Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?

I am supporting Hillary Clinton all the way to the convention. She is the strongest candidate of either party. Hillary will be the best President. Vote your convictions! The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is not cast.

a lot of talk about Florida below there is an interesting delimma here the Dems accusations were that not all the votes were counted in 2000 (even thou they were) but know in 2008 they do not want all the votes counted they do not want Florida counted or MI, and as stated Gore could of asked for a full recount but did not want too in 2000 because he knew he lost!

So the Dem/Libs have proven that they do not want to count votes, that they use the race or genda card, that they are elitist and do not care about anything but power in 2008!! Facts are Facts!!

James Danley,

Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.

Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 10:37:43 AM
___________________

While I have not practiced before the US Supreme Court, I have handled a myriad of cases dealing with Constitutional issues, several of which are usually can be Googled, because they were cases of first impression. The cases were before the 2nd Appellate District, California Court of Appeals.

While the 3 rejections were basically along party lines, only two of the last 16 confirmations (Thomas & Alito) could be characterized as being basically along party lines.

Posted by: James Danley | May 18, 2008 12:37:15
__________________

By "along party lines, I meant, which I thought would normally be interpreted to mean that the party in control, i.e., over 60 seats in the senate, would usually control the final vote.

Rhbate, sorry another correction! You wrote: "Usually the final vote (for a Supreme Court nominee) is along party lines."

"Usually" is too strong a word. Here are the votes for the nominees from the Johnson Administration to the present:

Abe Fortas -- Confirmed by voice vote (Aug 11, 1965)
Thurgood Marshall -- Confirmed 69-11 (Aug 30, 1967)
Warren Burger -- Confirmed 74-3 (Jun 9, 1969)
Clement Haynsworth, Jr. -- Rejected 45-55 (Nov 21, 1969)
G. Harrold Caswell -- Rejected 45-51 (Apr 8, 1970)
Harry Blackmun -- Confirmed 94-0 (May 12, 1970)
Lewis Powell, Jr. -- Confirmed 89-1 (Dec 6, 1971)
William Rehnquist -- Confirmed 68-26 (Dec 10, 1971)
John Paul Stevens -- Confirmed 98-0 (Dec 17, 1975)
Sandra Day O'Connor -- Confirmed 99-0 (Sep 21, 1981)
Antonin Scalia -- Confirmed 98-0 (Sep 17 1986)
Robert Bork -- Rejected 42-58 (Oct 23, 1987)
Anthony Kennedy -- Confirmed 97-0 (Feb 3, 1988)
David Souter -- Confirmed 90-9 (Oct 2, 1990)
Clarence Thomas -- Confirmed 52-48 (Oct 13, 1991)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Confirmed 96-3 (Aug 3, 1993)
Stephen Breyer -- Confirmed 87-9 (Jul 29, 1994)
John Roberts, Jr. -- Confirmed 78-22 (Sep 29, 2005)
Samuel Alito, Jr. -- Confirmed 58-42 (Jan 31, 2006)

While the 3 rejections were basically along party lines, only two of the last 16 confirmations (Thomas & Alito) could be characterized as being basically along party lines.

Will you please stop attempting to guide the nominations. Perhaps the question should be, could Obama force his way on the ticket?

James Danley,

Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.

Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain

Some people will cast their vote for President of the United States based on a candidate's personality, charm and charisma (or against for lack thereof); some will likely cast their vote based on a candidate's perceived intellect; some will likely cast their vote based on party affiliation; some will likely cast their vote based on gender (either for or against); some will likely cast their vote based on race (either for or against); many will cast their vote based on a single issue or multiple issues. Every American citizen has the right to vote the way they want based on whatever criteria they choose -- even if by flipping a coin.

I am a fiscal and social conservative Republican. I will vote for Sen. McCain because he best represents my views. I, personally, would hate to see our country do away with our "ownership society" and replace Capitalism and the Free Market with wealth redistribution and additional entitlements. But I respect those who have differing views. Freedom of Speech and the right to express one's opinions is one of our greatest assets. God bless the United States of America.

