Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theHawk View Post
    I am saying career politicians should not be serving on the SCOTUS. We need non-partisan constitutionalists.
    thanks for sharing your opinion. There is, however, no constitutional requirement for SCOTUS justices. There have been some who did not even have law degrees!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200647

    Default

    It will never happen because Hillary would never stand to be grilled in from of the Senate. Plus that would put her out of contention for 2012, which is her actual goal.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187320

    Default

    somebody might call her supervisor in the Watergate investigation to testify....

    http://foro.univision.com/univision/...ssage.id=45749

    Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

    Why?

    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
    ...full immersion.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums