The Case for Nominating Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court

SP5 Christine Conley - I think there was behind-the-scenes chatter, but it is really a premature discussion until he were to nail down the nomination. Unless he turns things around quickly, the point is now moot. For what it's worth, Sen. Warren was my top choice for President. Too bad she didn't run.

Which I would enjoy tremendously.

LTC Kevin B. What if HRC wins and then nominates Bill, Obama or Warren to the SCOTUS? Then heads would really explode.

SSG Carlos Madden - True, especially if she were to nominate President Obama to the SCOTUS. Pass the popcorn, please!

I didn't intentionally "bypass" your questions. Didn't notice the "see more" but to answer them, all four, yes i do know.
And in the free market, where you earn whatever someone is willing to pay you, good on her for making that much. THAT isn't the point of my, as you called it, talking point. The point is that if you are going to ACCEPT that salary, then don't complain about the high cost of education, because YOU are one of the reasons for that cost, you are part of the PROBLEM.
IOW she is a hypocrite, accepting the high salary, then complaining about the cost in the industry.

Oh...BTW, her compensation for teaching at Harvard:
"Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011 and got nearly $134,000 in consulting fees on legal cases in 2010."

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/01/elizabeth_warren_got_nearly_43.html

Sgt Gus Laskaris - Being a Harvard Professor IS an accomplishment, as is being elected to the US Senate.

Sgt Gus Laskaris - I replied to you first question; "How is she accomplished?"
As for your second; " What, of use to anybody, does she know how to do?" I didn't answer it I'm kinda thing like you are!

Whether you want to admit it or not, you were saying that the costs of her salary weren't worth the benefits of teaching one class (which is much less than what she did in her role at Harvard). My point is that Harvard must certainly believe that she generates much more value than her salary costs, or they wouldn't pay her that much. That's exactly how a market-based system is supposed to work. Her arguments about student debt and the costs of college tuition also have merit, and the fact that she makes a living working within that system is not indicative of hypocrisy.

I disagree. Many appointments have been smooth sailing and rather uneventful. The only ones that get political are when Presidents put in someone clearly outside of the mainstream or are unqualified. Robert Bork would be an example of the former, and Harriet Myers would be an example of the latter. However, most nominations go through without many problems. In fact, Scalia and Kennedy were both unanimous votes. Ginsberg and Breyer had only a handful of "no" votes (12 total between them).

LTC Kevin B., I do think we'll have to disagree here. Given average times around 2.5 months and all the considerations that go into it.... you might enjoy this paper, I found skimming it interesting.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf