|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:00 AM Original message |
HILLARY FOR OBAMA'S FIRST SUPREME COURT OPENING |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:01 AM Response to Original message |
1. You think she could get through the Senate? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:19 AM Response to Reply #1 |
13. No. She's no more Supreme Court material than Harriet Miers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BluegrassDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:03 AM Response to Original message |
2. That's a great idea! Hillary would be perfect for the Court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:17 AM Response to Reply #2 |
10. Hillary would be terrible. Hillary Patriot Act? Hillary torture? Hell No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:05 AM Response to Original message |
3. At age 60, hell no |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:22 AM Response to Reply #3 |
16. Isn't she 68 or 69? I know she's older than Bill, and he's over 60. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Qutzupalotl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:32 AM Response to Reply #16 |
19. Oh, I thought she was 44. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:34 AM Response to Reply #19 |
20. That's her height in inches, that 44 number |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Metric System (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:07 AM Response to Original message |
4. Peggy Noonan? Seriously?!? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kurt_and_Hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:07 AM Response to Original message |
5. TOO OLD! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:08 AM Response to Original message |
6. Good scenario. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mkultra (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:12 AM Response to Reply #6 |
8. despite your sarcasm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:21 PM Response to Reply #8 |
24. Sarcasm? No, indeed! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:11 AM Response to Original message |
7. Don't we already have enough pro-corporate justices? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:18 AM Response to Reply #7 |
11. There's already five Republican justices. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:16 AM Response to Original message |
9. Absolutely NOT!! John Edwards!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:19 AM Response to Reply #9 |
12. I'd like to see John Edwards as Atty General |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:21 AM Response to Reply #12 |
14. Not me. The SC is much better for him. It's lifetime. It's real. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:29 AM Response to Reply #14 |
18. How about AG for three years, then a kick up to the supremes, just |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:37 AM Response to Reply #18 |
21. I want John Edwards on the SC more than any other person. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unsane (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:22 AM Response to Original message |
15. She hasn't practiced law in years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:26 AM Response to Reply #15 |
17. and she wasn't much of lawyer then ... doesn't know anything about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sfam (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:41 PM Response to Reply #17 |
26. Then how did she get listed as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:38 AM Response to Original message |
22. It's not the first woman President |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 10:09 AM Response to Reply #22 |
23. She's not going to get that choice. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sfam (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:23 PM Response to Original message |
25. I LOVE this idea! Assuming Obama wins and Hillary is for it... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Renew Deal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:42 PM Response to Original message |
27. One word: Fillibuster |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hedgehog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:45 PM Response to Original message |
28. I'm not certain her finances could stand the kind of vetting that they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:10 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC