Elizabeth Warren For SCOTUS

[PK1]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

---
I agree; Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS would benefit ALL consumers; she's been an active consumer protection advocate.
She has been both a Republican & Democrat.
An excellent choice!
.

How is getting taxed to death a benefit to the consumer?

---
Nice try. SCOTUS does not create laws.
.

 

[TeaBagger]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.

Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Actually Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard law professor.
HLS : Professor Elizabeth Warren - Harvard Law School

Of which I am well aware and doesn't change the fact that she has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

That simply is not true. In addition to teaching law and the best law school on the planet she did a whole lot more than write wills. Her curriculum vitae is 17 pages long.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/ewarren/Warren CV 062508.pdf


Warren started her academic career at Rutgers School of Law–Newark (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin(1983–87).[30] Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[31]

Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Pennsylvania to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[30] As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who was trained at an American public university.[31] At Harvard, Warren became one of the most highly cited law professors in the United States. Although she had published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy. In the field of bankruptcy and commercial law, only Douglas Baird of Chicago, Alan Schwartz of Yale, and Bob Scott of Columbia have citation rates comparable to that of Warren.[32] Warren's scholarship and public advocacy were the impetus behind the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[33]

Advisory roles[edit]
In 1995, Warren was asked to advise the National Bankruptcy Review Commission.[34] She helped to draft the commission's report and worked for several years to oppose legislation intended to severely restrict the right of consumers to file for bankruptcy. Warren and others opposing the legislation were not successful; in 2005 Congress passed theBankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which curtailed the ability of consumers to file for bankruptcy.[35][36]

From November 2006 to November 2010, Warren was a member of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion.[37] She is a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, an independent organization that advises the U.S. Congress on bankruptcy law.[38] She is a former Vice President of the American Law Institute and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[39]

 

[Skylar]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.

Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Actually Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard law professor.
HLS : Professor Elizabeth Warren - Harvard Law School

Of which I am well aware and doesn't change the fact that she has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Yeah, she doesn't seem ideal. Obama's choice will most likely be a recently confirmed judge for the Appealant Courts. One confirmed unanimously or very close to it. If I were to guess, she'll also be a woman. And a minority.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Obviously won't happen in the upcoming Republican administration

Do you mean the one on Fantasy Island where monkeys fly out of your butt?

Hey, don't knock the flying monkey from the as routine until you try it, and Warren want to be VP under a Sanders Presidential bid and not USSC...

 

[TeaBagger]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.

Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Actually Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard law professor.
HLS : Professor Elizabeth Warren - Harvard Law School

Of which I am well aware and doesn't change the fact that she has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Yeah, she doesn't seem ideal. Obama's choice will most likely be a recently confirmed judge for the Appealant Courts. One confirmed unanimously or very close to it. If I were to guess, she'll also be a woman. And a minority.

I hope whoever it is is young and healthy. Male, female minority doesn't matter to me all that much. Any non fascist would be good.

 

[Skylar]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.

Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Actually Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard law professor.
HLS : Professor Elizabeth Warren - Harvard Law School

Of which I am well aware and doesn't change the fact that she has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Yeah, she doesn't seem ideal. Obama's choice will most likely be a recently confirmed judge for the Appealant Courts. One confirmed unanimously or very close to it. If I were to guess, she'll also be a woman. And a minority.

I hope whoever it is is young and healthy. Male, female minority doesn't matter to me all that much. Any non fascist would be good.

THis is hardball politics. The women/minority aspects would likely be for the optics as much as the individual. But optics matter in bare knuckle fights like this.

Regardless, she'll be undeniably qualified. Which Warren wouldn't be.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The woman who has lying about being a minority for years is squeaky clean?

You must have a different definitions than I do

Red privilege!

Matters not in the end unless Hillary is charged.


How crazy is it that the left supports her despite that last sentence hanging over her head.

 

[OKTexas]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

That's a joke, right? Warren is left of Sanders.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

That's a joke, right? Warren is left of Sanders.

Stalin was reincarnated?

 

[OKTexas]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

That's a joke, right? Warren is left of Sanders.

Stalin was reincarnated?

Yep, as one ugly broad that thinks she has all the answers. I can't believe someone would think a person who has never sat on any court is qualified for SCOTUS.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.


1. Elizabeth Warren is squeaky clean. (There are no clean conservatives, they simply do not exist. Look at what a disaster that scumbag Clarence Thomas is.)

2. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant! She as the ability to arrive at the obvious very quickly.

3. She's a woman of the people and unlike any CONservative she's not mobbed up with the 1%.

4. Even if the criminal Republican scum block her nomination they will get bloodied up in the process.

Grayson's argument is even more persuasive.

Dear Mr. President,

Please appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, before the end of the week.

Why Elizabeth Warren? She started waiting tables at the age of 13, a year after her father was driven into poverty by a heart attack followed by huge medical bills. She later taught children with disabilities. She was a Harvard Law Professor for almost two decades – in fact, the only one there with tenure who had attended a public university. Her scholarly work is renowned; she is one of the most frequently cited law professors of all time.

