Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - Hillary Clinton?
vanity post | February 2, 2004 | HAL9000

Posted on 02/02/2004 1:46:35 PM PST by HAL9000

A recent post on FreeRepublic suggested the novel theory that Conservatives would be better off if George W. Bush lost the election and a Democrat became president.

One response objected to that theory, claiming that if the Democrats win, the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be Bill Clinton.

On the surface, that sounds like a real problem. Chief Justice Rehnquist turns 80 this year, and it's likely that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will nominate his replacement.

But there is a problem with the Chief Justice Bill Clinton theory: Clinton's law license in Arkansas is suspended until 2006, and shortly after his suspension, he resigned his bar admission to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can't apply for readmission to the SCOTUS bar until at least 2009.

Clinton would not want the nomination because it would damage his legacy by resurrecting the scandals that led to his suspended law license, and the suspension would be an insurmountable problem in confirmation hearings. He's not going to sit through hearings and be grilled under oath about that. It's more likely he would take a position at the United Nations. Therefore, I'm confident that the Democrats will never nominate Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court.

But, there is a real danger that a Democratic president would nominate Hillary Clinton as Chief Justice. She would be the #1 top candidate for the post among the party rank and file. There will be a huge outcry for her nomination among Democrats - and unlike her husband, there is no record of her ever being impeached or disciplined for misconduct as an attorney.

The poster of the article linked above assures us that possiblity is "even less likely to happen than Slick Willie getting a seat on the big bench. ... Hillary Clinton will neither be nominated to the Supreme Court nor confirmed. It is not even an issue." He believes that an impeached, virtually disbarred ex-President has a better chance for SCOTUS nomination and Senate approval than his liberal icon Senator/wife. (What is he smoking?)

Another poster said that Hillary could not get nominated because she has never served as a judge before. But history proves that argument wrong. 43 of the 108 Supreme Court justices, including eight of the 18 chief justices, had no prior judicial experience. William Rehnquist had never served as a judge before his Supreme Court appointment in 1972.

Other posters opined that Hillary would rather be President than Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I doubt it. There is a key difference between the Clintons: Bill loves campaigning, Hillary loves governing. If she became Chief Justice, she could dispense with the aspects of politics she doesn't enjoy. No more campaigning, no more fundraising, no more debates - just sitting and interpreting our laws and Constitution as she sees fit - for life! She would have more power for a longer period of time as Chief Justice instead of President.

Furthermore, if a Democrat wins the presidential election in 2004, it would disrupt her commonly accepted timetable of running for president in 2008. That would make the Supreme Court an even more attractive option to her. Her odds of winning Senate confirmation to SCOTUS in the near future are better than winning a presidential election in 2012 (or 2008).

If a Democrat wins, I predict that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be nominated to be next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will be nearly impossible to stop her confirmation in the Senate - even if Republicans control the chamber.

A Google search shows that there has been virtually no discussion of the dangers of a Chief Justice Hillary Clinton. This thread is intended to raise awareness of the issue - and to urge Conservatives to reject foolish theories that we would be better off with a Democratic president.



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; chiefjustice; chiefjusticeclinton; chiefjusticehillary; clinton; hillary; hillaryclinton; next; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
Don't let Hillary trade her crusty old black pantsuit for a black robe. The damage to our nation would be incalculable. Support the reelection of President Bush.
1 posted on 02/02/2004 1:46:36 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.
2 posted on 02/02/2004 1:49:14 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
unlikely. More likely she'll be Kerry's VP till he has an "accident."
3 posted on 02/02/2004 1:51:11 PM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCKKKK


http://www.georgewbush.com


Per a letter I got this weekend, the mailing address for donations is:

BUSH-CHENEY '04, INC.
P.O. BOX 2005
MERRIFIELD VA 22116-9507


At the bottom of the letter is:
PO BOX 10729
Arlington, VA 22210
800.531.6789

Do it. Walk the precincts. Do something, anything. Let's lose these EVIL PEOPLE!!!
4 posted on 02/02/2004 1:53:17 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (BG (Logan's Personal Mafia Hit Squad))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Yes, and I think it is a mistake not to always have a couple of non-lawyers there, just to inject a little reality.

So9

5 posted on 02/02/2004 1:56:22 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

Exactly! The most important words in the Constitution are, "We, the People.. You shouldn't have to be a specialist in law to understand the People's contract with ourselves.

If I could make any changes I wanted in the Constitution, I'd require that the Chief Justice be a lawyer who had practiced law as both attorney and judge, but I'd also make it so that not more than one more Justice could even have a law degree. Their decisions should be based on what "We, the People.." would decide, not a specialized and non-representative, self-styled 'elite.'

Of course, that's not the first thing I'd change. (*smile*)
6 posted on 02/02/2004 2:00:32 PM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice has to even be a lawyer or a member of the bar?

