posted
First, I commend Justice Breyer for stepping down in time for Joe to have an undisputed SCOTUS pick. He will have an easier time than did GWB41 filling Justice Thurgood Marshall's seat. He knew that he had to pick a Black for that "Black Seat", but then, how many conservative Black jurists were there to choose from?
Joe of course has an easier time of it in that to fulfil his campaign promise of a Black woman nominee. There are many qualified of Liberal leanings that Joe's "base" will expect, out there from which to choose.
Now to Kamala; the conservative media is "abuzz" about Joe appointing her to the SCOTUS. There's nothing out there saying he couldn't (she has a law degree - and you don't even need that for an appointment) and if the Democrats can stay solid in the Senate - and Kamala votes for herself in a tiebreaking situation, she's in.
Joe would then be free to appoint whoever he chooses to fill the unexpired VP term, and only subject to simple majority confirmation in both houses. Hopefully, he would nominate someone with qualifications to be POTUS, as I do not think he will complete the term, and in some God-forbid moment, he seeks, and wins, a second term, there would be someone qualified to become POTUS, as there are simply too many reservations about Kamala being such.
Sure would solve a big problem; and some conservative sources are even suggesting Joe could reach out to Hillary!!! (wow, will Hannity ever be sharpening the spears!!!!!).
Finally, Democrats should be pleased that Justice Breyer was not about to make the same mistake (some might say selfish) as did RBG. She should have resigned prior to the '16 Election to allow Obama an unquestioned appointment. But then, like many, she thought Hillary was sure to win.
Posts: 10066 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harris does not fulfill the narrow criteria Biden is seeking.
And frankly, “qualifications to be POTUS” are what is laid down in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, nothing more or less than that. And that does not mean it includes anyone who violates their oath of office.
Posts: 594 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[5] No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
An interesting observation, Mr. Helfner, in that the Constitution places no prohibitions upon who may be ELECTED VP, the same prohibitions regarding the POTUS would apply to any successor.
Somehow, I don't think there would be any prohibitions upon either Kamala (57; Oakland CA) or Hillary (74, Chicago) succeeding, or being appointed, to fill an unexpired POTUS term.
Now back on the SCOTUS, that while Joe is looking for someone "Libby Leaning" such as Justice Kagan (White; Jewish) or "flaming Lib" such as Justice Sotomayer (Hispanic, Roman Catholic) remains to be seen. All we know at this point is she will be "Lib", as that is what the Democratic majority, however thin, expects.
Too "lib", however, could result in the likes of "Joe the other" and Kirsten (AZ varietal, not NY) bolting. Add further fuel to the fire; one or both could "jump" and become Republicans (it has happened such as during GWB43's term - Sen Jeffords (NH)).
Posts: 10066 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good thing the position is not going to MS Harris, because if there aren't enough votes to confirm, the position is held vacant. the Speaker of the House is next in line. And if the Republicans take the House this Fall, we will spend the next two years with a Republican set to succeed Biden if something happens to him. Fortunately, the whole idea was slapped down quickly.
Posts: 515 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point Mr. Nicholson; and you are correct in that the "Kammy for SCOTUS" talk died down as quickly as it came up.
There is nothing whatever in the Constitution stating that the POTUS and VPOTUS run as a "team". There's nothing saying they must be of the same political party, as the Constitution "doesn't know what a party is".
Well, after Joe resigns (forget this second term stuff; a Trump/DeSantis ticket will be "unbeatable" in '24) during March next year (possibly announcing as part of the SOTU), any legislative initiative is "finito", save beyond the annual Spending and Defense Bills. Otherwise, let's hope for no international crisis rising to the level of Afghanistan or Ukraine and look forward to Kammy Pardoning Turkeys, rolling Easter Eggs, and lighting Xmas trees.
Oh, and maybe, just maybe, the Secret Service will allow Joe to leave town on Amtrak aboard an Aviella.
Posts: 10066 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
