2007-10-30 05:55:38 · 27 answers · asked by Holy Cow! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Penn, of Penn and Teller
2007-10-30 06:13:05 · answer #1 · answered by a person of interest 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court does not appoint the President (the President, in fact, nominates the justices of the supreme court). Clearly, you mean, what if there were another close contested election.
Personally, if it were left to me to decide such an election between, say, Clinton & Guliani (as currently seems likely), I would void the results, call for a new election, and disqualify both candidates from running, for any office, ever.
2007-10-30 13:11:58 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would give the election to Obama... but isn't there a new executive order that says that the president gets to pick his own successor. It's either in an executive order or a signing statement....Here it is:
"(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies...."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
2007-10-30 13:03:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Supreme Court does not appoint the US Pressident. He/she is elected by the people. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, it goes to the House of Representatives.
This is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy, not a dictatorship.
2007-10-30 13:06:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
it's not the supreme court's job to appoint a president...it's the electoral college.
2007-10-30 13:04:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bring Clinton back! Sure he was a bit of a sleaze bag, dropping his pants all over the place..but what politician isnt a slime ball?
But at least Old Bill didnt invade other countries on lies, killing thousands of innocents, etc....and the US economy was in far better shape..under Bush the $ will be worth less than toilet paper soon the way its dropping!
And perhaps the Americans will then be less hated in the world!
Because believe me, I travelled a lot in the world last 2 years and Yanks now are despised and reviled everywhere I have been!
2007-10-30 13:13:20 · answer #6 · answered by t p 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
In the magical world of 'get a life,' you might be able to appoint a U.S. President but here in the (real world) we nominate and vote for a president, who by mischievous and underhanded deeds managed to purchase his presidency and at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. But that's just how it happens.
2007-10-30 13:07:43 · answer #7 · answered by SuzieQ 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No one. I would return that privelage to the voters, as the Constitution intended and if I could have any part in it, work to do away with the biggest impediment to American democracy, the electoral college and Republicans. (Sorry. That last was irresistable. I was just joking. I know that Republicans actually do value democracy, as the rest of us do. They just got the better end of a raw deal and I'm choking on sour grapes).
2007-10-30 13:07:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jack Bauer
2007-10-30 13:08:29 · answer #9 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The nine members of the Supreme Court...
2007-10-30 13:00:06 · answer #10 · answered by You are all, weirdos. 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Supreme Court messed up badly in its last presidential appointment, so I think any justices on the court should recuse themselves.
2007-10-30 13:02:39 · answer #11 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