New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Donald has 11 supreme court picks. Has Hillary completed HER list?

It’s all over the news – and this board. Donald Trump has named 11 future surpreme court picks. This strikes me as “the answer to a question that wasn’t asked”. Most voters might be more interested in what will happen to their taxes, the national debt, and those several wars that never seem to end.

Additionally – I don’t know if Donald is aware of this or not – the supreme court only has 9 seats. So even if he's planning on nuking them and starting all over, he’d only need 9 at most, not 11.

But this post is about Hillary. Clearly Trump wants to put her on the defensive, by naming 11 jurists nobody but his advisors had ever heard of before. What should Hillary do? I mean besides complaining that there aren’t more transgendered women of color on Trumps list?

I invite everyone to help Hillary – quickly – name her own 11 picks for the supreme court. You can even suggest 12, if we want to make it a dirty dozen. They should all be familiar names which low information voters can relate to and discuss UNintelligently. Here are my suggestions, with rationale. Add yours in replies to this thread, please.

11 – Debbie Wasserman Scultz – win or lose in November, the democrats are going to kick her out, and she’ll need another job. Bonus factor – she’d look perfect sitting between the softball player and the wise latino woman at the supreme court, wouldn’t she?
debbie-wasserman-schultz-lunatic.jpg


10 – Rahm Emmanuel – Chicago residents would back Rahm for the SCOTUS, if only to get him out of the Mayor’s mansion and start with a clean slate. He’s given years of loyal service to Obama, and before that the Clintons. He deserves SOMETHING.

474631877.jpg


9 – Bernie Sanders – come on, admit it. You saw this one coming a mile away. And no fair carping that the first 3 names are jews (or Jewesses, as Lance Freeman would call them). The Scotus jewish seat is currently vacant, is it not? (Picture below is from Bernie's younger days, as a Sandersnista rebel)

top-10-woody-allen-11.jpg


8 – Bill Clinton – The last person Hillary wants in the Lincoln bedroom with her is Bill. What better place than the supreme court, since he’s both far more popular than her, and disgraced/disbarred? This is a guy with a nose for criminality, let me assure you.

Bill-Clinton-cigar1-640x480.jpg


7 – Michelle Obama – The Obama’s have made it clear they’re not leaving DC until all their kids are out of school. Besides, that’s where all the K street lobbying firms are as well. Hillary would never name Barack to the supreme court – he and Clarence Thomas are rumored to be feuding. But how about Michelle? She’s an icon for every woman of color who has struggled with her weight. Bonus factor – healthy food choices coming to the SCOTUS cafeteria. No more mystery meat and fish sticks!

aa537d_020711obama003.jpg


6 – George Stephanopolis – He would bring youth, freshness, and a sense of naivete we haven’t seen in ages. Bonus factor, at under 5 feet tall, he would make everyone else feel good about their own height.

14firstdraft-George-Stephanopoulos-2-tmagArticle.jpg


5 – George Clooney – I promise, he’s the only other George on this list. Not Zimmerman. Clooney would certainly bring a sort of debonair pizzazz to the court, like Cary Grant. And where does it say you have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court. The current crop of lawyers cant’ agree on anything – they always split 5/4 on every case. Hollywood has the answer to everything – lets add their wisdom to the surpreme court, okay?

b0bdda0d62945d6970adae2170799a5a.jpg


4 – Morgan Freeman – seriously. Who could object to having “god” on the supreme court? Bonus factor: he knows more about how the universe was created than that chicken Neal DeGrasse Tyson.

morgan_freeman_by_domatophobia-d3bfepc.jpg


3 – Dr Oz – believe or not, he’s an actual, bona fide muslim. And its about time we had a permanent muslim seat on the supreme court, right? We have a catholic seat, a jewish seat, and a communist seat. Bonus factor: the wizard of Oz is constantly in danger of losing his medical license due to quackery. Putting him on the supreme court puts a stop to all that nonsense.

