Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
The bottom line:
She'd be just another partisan and corrupt justice.
That's the absolute last thing we need. We've got as many partisan and corrupt hacks on the Supreme Court as were running for president last year. Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election.
We should be fixing the Supreme Court, not making it worse. The day Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice is the day I devote my life to making sure that Justices will be elected by the people as it's clear the system is completely broken.
|
To me, you seem to have made a compelling case for appointing someone of your perceived Clinton partisanship to the court. Otherwise, there is no countering vote to what you so aptly described is happening now, in the court's decisions.
I see Clinton as a centrist, maybe skewed a bit to the right. Who do you see as a better choice, if you want to counter the partisan bias, yet lessen the overall partisanship on the court and in the appointment process?