Why doesn't Obama show bipartisanship isn't just all talk by nominating Sarah

C

Culture Warrior

New member
Palin for the Supreme Court? Before he selected Sotomoyar, Obama said he wanted to select a justice that had an "understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live."

Does Sarah Palin not meet the criteria? There is no rule that Supreme Court justices must be attorneys or judges. Why doesn't Obama admit he made a mistake by nominating Sotomayor and live up to his campaign promises by making an overture to conservatives? By Obama's own criteria, Palin would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice and by nominating her, Obama will have shown that at least in one case, that bipartisanship isn't just a catchphrase.
Plus, Obama wouldn't have to worry about the biggest threat to his 2012 re-election bid. It's a win-win.

Would you support Governor Palin's nomination to the Supreme Court? Would it be the best decision of Obama's presidency?
Repeat, the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice. The President may nominate anyone to serve.
 
She isn't a lawyer. Besides, his most fanatical devotees are being talked off of window ledges as it is, due to him not going hard enough to the left.
 
Because, while she is allowed to by criteria alone, it is preferable to pick a nominee who has lots of judicial experience and judges with respect to the constitution. So, Palin and Sotomayor are both underqualified.
 
YOU'RE RIGHT!!! In one swift move, Obama could nominate an incompetent, underqualified idiot to the supreme court, enforce a republican majority that does not mirror the country, and lose democratic and independent support for 2012.
 
Back
Top