Mrs. Clinton - Supreme Court?

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-14-2010 04:02 PM

SquidInk wrote: Sounds like a conspiracy is afoot! :D


Conspiracy, eh? :eek: ;) :p
racehorse
Image

User avatar
DisneyFreak96
Pirate
Posts: 2771
Joined: 05-12-2000 02:00 AM

Post by DisneyFreak96 » 04-15-2010 07:59 AM

I've always wanted to see Gregory Craig as an Associate Justice. He has a strong legal background while knowing how to politic when it comes to working with the other side. However, he has at least three major things against him (not including his international clients).
  • His representation of President Clinton during the Senate trial. Craig was the one who told Clinton it was best to admit the affair and then argue lying about an affair is not a crime.
  • The Elián González. case, representing the father of the child and working to have the child allowed to go home to Cuba where he could live with his one living parent, his father
  • His failed Gitmo policy when serving as the current president's White House Council.
Last edited by DisneyFreak96 on 04-15-2010 08:02 AM, edited 1 time in total.
signing off,
DisneyFreak96

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-20-2010 06:30 AM

Originally posted by DisneyFreak96

I've always wanted to see Gregory Craig as an Associate Justice. He has a strong legal background while knowing how to politic when it comes to working with the other side. However, he has at least three major things against him (not including his international clients).



Certainly unfairly, add a fourth which will disqualify him from consideration by President Obama.
-
Snip:




Goldman Sachs taps ex-W.H. counsel

By: Eamon Javers and Mike Allen

Updated: 4/20/10 6:32 AM EDT

Goldman Sachs is launching an aggressive response to its political and legal challenges with an unlikely ally at its side — President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, Gregory Craig.

The beleaguered Wall Street bank hired Craig — now in private practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — in recent weeks to help in navigate the halls of power in Washington, a source familiar with the firm told POLITICO.

“He is clearly an attorney of eminence and has a deep understanding of the legal process and the world of Washington,” the source said. “And those are important worlds for everybody in finance right now.”

They’re particularly important for Goldman.

On Friday, the SEC charged the firm with securities fraud in a convoluted subprime mortgage deal that took place before the collapse of the housing market. Next week, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein will face questions from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which is looking into the causes of the housing meltdown, the source said.

In Craig, Goldman Sachs will have help from a lawyer with deep connections in Democratic circles.

Craig served as White House counsel during the first year of Obama’s presidency, but is seen as having been pushed out for his role in advocating a strict timeline for the closing of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. His departure frustrated many liberal Obama supporters who saw Craig as a strong advocate for undoing some of what they saw as the worst excesses of the Bush era.

But the source familiar with Goldman’s operations said Craig wasn’t hired just because he’s well-connected.

“It’s about advice and process,” the source said. “People will always leap to the conclusion that it’s about somebody’s Rolodex.”

Skadden declined to comment on Craig’s role with Goldman.

"A former White House employee cannot appear before any unit of the Executive Office of the President on behalf of any client for 2 years—one year under federal law and another year under the pledge pursuant to the January 2009 ethics E0," said a White House official.

The official also said that the White House had no contact with the SEC on the Goldman Sachs case. "The SEC by law is an independent agency that does not coordinate with the White House any part of their enforcement actions."

Whatever the reason for his hiring, Craig will presumably be a key player in the intricate counterattack Goldman Sachs officials in Washington and Manhattan improvised during the weekend — a plan that took clearer shape Monday as Britain and Germany announced that they might conduct their own investigations of the firm.

For three weeks, Goldman had planned to hold a conference call Tuesday to unveil its first-quarter earnings for shareholders. Shifting into campaign mode after the SEC’s surprise fraud filing, Goldman has moved the call up from 11 a.m. to 8 a.m. to try to get ahead of the day’s buzz. In an unusual addition, the firm’s chief counsel will be on the line to answer questions about the case, and Goldman is inviting policymakers and clients to listen to the earnings call themselves rather than rely on news reports.

Industry officials said the conference call — which will include, as originally planned, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar — will amount to a public unveiling of Goldman’s crisis strategy.