She has been an indefatigable watchdog over the capital markets for almost a decade, going back to her extraordinarily valuable work on the Congressional Oversight Panel for the federal bailout program. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though the Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run it. She electrified the nation with her “you didn’t build that” speech. And she has been a tireless and effective U.S. Senator.

Fourteen Senators and 17 Congressman have been appointed to the Supreme Court. So it wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

One more thing: Senator Warren is an outstanding writer and communicator, something that the Supreme Court badly needs. (Justice Scalia recently attacked a colleague for a writing style “as pretentious as it [is] egotistic.”) In my opinion, the two best judicial writers of my lifetime are Justice Hugo Black, a former Senator, and Judge Abner Mikva, a former Congressman. (I worked with Mikva; I know what I’m talking about.) Serving in either House of Congress is a very effective lesson in communication.

Would obstructionists in the Senate filibuster an Elizabeth Warren appointment, or vote against her? Maybe. But that seems like poor form against one of their own, for a place as clubby as the U.S. Senate.
And the President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.

One last reason why Elizabeth Warren should be on the U.S. Supreme Court:

She’s earned it. She deserves it. And she’ll be so, so good at it.

Signs point to some recent appellant court nominee that was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Probably a woman. And a minority.

Let's hope. In the mean time Scalia's grave is a toxic landfill.

If these same senators unanimously confirmed a justice in the last year or two......they're going to be hard pressed to reject the same justice on any grounds save whorish partisanship. If the justice is a woman and a minority, even more so.

As then it would look shamefully partisan, sexist and racist. Which are just horrible optics for a party trying to woo moderates, women and minorities for the 2016 presidential election. A task made difficult enough by the silly shit their candidates have already said.

If voting against a black nominee isn't racist, then how can voting against an Indian be racist? It's strange that no one can really explain what makes a certain decision "racist."

Your understanding is irrelevant. The GOP doesn't need the fringe-right-old-angry-white-guy vote. They've got that locked up. Its moderates, women and minorities that they need. And refusing to even vote on a minority female judge that they unanimously confirmed for an Appellant position is going to look racist, sexist and whorishly partisan.

Even when old angry white guys don't understand why.

That assumes they are not going to vote. I bet they will.

 

[Skylar]

Signs point to some recent appellant court nominee that was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Probably a woman. And a minority.

Let's hope. In the mean time Scalia's grave is a toxic landfill.

If these same senators unanimously confirmed a justice in the last year or two......they're going to be hard pressed to reject the same justice on any grounds save whorish partisanship. If the justice is a woman and a minority, even more so.

As then it would look shamefully partisan, sexist and racist. Which are just horrible optics for a party trying to woo moderates, women and minorities for the 2016 presidential election. A task made difficult enough by the silly shit their candidates have already said.

If voting against a black nominee isn't racist, then how can voting against an Indian be racist? It's strange that no one can really explain what makes a certain decision "racist."

Your understanding is irrelevant. The GOP doesn't need the fringe-right-old-angry-white-guy vote. They've got that locked up. Its moderates, women and minorities that they need. And refusing to even vote on a minority female judge that they unanimously confirmed for an Appellant position is going to look racist, sexist and whorishly partisan.

Even when old angry white guys don't understand why.

That assumes they are not going to vote. I bet they will.

Voting down is almost as bad as not voting....if they unanimously confirmed her to the Appelant Court already.

 

[Kondor3]

She's a 'Faux Squaw' meaning she's an unethical liar.

Elizabeth Warren Native American Heritage Backed Up By ...

Your racist remark is not appreciated but you righties are held to lower standards. When it comes to brains they treat you righties like special Olympians.

Back under your rock, little LIbTard Troll... you're not ready for Prime Time yet...

 

[FA_Q2]

Let's hope. In the mean time Scalia's grave is a toxic landfill.

If these same senators unanimously confirmed a justice in the last year or two......they're going to be hard pressed to reject the same justice on any grounds save whorish partisanship. If the justice is a woman and a minority, even more so.

As then it would look shamefully partisan, sexist and racist. Which are just horrible optics for a party trying to woo moderates, women and minorities for the 2016 presidential election. A task made difficult enough by the silly shit their candidates have already said.

If voting against a black nominee isn't racist, then how can voting against an Indian be racist? It's strange that no one can really explain what makes a certain decision "racist."

Your understanding is irrelevant. The GOP doesn't need the fringe-right-old-angry-white-guy vote. They've got that locked up. Its moderates, women and minorities that they need. And refusing to even vote on a minority female judge that they unanimously confirmed for an Appellant position is going to look racist, sexist and whorishly partisan.

Even when old angry white guys don't understand why.

That assumes they are not going to vote. I bet they will.

Voting down is almost as bad as not voting....if they unanimously confirmed her to the Appelant Court already.

Not really. Just because they voted her to the appellate court does not mean they should allow her into the SCOTUS.

The liberals will scream about it just like they would any person that was voted down. They will claim racism and sexism just like they always do. The right will applaud them blocking Obama just like they always do. The center, IMHO, will largely ignore it in general.

I think there will be a much larger backlash for not voting at all as that is easy to finger as partisan politics. Actually taking a vote OTOH is what they are supposed to do and rejecting the first appointee or two is very much expected.