CharlieSheenDrOz.jpeg


2 – Anderson Cooper – work with me here. He might be an even better pick than tiny George Stephanoplis, despite the fact that he got creamed by CBS blonde spokesmodel Lara Logan on last night’s “celebrity jeopardy” episode. (former RNC chairman Michael Steele did far worse than both of them, though). But they all missed the final Jeopardy question, which was about obscure muslim ethnic groups – I consider that a plus, though.

FJ-Results-5-17-16.jpg


1 – Tom Hanks – he’s the most trusted person in America. I googled it. Not Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Morgan Freeman or Peyton Manning or the dead Maytag repairman. “The supreme court is like a box of chocolates – you don’t know what you’re going to get, until you confirm someone.”

Forrest-GumpJenny-Were-you-scared-Vietnam.jpg


I left off the obvious names – Judge Judy, Perry Mason, that guy from Law and Order, the head of the NFL referee’s union – so I don’t want to see THEIR names cropping up in replies to this thread. Even though they may be more qualified than the 11 I’ve named above..

Think outside the box.
 
Last edited:
It’s all over the news – and this board. Donald Trump has named 11 future surpreme court picks. This strikes me as “the answer to a question that wasn’t asked”. Most voters might be more interested in what will happen to their taxes, the national debt, and those several wars that never seem to end.

Additionally – I don’t know if Donald is aware of this or not – the supreme court only has 9 seats. So even if he's planning on nuking them and starting all over, he’d only need 9 at most, not 11.

But this post is about Hillary. Clearly Trump wants to put her on the defensive, by naming 11 jurists nobody but his advisors had ever heard of before. What should Hillary do? I mean besides complaining that there aren’t more transgendered women of color on Trumps list?

I invite everyone to help Hillary – quickly – name her own 11 picks for the supreme court. You can even suggest 12, if we want to make it a dirty dozen. They should all be familiar names which low information voters can relate to and discuss UNintelligently. Here are my suggestions, with rationale. Add yours in replies to this thread, please.

11 – Debbie Wasserman Scultz – win or lose in November, the democrats are going to kick her out, and she’ll need another job. Bonus factor – she’d look perfect sitting between the softball player and the wise latino woman at the supreme court, wouldn’t she?
debbie-wasserman-schultz-lunatic.jpg


10 – Rahm Emmanuel – Chicago residents would back Rahm for the SCOTUS, if only to get him out of the Mayor’s mansion and start with a clean slate. He’s given years of loyal service to Obama, and before that the Clintons. He deserves SOMETHING.

474631877.jpg


9 – Bernie Sanders – come on, admit it. You saw this one coming a mile away. And no fair carping that the first 3 names are jews (or Jewesses, as Lance Freeman would call them). The Scotus jewish seat is currently vacant, is it not? (Picture below is from Bernie's younger days, as a Sandersnista rebel)

top-10-woody-allen-11.jpg


8 – Bill Clinton – The last person Hillary wants in the Lincoln bedroom with her is Bill. What better place than the supreme court, since he’s both far more popular than her, and disgraced/disbarred? This is a guy with a nose for criminality, let me assure you.

Bill-Clinton-cigar1-640x480.jpg


7 – Michelle Obama – The Obama’s have made it clear they’re not leaving DC until all their kids are out of school. Besides, that’s where all the K street lobbying firms are as well. Hillary would never name Barack to the supreme court – he and Clarence Thomas are rumored to be feuding. But how about Michelle? She’s an icon for every woman of color who has struggled with her weight. Bonus factor – healthy food choices coming to the SCOTUS cafeteria. No more mystery meat and fish sticks!

aa537d_020711obama003.jpg


6 – George Stephanopolis – He would bring youth, freshness, and a sense of naivete we haven’t seen in ages. Bonus factor, at under 5 feet tall, he would make everyone else feel good about their own height.