But the linchpin of that plan is already clear: An attempt to discredit the Securities and Exchange Commission by painting the case as tainted by politics because it was announced just as President Barack Obama was ramping up his push for financial regulatory reform, including a planned trip to New York on Thursday.

“The charges were brought in a manner calculated to achieve maximum impact at point of penetration,” a Goldman executive said.

Among the points Greg Palm, co-general counsel, plans to emphasize on the call is “how out of the ordinary the process was with the SEC,” the executive said. The SEC usually gives firms a chance to settle such charges before they are made public. Goldman executives say they had no such chance,and learned about the filing while watching CNBC.

With a monstrous problem and mammoth resources, the iconic firm is paying for advice from a huge array of outside consultants, including such top Washington advisers as Ken Duberstein and Jack Martin, founder of Public Strategies.

The basic plan: Make a tough, factual case without coming off as arrogant or combative and without souring the firm’s image even further.

Partly because of the firm’s belief that it has become an easy target, no Goldman officials have appeared on television since the SEC announced its case.

The firm thinks it can be more effective if others make its case. On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday, Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times, who gets special attention from Goldman spinners, raised questions about the substance of the SEC’s case. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said he is “a little interested in the timing” of the case.



Rest of Article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36056.html
-
In Greg Craig, Goldman Sachs will have help from a lawyer with deep connections in Democratic circles. Composite image by POLITICO
racehorse
Image

User avatar
lazarus long
Pirate
Posts: 621
Joined: 03-16-2008 10:51 PM

Post by lazarus long » 04-20-2010 12:15 PM

what an interesting subject! i've not been able to find mention of any sc justices who weren't lawyers beforehand. can someone enlighten me?
it would be AMAZING to appoint a justice that was not corrupted by the legal system, ie a lawyer or judge. i don't see it happening. the bar would rise up with such a cacophony of shrieking, whining, legalese bs that it would drive everyone else mad.
then who would be left to sue?
see? it would be sad for everyone.
:(

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-20-2010 02:08 PM

lazarus long wrote:

what an interesting subject! i've not been able to find mention of any sc justices who weren't lawyers beforehand. can someone enlighten me?
it would be AMAZING to appoint a justice that was not corrupted by the legal system, ie a lawyer or judge. i don't see it happening. the bar would rise up with such a cacophony of shrieking, whining, legalese bs that it would drive everyone else mad.
then who would be left to sue?
see? it would be sad for everyone.
:(


Hi lazarus long. :)

Nice to see you again.

While it is true, the Constitution of the United States of America (unlike most States for their Judiciary members) does not specifically require a Supreme Court Justice or any Federal Judge to be an Attorney all are and have been. I could not think of any Supreme Court Justice who was not, so I checked. As I suspected all (now 112) Justices in the History of this country have been Attorneys.

--
Snip:



All 111 past and present Supreme Court justices have been lawyers, although those who served in the early days of the Court learned the law by reading and apprenticing with more experienced attorneys because there were few law schools back then.



http://xr.com/mdkp

-------------

Here is an interesting Analysis on the subject from 2009 prior to the last appointment to the Court. I am sure you will not be surprised to know that I agree with it. ;)


--


May 6, 2009
2:13 PM

Following Souter: Non-Lawyers Need Not Apply

Posted by Andrew Cohen

It is nice, bordering on quaint, to think that President Barack Obama would be able to successfully select a "regular person" (i.e. a non-lawyer) to replace Justice David H. Souter on the United States Supreme Court. It's certainly laudable that he would want to change the experiential makeup of the Court—all nine current Justices, including the soon-to-be-retired Justice Souter, came from federal appeals courts, which are almost as isolated from the rest of the world as is the Supreme Court itself.

But neither Oprah nor Dr. Phil nor Donald Trump nor that Scottish lady who sings nor Tiger Woods nor Bruce Springsteen nor any other non-lawyer will make it to the Court.

Here's why: the law in 2009 is far too complex for a lay person to jump into at the highest possible level. There are too many rules, too many standards, too much precedent, and too many exceptions. It would be like asking your high school French teacher to suddenly in a month be able to consistently comprehend, translate, and implement instructions in ancient Latin.

