OT: A Michigan Man on the SCOTUS?

Submitted by Craptain Crunch on July 2nd, 2018 at 9:53 AM
The next SCOTUS could possibly be a Michigan Man. Sixth Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kethledge graduated from both Michigan undergrad and Law School. He also clerked for Anthony Kennedy. It would be great to see a Michigan Man on the SCOTUS instead of a damn Yalie or Harvard Homer.


Gentleman Squirrels

July 2nd, 2018 at 9:56 AM ^

Not knowing anything about his history of prior judgments or which way he leans for key issues, that would be very exciting. This post might be too political for this board.

Clarence Beeks

July 2nd, 2018 at 10:02 AM ^

He would be only the second who attended Michigan for undergrad and fourth for law school.  Given the esteem of the law school, that's a remarkably low number.  That how you ended your post could (likely) be true comments a sad state of affairs that it isn't possible to separate politics from appreciation for a (potential) accomplishment for the University. 

blue in dc

July 2nd, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^

I don’t find it a sad state of affairs that people might prefer to evaluate whether or not it would actually be a positive accomplishment before appreciating said accomplishment.

if, to give a non-political example an engineer from Michigan was responsible for some significantly bad engineering event (maybe he was the head of engineering for some large firm and signed off on a design that resulted in many deaths?) would you want to appreciate the accomplishment for the University of that engineer holding such an important position?


July 2nd, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^

A Michigan grad possibly becoming a member of the Supreme Court is a worthy thread topic on this site. You never know, there could be a huge 5 star recruit who wants to study law someday. Having an alumn on the Supreme Court gives you a huge advantage. 

The issue however is that there are some people out there that can't control themselves when a topic that has anything political to it comes up. Its only a matter of time before someone comes in here on there high horse thinking now is the time to try and convert people to there line of thinking. 




July 3rd, 2018 at 6:48 AM ^

The problem is that there are certain parts of the government that are not doing their job right now.  We are getting exactly what I expected from the POTUS, he told us who he was.  But there are other branches of government that are supposed to be checking his worst impulses and there aren’t.  There are very conservative GOP members of Congress that are screaming that from the rooftops and being ignored.  That is the issue with the current SC vacancy.  If this is simply a POTUS “yes man” we really do have a problem.  It really isn’t a right/left issue anymore, it is kind of more a “survival of this republic” issue now.


July 2nd, 2018 at 10:42 AM ^

There are plenty of sites where you can espouse your opinion on what is political vs. not and exactly what you think on those particular topics. This is not one of them because the site owner and moderators (and I'd bet a majority of the users) prefer it that way. Move along  

Rufus X

July 2nd, 2018 at 1:27 PM ^

I can't figure out which term you apparently don't understand... "Debate", or "double standard"

If you believe that the stated and oft trumpeted policy of "no politics" being enforced against one brand of politics only (i.e. that which Brian et al ascribe to) is not a "double standard" than we really can't have much of a debate, can we?


July 2nd, 2018 at 2:15 PM ^

I think it is you that doesn't understand the terms you are using. 

First, your statement seems to apply that Brian (whom BTW, I doubt very much reads every stupid comment / thread on this board) "ascribes" to a certain brand of politics and then that he only enforces the no politics rule against that particular brand of politics -- um ok. Probably not the point you are trying to make, but the point you appear to be making nonetheless. 

Second, you claim there is a double standard -- I call out that there is not a double standard just because you don't like the standard. You offer no evidence of said double standard, then claim that I don't understand the term.

You are correct - with logic like that, we really can't have much of a debate.


July 2nd, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^

Well, actually the rule is "no politics doesn't apply to Brian" and, as noted, this post has been up for some time and not taken down even though this candidate is, I assume, not one Brian would be gung ho on.  But as I've learned martyrdom flows evenly to everyone on the internet 


July 2nd, 2018 at 10:25 AM ^

"It would be great to see a Michigan Man on the SCOTUS instead of a damn Yalie or Harvard Homer."

Your implicit assumption is that it's a given that a "Michigan Man" on the Court is "great." 

Regardless of where anybody falls on the ideological spectrum, who gives a shit what school a particular nominee matriculated from? This ain't the NFL—it's the judicial body whose decisions directly impact virtually every aspect of private and public life in the country, for good or ill.

Simply graduating from Michigan's Law School doesn't make anybody great.

Rufus X

July 2nd, 2018 at 11:17 AM ^


Being a Supreme Court nominee or justice is a great career accomplishment, regardless. We as graduates of the greatest university in the world love to take pride in many of our non-athlete graduates (Gerald Ford, James Earl Jones, astronauts, etc.). Nothing wrong with being excited for one of our own making it to the pinnacle of their profession.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. I am betting you have a problem with the post for ideological reasons, ironic given your insistence that it doesn't matter where on the ideological spectrum you fall.


July 2nd, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^

I can't even count the number of times Michigan, and fellow fans, have talked about Ford being a center on Michigan.

That said, the comment wasn't a straw man at all.   It wasn't trying to invalidate anything you said, just wondered who wrote something that contained such a false statement.

Rufus X

July 2nd, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^

Sorry about the italics. That was unintentional.

Ford would be an obscure 1950s era interior lineman if not for his political (non-athlete) career. That's all I was saying. We take pride in him as a university community because of his becoming president. The football career is a political footnote, a la Jack Kemp.


July 2nd, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^

That's a fine overall point for a larger non-Michigan audience, so I understand where you're coming from there.

But you know you're going to get some flak when telling someone to google a straw man argument when you really need to do it yourself, right?


July 2nd, 2018 at 10:54 PM ^

History lesson needed.  Ford played on two National Championship football teams, was elected captain, and selected as an All American.  He was hardly "obscure."  Oh, and he played from 1932-1935 so you had that very wrong as well.  Getting your facts wrong severely impairs the credibility of your opinions.