Anita Hill, you dumbshit. Who else is more appropriate?
@1: Well, if the Senate could still confirm Clarence Thomas after Anita Hill gave evidence that he liked to talk about women having sex with animals, and he liked describing his own dick when talking to women, how could they possibly have a problem confirming a black woman.

Oh, right. They're a bunch of racist misogynists.
Lynch never prosecuted any bankers as Attorney General, and she also opposes MJ legalization, thus supporting mass incarceration by extension. Billions for the bankers and jail for the poor. No, thanks.
BTW, I'm loving the TRUE theory that those ranch people won't provide any details on Scalia's death becuase he was there with a prostitute (male, more then likely), and it was secks play gone wrong (of course--smacks forehead--obviously!).
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving from October 1967 until October 1991. Marshall was the Court's 96th justice and its first African-American justice.

America's bicentennial was 1976. That's nine years before being "around" 200 years.
@5: picky picky picky.
I'm holding to the theory this is the GOP's new tactic of simply destroying the Supreme Court if they can't have their way. I won't be surprised if a replacement is confirmed before the Democrats take back the Senate. And the GOP will hold out as more justices die. Their thought? If they can't control the court then no one can. Finally decisions will become 4 to 3 in favor of a progressive change then the GOP will claim nullification as the decision didn't have a 5 votes in favor of a decision even though the court now would have 7 votes in total.

Scorched earth baby...scorched earth!! This shit is just getting started!!!
sorry that is would be surprised if a nominee was confirmed before the Democrats take control of the Senate again.....

"Around" is by definition an imprecise approximation, so in this context it's a perfectly valid casual usage.

Picky in a piss-poor way. If you're going to be pedantic, shouldn't you point out that the Supreme Court started in 1789?
Yeah, really Raindrop? You don't think 191 is "around 200"?
I'll just leave this here...

The 81-year-old Supreme Court justice, [Ruth Bader Ginsberg, aka the Notorious RBG], who has attained somewhat of a cult following for her stance on gender equality, told a gathering of law students Wednesday that people often ask her when she thinks there will be enough women on the court.

"And my answer is when there are nine," she said, as if the question even needed to be asked.
@5 - My friend is a farmer, and the last time he counted his cows out in the field he had 196, but when he rounded them up he had 200.

It don't matter who Obama nominates, the Party of No will refuse to confirm.

Obama could nominate the revived corpse of Reagan -- or Mother Theresa -- and the Republicans will sit on their hands just 'cause.
Congress could also try to fuck with the Judiciary Act of 1869 and change the size of the SCOTUS altogether.

That would be a popcorn worthy event to watch unfold.
Anita Hill, que delisiosa…

But it will probably be Srinivasan.
if you seriously think it will be Warren or Lynch, you're dumb.

it's going to be an actual judge - that's how Obama rolls. probably an Asian woman. like Jackie Nguyen, SF Court of Appeals.

terrible optics to oppose a Vietnamese refugee who's lived the American Dream, but she IS from SF, so they can paint her as a Marin County Hot Tubber if they so desire.
So BHO will pick a nominee (by mid-March?), and then the GOP Senate will start to play their game (through April?). Eventually the pollsters will come out with polls showing that the American populous is tired of the games being played by McConnell & Co., and the GOP will capitulate, rather than see their numbers continue to decline (by mid-July?)
Warren has more important things to do than what she could accomplish on the court. Also one less Dem senator. So no.
I'm pretty sure you don't need a law degree to be on SCOTUS, but does Warren have one? Isn't she an economist?
@21: She was a lawyer and Harvard Law professor before being elected to the Senate.
@21: Although her specialty was bankruptcy law which might be why you were thinking economist.
@21 - Warren got her JD in 1976 and has practiced and taught since then, most recently teaching Bankruptcy and Commercial Law at Harvard. You're correct that there's not a requirement a Justice be a lawyer, but lack of a JD would be the first thing the Fighting R-ish would scream about.
@21- you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the US Supreme Court, it's just been the custom for the last few decades. Some have argued that it isn't actually great to only have people with one specialty (law) there, instead of the range of experience there used to be. That said, while both Hill and Lynch have lots of appeal, I have a better idea! FLOTUS for SCOTUS! After all, if JFK can make his brother the Attorney General apropos of nothing surely Obama can put his wife in the Supreme Court. She's got her law degree from Harvard, she's smart as a whip and she's so freaking healthy she will likely live to be 110. Plus it would actually, for real give a great many members of the GOP an aneurism even to be made to consider it. Win-win!

Thanks; yes, I thought she was an econ prof.
@25 - FLOTUS for SCOTUS is my favorite never-in-a-million-years idea. I intend to hold onto that dream until it literally becomes impossible.
Dumb, but well above the 90th percentile of Matt Baume posts about politics, as it's not outrageously obviously wrong about anything.

Well, except that Warren on the court is something her fans should want. She's a really important Senator, and we should cheer for her to remain in that role, get more seniority and influence, and have fingerprints over more legislation. And besides she's too old for SC appointment. You want 25-30 years out of this appointment, and he's on the wrong side of 60.
FLOTUS for SCOTUS? I'm in. I'm totally in. I'd buy that for a dollar.
Definitely POTUS should nom FLOTUS for SCOTUS - and then stare the Red GOP down
It is going to be a judge that no one has really heard of until the nomination that has been a judge for years. It is not going to be a law professor, senator, or (seriously?) the first lady, you goofballs.
@31 - No, not seriously, but imagining the shitstorm that would happen makes me smile.

And then, a newly elected President Sanders nominates Hillary Clinton to fill the seat suddenly vacated by Roberts, and the Clinton Court quickly reverses Citizens United, strengthens Roe v. Wade, and then nobody ever votes for a Republican again.

A man can dream.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.