?  What makes Harriet Miers "more distinguished?"

I don't get it.

I'm on your side, bud.

 Haha, fine I'm an asshat.  But, really.  Hillary compared to Alito and Roberts?  You did bring it on yourself.  ;) 

And I only said about 5 times throughout the thread that I don't think she is qualified because she doesn't have any judicial experience.  And, obviously, that is just my opinion.  As is my opinion Harriet Miers was more qualified.

Newsflash:  these types of discussions are usually based on opinions!

My question was merely what has she done in her career to make her such an attractive Supreme Court judge.  She seems to be the popular choice among liberals.

It's not a condemnation on her on her supporters.  I just want to know what she has done to warrant such attention.  Other than having a "distinguished career".

Anyway, sorry I said you were delusional.  That was wrong. 

Apparently the question was directed at me, a supposed liberal.  Huh, how about that?  Well, no matter...

Here's some information about SCOTUS Justices from encarta:

The Constitution does not specify formal qualifications for membership on the Supreme Court. From the beginning, though, justices have all been lawyers, and most pursued legal and political careers before serving on the Court. Many justices served as members of Congress, governors, or members of the Cabinet. One president, William Howard Taft, was later appointed chief justice. Some justices came to the Court from private law practice, and others were appointed from positions as law professors. Many justices appointed in the second half of the 20th century had experience in the United States courts of appeal and other lower courts.

So, according to historical precedent, Hillary is equally as qualified as past justices in that she is a lawyer and has a successful legal career.  She was also a law professor and a U.S. senator, which puts her in company with other Justices.

Why did I recommend her for SCOTUS?

Honestly, I don't like her.  (I'm sorry to anyone who loves Hillary - I just don't.)  I felt that it would be the best place to put her where she could do the least harm - because left in the political world, she wants to be a player.  The court doesn't hear that many cases - she'd be one of 9, she'd be out of the limelight and one would hope, unable to cause any drama in the new administration.  It's a prestigious position and might assuage her need for advancement.  So those are all my selfish reasons for suggesting her for that position.

We have had 41 Supreme Court Justices who had zero judicial experience prior to their appointment -  though none recently, since Harriet Myers didn't even make it to her confirmation hearings.  Justice Byron White was actually a professional football player (as well as a lawyer and law professor).  Some people have made the argument (and these people tend to be conservatives) that it's helpful to have people from different walks of life serve on the Court, because people who follow a singular career path (clerk, lawyer, prosecutor, judge) may not necessarily represent all kinds of people, or appreciate their circumstances fully.

I don't think I'd say that a person who has been an effective lawyer, a law professor, and served as a U.S. Senator is unqualified for the position. If she were nominated to the court, I'd listen to the hearings and decide if she answered questions in a manner that suggests she's capable of understanding the nature of the constitutional issues she would be ruling on, along with all the ramifications of the court's decisions. (From what I've read, she is extremely intelligent, so I think her answers would impress, but I withhold judgment until I hear her -- although it appears to be a moot point now).

I've been reading that a number of conservatives approve of Hillary as Sec. of State.  However, I am unswayed.  But I'm not going to have an opinion about her performance in the job of Secretary of State until she actually does the job long enough for me to evaluate what she's done.