A disbarred attorney may not practice before the Supreme court, but where in the constitution does it say they can't be a Justice or Chief Justice.

7 posted on 02/02/2004 2:01:49 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
HAL9000 Let me give you a little kindly advise.

Check your facts before starting your Keyboard!


8 posted on 02/02/2004 2:05:46 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Hitlery has higher ambitions. After being the prez (or the power behind the prez), she would settle for something less than the White House is ludicrous. This woman is starved for power. Look how she manuevered herself for the New York senatorial seat, and acquiesced to all those special interest groups that carried blocs of voters. Look at how she positioned herself as the leader of the demonRAT party, and further the U.S. Senate, even though she was the junior senator from New York. Look how she manuevered Bubba all those years to make him the president of the great nation in the free world. No, nothing less than the presidency is going to satisfy this woman, except the head of the EU provided the USA were a member.
9 posted on 02/02/2004 2:09:40 PM PST by lilylangtree (Olde English takes a long time to say, and we never say anything unless it takes a long time to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Willie don need no steenkin license to be on the Supreme Court. And, even if he did, he's got the bucks hidden away in Switzerland to buy a license from a variety of states. Who's the guy in Jersey, McGreevey? Make him an offer, you can get one, too. Same thing with the local bar association or whoever.

But, why would Willie want to be on the court? Graft would be minimal. Always under public scrutiny, etc. His only question is, "What's in it for Willie?" Hillie would be much better on the court. Willie could work behind the scenes, make BIG bucks, and between them, they could destroy the country.

10 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:13 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice has to even be a lawyer or a member of the bar?

It doesn't say that, but so what? The practical reality is that the nominee will be a lawyer who has not been suspended from the bar.

If John Kerry wins the presidential electioin, Hillary Clinton will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - not Bill Clinton.

11 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:16 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
If the pubbies choose to play hardball, the Supreme Court might just die off - no one will be able to bring a confirmation vote to the floor of the Senate.
Another consitutional crisis brought to you by the Democrat Party.
12 posted on 02/02/2004 2:11:25 PM PST by Ben Hecks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Hecks
If only the pubbies would play hardball.
13 posted on 02/02/2004 2:24:24 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
actually I was refering to the fact that Bill Clinton could become a SC Justice.

Additionally, a constitution is superior to a contract. There is a difference. We the People did not for a contract, we the people establish a constitution. It memorialized the institution of our society.

I do not believe being a "judge" matters as much as having worked in the real world. I would not put a lawyer requirement or limitation. I have seen the stupidity espoused by do-it-yourselfers in courtrooms. (Believe me when I say, repeating "I don't understand" based on some wacko pamphlet's instructions will not succeed.)

A law degree, and passing the Bar does not may you a lawyer. Practicing law makes you a lawyer. Idealistic but true. Book knowledge vs real life.

Hilary Clinton practiced the law of political connections. That is the worst kind of law. (almost french in nature) It means the law is re-envisioned based on your need de jour. Need to silence enemies? Free speech does not include unpopular speech because it provokes people. Need to condem enemies? Free speed does include unpoplular speech because it provokes people.

For those type of people it is not about law or even good lawyering and giving a person their day in court. It is only about aquiring PERSONAL power and the future generations of children be damned. (BTW was hilary ever pregnant or is their daughter adopted?)
14 posted on 02/02/2004 2:32:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
Which is why we need to support little league hardball. This way little leaguers grow up to become big leaguers.
15 posted on 02/02/2004 2:34:21 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
The Supreme Court is not there to decide what "We, the People" want -- that is the function of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law. Your proposal makes about as much sense as requiring that only one radiologist in a hospital can interpret x-rays -- the rest have to be lay people.

Perhaps you think members of the Federal Reserve Board don't need to be financial experts, either?

It's delusional to think that there aren't jobs out there that require specialized training.
16 posted on 02/02/2004 2:48:35 PM PST by You Dirty Rats (DUBYA 2004 - RATS NEVERMORE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Hillary Clinton is the original WMD, either as Co-President, Senator or future Justice of SCOTUS or President. Is there anybody or anything that can defuse her?
17 posted on 02/02/2004 2:54:53 PM PST by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Wasn't Greenspan a professional musician? Claranet player, I believe.

Speialized knowledge is correct. But there is a difference between have knowledge and training with having a license. An ordinary Senator without a law degree could have the requisit qualifications for knowledge of the law.

Even judges don't know everything. I have seen civil lawyers become judges and assigned to the criminal bench and do a fine job.
18 posted on 02/02/2004 2:55:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
One of Clinton's contingencies of surrender was that he could never practice in the Supreme Court.
19 posted on 02/02/2004 3:03:43 PM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; HAL9000
"Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court."

