Funny Thought: Next Dem President can appoint Al Gore to Supreme Court

[book_worm]

If he doesn't run, of course. Wouldn't that be sweet revenge? He could join the very body that denied him the presidency. He would be a wonderful Justice too. He could have a huge impact on the environment and a variety of other subjects. I wonder if that position would interest him?

[Lisa]

1. especially poetic if he were to get Justice Thomas's spot ...

.... if there were, heaven forbid, an incident where the poor man choked while drinking a soda, or something.

[Nailzberg]

5. Yup, pubic hair on your coke can cause that.

[Sanity Claws]

2. Al Gore is not an attorney

He would not be interested in a position for which he is unqualified.

[book_worm]

7. So what? many politicians have been appointed to the court

and performed ably. Nowhere does it say that you have to be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court. Earl Warren was Governor of California and one of our greatest CJ. He was the GOP nominee for VP in 1948. Charles Evans Hughes was Gov of NY when appointed to the Court--he later resigned to be the GOP nominee for President in 1916, and later was appointed CJ of the Supreme Court.

[aquart]

3. No.

Essentially, you're recommending putting a muzzle on him. And if the Court chooses not to take on any environmental cases? Should he twiddle his thumbs?

Bad idea.

[Uncle Joe]

4. And even if they did take environmental cases,

he could outnumbered for a long time, and I believe time is of the essence.

[book_worm]

8. He only has to disqualify himself from cases he is directly involved.

William O. Douglas was involved in conservation and the environment and wrote books on it. He still ruled on cases involving the environment.

[Swamp Rat]

6. He's not qualified for that job.

I am sure he would agree.

He is, however, qualified to run for president. :patriot:

[book_worm]

9. Why isn't he?

We've had a Governor of California as CJ and Governor of NY as CJ who resigned to run for president as a Republican. Nowhere does it say you have to be an attorney to be on the Court. All you have to do is understand the Constitution and how to interpet the law.

[Swamp Rat]

11. I prefer SCOTUS candidates who have long résumés of written legal briefs

by which to judge them for this position.

In Gore's case, it would be an unfortunate disregard or misuse of his talents and work experience.

Gore, in my opinion, is the most qualified out of all the candidates to be president, as he was vice-president for eight years.

[Didereaux]

12. but there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents...

...the appointment of a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court. As for specifics ALL the justices have a team of top end students who do the research of precedent and offer opinions. I have always contended that the court should have a top constitutional scholar as one of the justices. Wouldn't be listened to by the Scalia, Alito, Thomas team of miscreants, bit couldn't hurt.

Also to help identify non-qualified justice nominees I offer up the first of the ReBUGlican ID charts. heh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

[book_worm]

14. Excellent points.

[Swamp Rat]

21. A Supreme Court judge should be able to research legal precedents on her own.

Would you hire a roofer because you knew she was a great auto mechanic? There is no law that states a roofer cannot work on cars.

Love your pic!! :applause:

[Didereaux]

24. you do not have to be a lawyer to do excellent...

legal research. DO some checking around you will find that legal research is not a forte' of very many practicing attorneys. It is in fact placed rather low in law school. I can do it, and have been told I do quite good work, I was coached by a lawyer friend and a paralegal...the paralegal was the better of the two. Another fact is that legal research plays little or no part in briefs at lower levels of court...primarily in appeals.

One more point, and I feel this is the very heart of the whole issue: Supreme Court Justices rule on the constitutionality of laws, they do so by considering first by determination of the laws makers authority to make such a law, next they review the intent(generally by re-reading the appellate courts rulings who go into this in depth, next they determine which section and clause of the US Constitution the law falls under...THEN they determine if the framers did or did not allow such a law to exist.

This is, of course simply the ravings of some bubba on the internet, but I'd bet a smoked nutria on a stick that it is substantially true.

;)
----edit was for typos----------TWICE sheeesh

[Swamp Rat]

25. We are talking about SCOTUS, not John Doe Lawyer.

"legal research is not a forte' of very many practicing attorneys." Yes, and I would not hire them to handle my legal business, and I certainly would not let them into the U.S. Supreme Court if I was a Senator.

[Didereaux]

27. you do realize, of course that...

...legal research at the SCOTUS is only of SCOTUS decisions? Obviously the precendents of a lower court have no status as it is a lower courts opinion which is being litigated(with the extremely rare instance whereby something such as the Nixon tapes was of such immediate and paramount importance that the usual course was bypassed and the question taken by the USSupCt directly.

So I think what we are discussing is two distinct things. I contend that normal legal practice short of Appellate Court bench experience or chaired academics in Constitutional law has no value or relevence in the determination of a USSupCt nominee.

One of the reasons that a law degree became a traditional requisite was the good ol' American Bar Assoc. Later on for political reasons, appointing judges from higher level courts came into vogue(and stands today). The reason being is that it does in fact give a more public and possibly a clearer idea of the actual philosophy and leanings of the nominee through their written opinions. But as Warren proved previous writings and public utterances does not guarantee anything...another example is David Souter. Some of our very best Justices have made quite large adjustments to their legal philosophies once they were on the bench.

...........

[Swamp Rat]

28. We disagree

"I contend that normal legal practice short of Appellate Court bench experience or chaired academics in Constitutional law has no value or relevence in the determination of a USSupCt nominee." - I disagree and will leave it at that. :hi:

[Didereaux]

29. I agree with that! heheh good discussion though, eh wat! n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

10. Yes, they can.

Taft was President before being appointed Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by the Harding Administration.

[SoCalDem]

13. Al would not WANT that job.. he has a BETTER job as world spokesperson

Why would anyone want to associate with Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Roberts/ et al.... on a daily basis :puke:

[book_worm]

15. You may be right

but of course it's not an inconsequential job.

[SoCalDem]

17. How about Pete Stark for SCOTUS? That would frost some republican cupcakes

:)

[youthere]

16. Or John Edwards (if he doesn't get the nom. that is).

[book_worm]

18. True--he would be a good pick as well.

[Bitwit1234]

19. Maybe if we get something of Scalia or Thomas they could get their asses kicked off

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. That's a way to neuter his prefered role

for the environment

I don't think Al would accept, he might be flattered, but not accept the appointment

Now ambassador at large for the environment... he will, in a new york second

[Mike03]

22. Not the best use of his intellect? But what about Cuomo?

As much as I love Gore, what could he contribute to a SCOTUS?

How about someone like Mario Cuomo? Doesn't he have a legal background? Back in the 90s, there were hopes in some quarters that he might be a SC appointment.

Does anyone know how old Cuomo is?

[book_worm]

23. 75--Clinton tried to appoint him in '94--but turned him down.

[Mike03]

26. Thanks for the info

I didn't know that. Does this mean he doesn't have another chance? Or does that it mean it is over for Mario?

I really respect that man.

[David Zephyr]

30. That would be something.

You are a thinker.