The regulatory age in which we live, where Justices (or any and all lower court judges) must routinely sift through mind-numbingly obtuse legal language, simply does not permit the real possibility of appointing someone who doesn't know a great deal about the Constitution and its relationship to virtually every other vessel of law. Even in our Google word, where anyone who can spell can look up the definition of the word certiorari, it would take years for such a candidate to overcome such an intellectual deficit; time that the country and the Court cannot afford to spend.

Indeed, what Walter Lippmann famously said a century ago about the larger world is certainly now true about American constitutional, statutory, regulatory and administrative law: it is far beyond the comprehension of even the brightest commoner to understand. Albert Einstein would have made a terrible modern-day Justice. So would Bill Gates or Paul Krugman or J.D. Salinger or Maya Angelou.
If you don't believe me, read the last ten Supreme Court decisions (or CERCLA) and then tell me that you think the five brightest people you know would understand precisely what they purport to say and why.

This is not to say, however, that President Obama necessarily will be forced to select a sitting judge, or even practicing lawyer, to replace Justice Souter. There are plenty of excellent Court candidates who are not currently serving on federal- or state-court benches or churning up billable hours in private practice. They fall into that fairly common group I like to call "recovering lawyers;" people who, like me, have a legal education and background but who no longer have clients or have to routinely go to court.

These people have legal training and experience but are not currently a part of the "system." Like scholar Jeffrey Rosen, one of the most insightful legal analysts ever to focus upon the Supreme Court. Or author John Grisham, at left, whose novels suggest a level of understanding about criminal law that belies their pop status. Or Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times reporter, and Yale Law School graduate, who covered the Supreme Court for decades before her recent retirement. These people surely represent what the President meant when he talked about a need for adding diversity of background and experience on the Supreme Court. They all would be welcome additions to the group.

Hillary Clinton, who one day probably will be a Justice, also fits this bill. As do current governors Jennifer Granholm, at left, of Michigan and Christine Gregoire of Washington. Each of these deeply accomplished women got their law degrees, worked in the law for bit, saw the light, and changed careers. Clinton won't get the nod this time but she'll be in the running down the road. Granholm just might get the call this time—like the president, she went to Harvard Law School and then into politics.

Remember retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Of course you do. She dabbled in politics briefly in Arizona—like me she was a "recovering attorney"-- before returning to the law. How did that work out? She was a dogged consensus-builder on the Court and one of its most popular modern-day justices. President Obama would be well served if he could find from among the many qualified candidates a nominee who brought such an extra dimension into the cloistered world of the Court.

The same goes for the litany of law professors out there who have been identified as potential candidates. These folks—Kathleen Sullivan, Pamela Karlan, Cass Sunstein (though he just recently left the classroom to join the Administration)—come from their own walled-off world of academe. But being a law professor in 2009 isn't what it was in 1959. Law professors don't just write tedious law review pieces and sound like John Houseman. They write blogs, they comment online; in short, they interact with the world in a way they never have before. This makes them better candidates for the Court than ever before.

So I'm all for the president picking someone who doesn't wear a robe to work every day. And there are plenty of people who can do the job and do it well. Sorry, Oprah, I guess this means I'll never make it onto the show.
--
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504084_162- ... 04084.html
Last edited by racehorse on 04-20-2010 02:47 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 04-20-2010 02:45 PM

Originally in the quote posted by racehorse
Indeed, what Walter Lippmann famously said a century ago about the larger world is certainly now true about American constitutional, statutory, regulatory and administrative law: it is far beyond the comprehension of even the brightest commoner to understand.


Well...

Thankfully our caste system includes a class of demi-god legal experts. The lowest ranking monkeys in the legal class are far brighter than "even the brightest commoner". This is evident by the "degrees" they have been issued, no doubt.

The most successful among them have certainly earned the right to be part of the "supreme" court. Nobody else could possibly comprehend the subtle nature of the sacred "law". Besides, when the Establishment lays down the big bucks for a new "supreme-ist", they need to ensure their investors of that individual's commitment to the cause.

It's all okay though, because the swarms of illiterate commoners need these blessed geniuses to ride herd on their ignorant a**es, or else they would surely perish of their own stupidity!

Right?
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-20-2010 04:23 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 04-20-2010 02:53 PM

Early on Lippmann said the herd of citizens must be governed by “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." This class is composed of experts, specialists and bureaucrats. The experts, who often are referred to as "elites," were to be a machinery of knowledge that circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen".
...