14firstdraft-George-Stephanopoulos-2-tmagArticle.jpg


5 – George Clooney – I promise, he’s the only other George on this list. Not Zimmerman. Clooney would certainly bring a sort of debonair pizzazz to the court, like Cary Grant. And where does it say you have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court. The current crop of lawyers cant’ agree on anything – they always split 5/4 on every case. Hollywood has the answer to everything – lets add their wisdom to the surpreme court, okay?

b0bdda0d62945d6970adae2170799a5a.jpg


4 – Morgan Freeman – seriously. Who could object to having “god” on the supreme court? Bonus factor: he knows more about how the universe was created than that chicken Neal DeGrasse Tyson.

morgan_freeman_by_domatophobia-d3bfepc.jpg


3 – Dr Oz – believe or not, he’s an actual, bona fide muslim. And its about time we had a permanent muslim seat on the supreme court, right? We have a catholic seat, a jewish seat, and a communist seat. Bonus factor: the wizard of Oz is constantly in danger of losing his medical license due to quackery. Putting him on the supreme court puts a stop to all that nonsense.

CharlieSheenDrOz.jpeg


2 – Anderson Cooper – work with me here. He might be an even better pick than tiny George Stephanoplis, despite the fact that he got creamed by CBS blonde spokesmodel Lara Logan on last night’s “celebrity jeopardy” episode. (former RNC chairman Michael Steele did far worse than both of them, though). But they all missed the final Jeopardy question, which was about obscure muslim ethnic groups – I consider that a plus, though.

FJ-Results-5-17-16.jpg


1 – Tom Hanks – he’s the most trusted person in America. I googled it. Not Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Morgan Freeman or Peyton Manning or the dead Maytag repairman. “The supreme court is like a box of chocolates – you don’t know what you’re going to get, until you confirm someone.”

Forrest-GumpJenny-Were-you-scared-Vietnam.jpg


I left off the obvious names – Judge Judy, Perry Mason, that guy from Law and Order, the head of the NFL referee’s union – so I don’t want to see THEIR names cropping up in replies to this thread. Even though they may be more qualified than the 11 I’ve named above..

Think outside the box.
Obviously, assuming the Republicans continue to defy the Constitution by refusing to do their duty with regard to Merrick Garland, if Clinton wins the presidency, there's a good chance he'll be her first choice, even though it would be better if she instead nominated an actual liberal... and a much younger one than Garland.

Other ideas:

Kara Farnandex Stoll
Cheryl Krause
David Barron
Gregg Costa
Robin Rosenbaum
Michelle Friedland
John Owens
Patricia Millet
Paul Watford

The Supreme Court has been absurdly conservative for a very long time. It's been almost half a century since the last time the court had a majority appointed by Democrats, and for 36 years, between 1972 and 2008, the Republican appointees outnumbered the Democrats at least 2-to-1 (sometimes as much as 8-to-1). The cumulative impact of this overload of Republicans for so very many years has been to push Constitutional jurisprudence hard to the right. A correction is badly needed. So, a main consideration, sadly, has to be age. Any Democratic president needs to be looking to appoint a liberal justice in his or her 40s -- and preferably a healthy female judge in her early-to-mid 40s, to allow for the gradual creation of a large Democratic majority to start to counterbalance such a very long right-ward swing by the court.

I wouldn't want to see it get to 8-to-1 in the other direction, but I would want to see an era that was the mirror image of the 80s-90s. Back then, the hard-core conservatives alone outnumbered the Democrats plus the moderate Republicans (e.g., the 5-4 split on Bush v. Gore when even the two moderate Republicans couldn't swing the vote). To counterbalance such a long push to the hard-right, it would be good to have an era when there were enough liberal Democrats to decide some cases without some moderate Democratic colleagues. Getting up the momentum to clear the hurdle of stare decisis, to overturn those bad conservative-court decisions, will take a more ideological court than you'd get with just a small Democratic majority or a court stuffed with milquetoast centrists. You need five justices willing to defy the pressure of those conservative precedents, and that's more likely to happen with a large majority of Democrats, or at least a small majority of unapologetically liberal Democrats. Only after we've purged the books of the more ridiculous conservative decisions of the last 30 years or so, can we hopefully come to more of a balanced court.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top