 

[kaz]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.


1. Elizabeth Warren is squeaky clean. (There are no clean conservatives, they simply do not exist. Look at what a disaster that scumbag Clarence Thomas is.)

2. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant! She as the ability to arrive at the obvious very quickly.

3. She's a woman of the people and unlike any CONservative she's not mobbed up with the 1%.

4. Even if the criminal Republican scum block her nomination they will get bloodied up in the process.

Grayson's argument is even more persuasive.

Dear Mr. President,

Please appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, before the end of the week.

Why Elizabeth Warren? She started waiting tables at the age of 13, a year after her father was driven into poverty by a heart attack followed by huge medical bills. She later taught children with disabilities. She was a Harvard Law Professor for almost two decades – in fact, the only one there with tenure who had attended a public university. Her scholarly work is renowned; she is one of the most frequently cited law professors of all time.

She has been an indefatigable watchdog over the capital markets for almost a decade, going back to her extraordinarily valuable work on the Congressional Oversight Panel for the federal bailout program. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though the Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run it. She electrified the nation with her “you didn’t build that” speech. And she has been a tireless and effective U.S. Senator.

Fourteen Senators and 17 Congressman have been appointed to the Supreme Court. So it wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

One more thing: Senator Warren is an outstanding writer and communicator, something that the Supreme Court badly needs. (Justice Scalia recently attacked a colleague for a writing style “as pretentious as it [is] egotistic.”) In my opinion, the two best judicial writers of my lifetime are Justice Hugo Black, a former Senator, and Judge Abner Mikva, a former Congressman. (I worked with Mikva; I know what I’m talking about.) Serving in either House of Congress is a very effective lesson in communication.

Would obstructionists in the Senate filibuster an Elizabeth Warren appointment, or vote against her? Maybe. But that seems like poor form against one of their own, for a place as clubby as the U.S. Senate.
And the President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.

One last reason why Elizabeth Warren should be on the U.S. Supreme Court:

She’s earned it. She deserves it. And she’ll be so, so good at it.

I'm for Obama nominating her. That makes delaying filling the seat until after the election easy

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone needs to get back on the topic

The CONS here said she lied about her ethnicity in their first attempt to derail this thread and when I showed proof positive that she is indeed part Cherokee they began acting like monkeys in a zoo and started throwing shit.

What proof was that? The Cherokee nation denies that any of her ancestors were ever members of the tribe.

 

[bripat9643]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

---
I agree; Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS would benefit ALL consumers; she's been an active consumer protection advocate.
She has been both a Republican & Democrat.
An excellent choice!
.

How is getting taxed to death a benefit to the consumer?

---
Nice try. SCOTUS does not create laws.
.

that's the theory. In reality it does. For example, it just created a law that says queers can marry.

 

[Hossfly]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

---
I agree; Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS would benefit ALL consumers; she's been an active consumer protection advocate.
She has been both a Republican & Democrat.
An excellent choice!
.

How is getting taxed to death a benefit to the consumer?

---
Nice try. SCOTUS does not create laws.
.

The current one does.

 

[TeaBagger]

Getting away from the typical partisan bickering here at USMB, I think Obama should appoint a pragmatic centralist.
We have four from the right and four from the left, we need the a tie-breaker Supreme that isn't lead by ideological philosophy but instead is lead by the Constitution.

That would be Warren.

---
I agree; Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS would benefit ALL consumers; she's been an active consumer protection advocate.
She has been both a Republican & Democrat.
An excellent choice!
.

How is getting taxed to death a benefit to the consumer?

---
Nice try. SCOTUS does not create laws.
.

that's the theory. In reality it does. For example, it just created a law that says queers can marry.

That means that you need to go would and buy a big rubber dick and start stretching your silly ass with it.

The SCOTUS did not create a law saying that gays can marry you fucking retard. I said that laws prohibiting gays from marrying was unconstitutional. It didn't create a law you moron. White trash like you who are into bestiality may want to petition the SCOTUS to strike down laws so that trash like you can marry animals. Put enough Conservatives on the SCOTUS and you will be able to marry that pig you have a crush on.

 

[PK1]

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap Obama's constitutional duty is the pick a nominee. I had some thoughts. I was thinking he'd nominate Shotgun Joe Biden, Barney Frank or some lesser known jurist but when I received this Email from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson I knew who I was going to want to see on the US Supreme Court. It's a no brainer. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice and here's why.

Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Actually Elizabeth Warren was a Harvard law professor.
HLS : Professor Elizabeth Warren - Harvard Law School

Of which I am well aware and doesn't change the fact that she has never presided as a judge and the only work she ever did as an attorney was writing wills and real estate closings.

Yeah, she doesn't seem ideal. Obama's choice will most likely be a recently confirmed judge for the Appealant Courts. One confirmed unanimously or very close to it. If I were to guess, she'll also be a woman. And a minority.

I hope whoever it is is young and healthy. Male, female minority doesn't matter to me all that much. Any non fascist would be good.

---
Being young, like Roberts was when he joined, would be a plus.
Unfortunately, Warren is 66.
That's the trade-off; experience vs age.
.