True enough, but that mistake (a common misconception, btw), only provides more support to the thesis.
20 posted on 02/02/2004 3:09:02 PM PST by proud American in Canada (Take back the First Amendment! Call today! U.S. Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
"but I'd also make it so that not more than one more Justice could even have a law degree"

very interesting idea! I'm not sure I'd go that far--but it would be a great idea to have some common sense on the SCOTUS. :)
21 posted on 02/02/2004 3:13:27 PM PST by proud American in Canada (Take back the First Amendment! Call today! U.S. Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: proud American in Canada
My article never stated that being a lawyer was a Constitutional requirement for confirmation to the Supreme Court.

But the political reality is that a lawyer who was impeached, had his law license suspended and resigned from the bar of the Supreme Court will never be nominated as a Supreme Court justice. Those are Bill's problems, not Hillary's.

22 posted on 02/02/2004 3:29:16 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
CONVINCING AND SOBERING.

THANKS.
23 posted on 02/02/2004 3:34:33 PM PST by Quix (Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Don't let Hillary trade her crusty old black pantsuit for a black robe. The damage to our nation would be incalculable. Support the reelection of President Bush.

Your theory can only hold water, if one assumes that the Republicans in the Senate have also distanced themselves from traditional values. We might lose some Senate seats--particularly if the candidates try to run on the President's shrinking coat-tails, but we should still have enough to block such a nomination--keep it from ever coming to a vote. The Democrats have certainly illustrated how you do that.

However, it is still early. If you can persuade the President to acknowledge the error of some of his recent actions (as did Davy Crockett, long ago, in the events recounted in Sockdolager!) he can still win back many of our votes. If he keeps following Karl Rove away from the duties imposed by his oath of office, we simply cannot ethically do so. Sorry, but I took an oath to support the Constitution, and I have always interpreted that as imposing a duty on me, to anlayze candidates from the perspective of how seriously they take their own oaths. Both my oath, and their oaths, were before Almighty God, and had nothing to do with party affiliation. We cannot use that as an excuse to avoid the consequences of them.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

24 posted on 02/02/2004 3:50:21 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
: Clinton's law license in Arkansas is suspended

It is correct in saying Clinton's law license has been suspended, however, there is no requirement that a justice on the supreme court be a lawyer. He/She may be of any vocation.

25 posted on 02/02/2004 3:51:52 PM PST by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Most people do not realize that a permanent disbarment is not permanent. After five years Bill Clinton could reapply for admssion to the Arkansas State Bar. He would have to just through some hoops, probably have to retake the Bar Exam. (offered in a private room with him alone for security reasons, "of course".) But he will be a licensed lawyer again. Three years after he is reinstated, assuming no other ethics discipline problems, he will be able to apply for and get permission to argue cases before the USSC.
26 posted on 02/02/2004 3:54:34 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Do those robes come in Kevlar?
27 posted on 02/02/2004 3:56:52 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Would she even want such a lowly post? Don't forget her (ultimate) ambitions are the high prize of Queen of the World, with Bill replacing Koffe Anus as Sec General.
28 posted on 02/02/2004 3:57:14 PM PST by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
Would she accept? Are you kidding? A lifetime job with absolutely no accountability to anybody and a chance to make life or death decisions without having to be bothered with all of the 'little people?' Hell yeah! That sounds a lot more like Hitlery to me than somebody who is willing to spend two years traveling to places like Arkansas to beg for votes.
29 posted on 02/02/2004 4:10:06 PM PST by bpjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
Well, now that you put it that way...you certainly have a point.
30 posted on 02/02/2004 4:12:57 PM PST by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Flaw in this article. You do not have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court.

I don't think that is the writer's point. He/she makes more of the issue that Billy Jeff would have to deal with the whole impeachment/license suspension/disbarment issue in very public hearings, and would still not have a chance to be confirmed. The Pubbies could righteously point to these issues as grounds for rejecting his nomination, so why put himself through the publim humiliation?

31 posted on 02/02/2004 4:20:28 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
Just to get the law license back would not necessarily involve a public hearing.

As for a debate, IF the democrats ever regain the majority there would be no debate.

Besides I thought Bill Clinton wanted the UN presidency.
32 posted on 02/02/2004 4:36:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Ah so your theory is that the Republicans in the Senate will be able to successfully stonewall her nomination like the Dems - with the backing of the media- do ours. So the media will back them up in it like they are backing the Dems in their stonewall?

Well, that's interesting.
Reminds me of the claim that Hillary will have to face the tough questioning of the New York media in her Senate run.

Personally I think the media will tear apart anyone who obstructs Hillary's nomination.
With that in mine, I think Hillary might not only get the Chief Justice positition for life, but have the pleasure of seeing Senators who opposed her voted out of office.