He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain.


- source
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-20-2010 02:58 PM

I should not be allowed to perform open heart surgery or practice Medicine. I do not have the training, knowledge, or skills to do so.

Similarly someone who is not trained, knowledgeable, or skilled in Law should not serve as a Judge or be permitted to practice Law.

To allow either would pose an unacceptable and severe risk and danger to the public!
racehorse
Image

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 04-20-2010 07:26 PM

Apples & oranges, but you know that.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-20-2010 07:33 PM

SquidInk wrote: Apples & oranges, but you know that.


Actually, I do not!
racehorse
Image

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 04-20-2010 09:27 PM

The natural "laws" governing open heart surgery are truly complicated, they are not derived from the consent of the governed, but from forces we do not fully understand. Therefore consent cannot be withheld - we are all subject to our own anatomy for the time being, and we require an expensive facility, exotic equipment, and a team of experts who have devoted much time to something mysterious and naturally complex. If pressed, however, even a member of the untouchable working class has successfully performed such a procedure - and would do so more often if not for a certain amount of sensationalism & hyperbole regarding such things.

Man-made law is fully dependent on (and originates from) the consent of the governed - that consent being withheld, the law is null and void. Anybody with a pulse can offer a valid opinion regarding man-made law. For many decades an organization of self exalted fools have seized upon the law, and twisted it over time for their own narrow purpose. Thus the law has been artificially convoluted, in fact it's wholly unintelligible in many cases. These plots and schemes change nothing.

This artificial complication of things has been encouraged from the top down (despite the protests of the governed), because it "proves" the ridiculous class supremacist theories of marginally useful societal leaches like Andrew Cohen & Walter Lippmann.
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-20-2010 11:52 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 04-20-2010 09:33 PM

racehorse wrote: I should not be allowed to perform open heart surgery or practice Medicine. I do not have the training, knowledge, or skills to do so.

Similarly someone who is not trained, knowledgeable, or skilled in Law should not serve as a Judge or be permitted to practice Law.

To allow either would pose an unacceptable and severe risk and danger to the public!



Race,

I agree with your sentiment to a point. That point being the blind acceptance of a political ideology (much the same with "religious" leaders and their separation from state governance)'

Also, and I apologize for bringing up this rather obvious point, research the top legal minds in Germany in the twenties and thirties. Trained professionals and experts in this exalted field.

Then explain to me the "Blood and Honor laws.

rumike
Pirate
Posts: 2462
Joined: 04-27-2008 11:10 PM

Post by rumike » 04-20-2010 11:47 PM

racehorse wrote: I should not be allowed to perform open heart surgery or practice Medicine. I do not have the training, knowledge, or skills to do so.

Similarly someone who is not trained, knowledgeable, or skilled in Law should not serve as a Judge or be permitted to practice Law.

To allow either would pose an unacceptable and severe risk and danger to the public!


I agree with you, RH. I want people in expert fields to be experts. The law IS very complex, and I want people who have studied it all their lives debating these issues.
Anchors Aweigh!

rumike
Pirate
Posts: 2462
Joined: 04-27-2008 11:10 PM

Post by rumike » 04-20-2010 11:48 PM

Corvid wrote: Race,

I agree with your sentiment to a point. That point being the blind acceptance of a political ideology (much the same with "religious" leaders and their separation from state governance)'

Also, and I apologize for bringing up this rather obvious point, research the top legal minds in Germany in the twenties and thirties. Trained professionals and experts in this exalted field.

Then explain to me the "Blood and Honor laws.


I agree with you, too, Corvid. Having the MINIMUM expertise does not make one moral or just, which we should insist upon.
Anchors Aweigh!

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 04-21-2010 12:09 AM

rumike wrote:
I agree with you, RH. I want people in expert fields to be experts. The law IS very complex, and I want people who have studied it all their lives debating these issues.


Hi rumike. :)

Welcome back.
rumike wrote:
I agree with you, too, Corvid. Having the MINIMUM expertise does not make one moral or just, which we should insist upon.


I also agree with you and Corvid on this.
racehorse
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”