Talk about bias. I happened to read a negative article about the Clintons in the New Republic and they had underneath their ad, a big one with BO image on top, and beneath a small ad "Bill legacy" by New York Times. I went to NY Times and found big articles about the Clintons.
Fortunately, in their comments column, all the Hillary supporters bring more than blind support, but facts to respond some false accusations. One'd better get informed so not to fall under the anti-Clinto propaganda.

Rhbate, you wrote: "The Court only decides the Constitutionality of laws, nothing more, nothing less."

Actually that is not the case. The first paragraph of Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Rhbate, you wrote: "...a supreme court composed of a majority of Democrats can do what it wants, just as the supreme court did when it "elected" Bush."

Actually it was the people of Florida who elected George W. Bush. You may not have heard, but several newspapers actually recounted the ballots and Bush still won the state of Florida in 2000. Now as for the actual decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida State Supreme Court errored when they allowed different methods of counting chads in different counties. The US Supreme Court also ruled that the full statewide recount could not be competed by the deadline that was imposed by Florida state law; that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the authority to change the law to extend the certification deadline.

Now then, it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election by cherry-picking a handful of overwhelmingly Democratic counties for recounting, instead of immediately asking for a statewide recount -- to which he was entitled.

Lisa:

There are a few pro-Hillary nuts out there attempting to convince you to vote for her. I am an California lawyer and I have attempted to lay out the facts for you. If you have any questions I will be more than glad to answer them for you, whether you are pro-Obama, pro-Hillary or pro-McCain.

The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to accept or reject the nomination.

Sorry, I left something out

If they agree on the nomination, the matter is then sent to the full Senate for approval or rejection. Usually the final vote is along party lines.

rhbate,

If you want a dependable, consistent pro-choice candidate, you need to support clinton, not Obama. Note my prior post.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 12:58:19 AM
________________

You're a dreamer. Hillary has as much chance of being elected as my dog. In fact, my dog's chances might be better.

"You also ignore the fact that Bork never got appointed." You only display your ignorance: no one is ever "appointed to the Supreme Court. The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to confirm the nomination or not.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 1:08:39 AM

rhbate and lisa,

You choose to demonize anyone who might be nominating a SC justice, except for Obama. Is Obama the only person you think capable of making the correct choice? That is just plain foolish. We have had so many fine justices appointed, none of whom have been nominated by Obama. Name a SC justice who is not compentent.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 1:04:34 AM
_______________

I haven't demonized anyone; so don't make accusations out of thin air. And as far as Obama is concerned, the choice of who can be nominated to the supreme court is in the exclusive domain of the president, who ever that might be. Then what is required is the "advise and consent" of the senate.

rhbate and Lisa,

You also assume that abortion is the end all and be all of a voter's decision. It is not. People are concerned about the economy, gas prices, educational loans, two wars, foreclosure relief etc. Abortion is not a hot button issue that it once was and voters are not one trick ponies.

It's already borderline. It does not matter if the dems are in control in the house and senate, they will have to compromise with the pres just like they did with Bush. You are really fooling yourself if you think it won't happen.
----------

Nonsense. What is controlling is the make-up of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can bet the Chair of that committee will be a Democratic. And if there are sufficient number of democrats on that committee they can practically do what they want, just as the Republicans have done in the past. Also, a supreme court composed of a majority of Democrats can do what it wants, just as the supreme court did when it "elected" Bush.

rhbate and lisa,

You choose to demonize anyone who might be nominating a SC justice, except for Obama. Is Obama the only person you think capable of making the correct choice? That is just plain foolish. We have had so many fine justices appointed, none of whom have been nominated by Obama. Name a SC justice who is not compentent.

rhbate,

If you want a dependable, consistent pro-choice candidate, you need to support clinton, not Obama. Note my prior post.

You are living in a dream world. Look at Obama's personal views on abortion. He is scary he is so "flexible."

You also ignore the fact that Bork never got appointed. He was eminently qualifed as to legal scholarship. Why did he not get appointed?? the Democratic senate, plain and simple.

No one is going to support Obama because of your scare tactics and further Obama is not even consistent in his approach to abortion. He does what is expedient and by his own admission in his own words is anti-abortion.

Support Clinton if you are pro-choice.