Oh the pleasures we'll get from a Democrat president- especially one who has to make a deal with Hillary to win.

33 posted on 02/02/2004 5:46:07 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Ask him who appointed 44% of sitting federal judges.
34 posted on 02/02/2004 5:47:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
The Next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - Hillary Clinton?

Of a lot of the idiots on this forums have their way, then Yes.

35 posted on 02/02/2004 5:49:13 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Nothing will get a response from some people.

It's "damn the appointments and everything else, full speed ahead" in their minds.

I remember saying on a thread after the election that libertarians would be abandoning the Republicans. Funny, no one took that idea seriously either.

36 posted on 02/02/2004 6:12:28 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I did, I think you're stuff is top shelf. Few and far between sometimes.
37 posted on 02/02/2004 6:14:54 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Well, that's the secret: the less I post the better I look!

:-)

38 posted on 02/02/2004 6:17:08 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
He can't apply for readmission to the SCOTUS bar until at least 2009.

That should do it. By that time most of the sheeple will have completely forgot that he was impeached.


39 posted on 02/02/2004 6:21:06 PM PST by unixfox (Close the borders, problems solved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Moderation, a lesson I never learned. :-} Later.
40 posted on 02/02/2004 6:23:21 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Well, that's the secret: the less I post the better I look!


Post away and quit that looking in the mirror..........
41 posted on 02/02/2004 6:30:57 PM PST by deport (SUPER PURGE XXXVIII ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Just to get the law license back would not necessarily involve a public hearing.

I didn't say anything about the law license - he would have to go through a public confirmation hearing if nominated to SCOTUS.

As for a debate, IF the democrats ever regain the majority there would be no debate.

Even if the Pubbies were in the minority, you could count on the mother of all filibusters for a Billy Jeff nomination.

Besides I thought Bill Clinton wanted the UN presidency.

You are probably right about that - which is part of the point the writer was making. BJ is not who we should worry about...

42 posted on 02/02/2004 6:39:51 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
If a Democrat wins, I predict that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be nominated to be next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will be nearly impossible to stop her confirmation in the Senate - even if Republicans control the chamber.

C'mon.
Even if Democrats controlled the chamber they would need 60 votes for this to happen.
Hillary on the Spreme Court is never, ever gonna happen.

43 posted on 02/02/2004 6:44:18 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Let's see, if I'm 'delusional', then you're idiotic.

There, does that about reach the level of discussion you wanted? Go back and reread my post if you're interested in actually discussing something instead of just calling people names. Most of what you said bears no relationship to what I wrote. Specifically, I did not ever say that the Supreme Court is there to decide what 'We, the People' want. Just the opposite, in fact.
44 posted on 02/02/2004 7:12:07 PM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
"Hillary on the Spreme Court is never, ever gonna happen."

I'm going through the FR archives, reading messages from 1999 about whether she would run for Senate. Here are some actual quotes (with screen names omitted) -

"She won't run."

"Doubtful scenario."

"she isn't going to run for any elective office."

"She's not going to accept anything that will downgrade her position from where she is now. Her ego will not allow her to be the "junior" senator, or the VP nominee while watching Tipper ascend to potential First Lady."

"Hillary is not running anywhere but to Brazil."

"I can't imagine Hillary has the nerve to try and go after power on her own."

"Not gonna happen. To much dirt is going to come out before then."

etc., etc.

There must be thousands of similar messages in the archives - from people who consistently underestimate Hillary's relentless quest for absolute power.

45 posted on 02/02/2004 7:36:37 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
There must be thousands of similar messages in the archives - from people who consistently underestimate Hillary's relentless quest for absolute power.

I am not one of them.
However, there is not a doubt in my mind that she would need 60 Senate votes for confirmation to the Supreme Court. I maintain that that will never happen, regardless of how much she may want to be confirmed. Those files of hers are growing staler and staler.

46 posted on 02/02/2004 8:12:59 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
However, there is not a doubt in my mind that she would need 60 Senate votes for confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Your math is as reliable as your political judgement. It would take 67 votes to reach the two-thirds majority of 100 senators required for Supreme Court confirmation.

47 posted on 02/02/2004 8:37:22 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
(But wait - Hillary would abstain from voting for herself - and if enough other Senators failed to vote - she could be approved with fewer than 67 votes.)
48 posted on 02/02/2004 8:42:22 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Huh. I thought it worked the same way for Supes as for District Court judges (like in the cases of Estrada and Pickering).

By the way, I'll put my "political judgment" up against yours any day if you think Hillary would get 67 votes, let alone 60.

Regards,
LH
49 posted on 02/02/2004 8:54:29 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I bet you were thinking of the number of votes normally required for cloture on a Senate fillibuster - usually 60 votes for three-fifths of 100 Senators. Okay.
50 posted on 02/02/2004 8:58:59 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson