So how's the Democratic Party thread these days? Seems to be going as it always had.
Yes, because it's entirely un-American for people to have legal representation at trials.
Oh, wait...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama being nominated to the Supreme Court would make my year.
Obama being confirmed to the Supreme Court would make my decade.
Yes, because it's entirely un-American for people to have legal representation at trials.
Oh, wait...
Why not? Its already un-American to be Negro or Mexican to some people (like a certain Republican candidate). People who help criminals get off scot-free* are fairly reasonable "un-American candidates" in comparison.
*Yes, this is a totally dishonest statement. That's the point.
This election is Jubilex vs Pazuzu.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This election is Jubilex vs Pazuzu.
In terms of likeability, perhaps. Not in terms of competence or ability, however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This election is Jubilex vs Pazuzu.In terms of likeability, perhaps. Not in terms of competence or ability, however.
Especially considering Clinton is actually LN/imperfect LG but has had her reputation and deeds constantly impugned for 25+ years.
Pill,
I think LN is more probable than LG. Possibly even TN.
But regardless, I think it's less Jubilex versus Pazuzu and more like Obox-ob versus Wee Jas.
Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...I'm betting the minute she wins, Garland recinds his nomination to the SC and then Obama just shrugs his shoulders and says "What can I do? I'm a lame duck. You'll have to wait for the next President."
The current congress would still be in session. I'm fairly sure that Obama would like to have ONE supreme court justice as part of his legacy, and I'm sure that he'd be open to resubmiting Garland's appointment. And said Congress would have a bit more incentive to stop obstructing him... at least on this one issue.
Obama being nominated to the Supreme Court would make my year.
Obama being confirmed to the Supreme Court would make my decade.
Obama has qualifications for a lot of positions, bu a Supreme Court Justiceship isn't one of them.
Drahliana, he's nominated (and had confirmed) two justices so far, Sotomayor and Kagen. Why do you think he's not qualifiied for the position himself?
Drahliana, he's nominated (and had confirmed) two justices so far, Sotomayor and Kagen. Why do you think he's not qualifiied for the position himself?
Because he's never served as a Judge? I believe that's one of the minimum expectations for the job.
There's no reason to believe that Obama would actually want the job. He's already had enough embarrassment with being offered a Nobel Peace Prize he hadn't earned. I really don't think that he'd stoop to opening both himself and his Party to ridicule by applying for it, and certainly Clinton would not go so off the reservation, by nominating someone for the Court who has no judging experience.
Combrade Obama never looked that embarrassed to me, but I'm sure you'll tell me how I've misinterpreted my own experience of the situation. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
List of forty supreme court justices without judicial service before hand including most recently William Rehnquist.
So that argument is dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps Michelle will be nominated. She's a lawyer as well
Combrade Obama never looked that embarrassed to me, but I'm sure you'll tell me how I've misinterpreted my own experience of the situation. ;)
His wise decision to refuse the Prize pretty much speaks for itself. His opponents used the unwarranted prize to try to portray him as a puppet of foreign interests, used it to emphasize his Kenyan origins and fueled the Birther movement.
And it was a bad move to award the Prize to someone who hadn't done anything to earn it.
Back in 2014, Obama already had twenty supreme court cases where all nine justices ruled against him -- even the justices he appointed. That's pretty clear proof that he's not qualified to sit on the court.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 2014, Obama already had twenty supreme court cases where all nine justices ruled against him -- even the justices he appointed. That's pretty clear proof that he's not qualified to sit on the court.
It's nothing of the kind.
First, I"m not even sure what "rule against him" even means. Did they rule his existence Unconstitutional? Or just say they really didn't like the guy? Second, why on earth would that prove he's not qualified? Is a lawyer who loses a case therefore never qualified to be a judge?
Here's a far, far more likely alternative: You're not qualified to judge his qualifications. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 2014, Obama already had twenty supreme court cases where all nine justices ruled against him -- even the justices he appointed. That's pretty clear proof that he's not qualified to sit on the court.
That'd be 20 cases where all 9 justices ruled against the US government... mostly on matters preceding Obama by years or decades.
In other words... completely irrelevant.
Back in 2014, Obama already had twenty supreme court cases where all nine justices ruled against him -- even the justices he appointed. That's pretty clear proof that he's not qualified to sit on the court.It's nothing of the kind.
First, I"m not even sure what "rule against him" even means. Did they rule his existence Unconstitutional? Or just say they really didn't like the guy? Second, why on earth would that prove he's not qualified? Is a lawyer who loses a case therefore never qualified to be a judge?
Here's a far, far more likely alternative: You're not qualified to judge his qualifications. :P
It's really funny when you actually go to look at the cases involved
I like it when he posts information without links because it almost guarantees that when you go look it is much more interesting than what he is trying to insinuate.
I mean I might have fallen for it if the tactic hadn't been used for the past 20 years against Hillary Clinton.
Just a reminder, Obama has an education in law... a pretty damned good one too from Harvard (there are currently 5 justices with degrees from Harvard). He even served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He's also spent time as a professor of constitutional law. He's served as a state senator, a US senator and US president.
Obama is actually eminently qualified for the job.
|
1. President Obama has little legal experience actually practicing law. Has he ever practiced law inside an actual courtroom? All the current justices have had a great deal of actual courtroom experience.
2. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago as an adjunct(Wikipedia lists his final title as Senior Lecturer), but I don't think that going to be high on the list of qualifications.
3. Why would he go from the presidency to being an Associate Justice? His boss would be Chief Justice Roberts.
4. A President H. Clinton would want to put her own stamp on the Supreme Court.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just went and picked up the ballot access petitions for Jill at three southern New Hampshire town halls.
About a quarter were disqualified, but if that ratio holds true across the state, we should have her on the ballot here in the Granite State.
Looks like that ratio held out perfectly.
N.H. Will Have Two More Presidential Candidates On The Ballot This November
|
|
Just went and picked up the ballot access petitions for Jill at three southern New Hampshire town halls.
About a quarter were disqualified, but if that ratio holds true across the state, we should have her on the ballot here in the Granite State.
Looks like that ratio held out perfectly.
N.H. Will Have Two More Presidential Candidates On The Ballot This November
Congrats. Ability to make choices good.
Part of me wants to see Trump win....just to see what happens!
I actually think him not being a natural politician counts hugely in his favour.... too often politics and reality become detached. So many politicians get elected having done nothing but politics in their lives and theyre just detached from reality IMO.
Similar to teachers.... very often the best ones have spent some years doing other things in life before they went into teaching.
1. President Obama has little legal experience actually practicing law. Has he ever practiced law inside an actual courtroom? All the current justices have had a great deal of actual courtroom experience.
2. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago as an adjunct(Wikipedia lists his final title as Senior Lecturer), but I don't think that going to be high on the list of qualifications.
3. Why would he go from the presidency to being an Associate Justice? His boss would be Chief Justice Roberts.
4. A President H. Clinton would want to put her own stamp on the Supreme Court.
1. The supreme court isn't like other court rooms. Also, many justices over the history of the court had no "court room" experience. The Supreme Court doesn't determine the outcome of cases like lower courts do, they don't determine sentences or fines. They look at the constitutionality of the law and what the intent of the law is. Obama has written, voted on and signed laws. He's one of only 5 people living who have signed bills into federal law.
2. The University of Chicago considers "senior lecturers" to be professors. They've stated this in press releases. The title is different because professors have additional benefits/responsibilities, like tenure, publishing, specific class loads, etc. Senior Lecturers are people the university brings in to teach classes because they are considered experts in their field.
For example, Richard Posner is considered one of the foremost experts on the American legal system and is a "senior lecturer".
3 and 4 are your own editorializing and nothing to back them up. I agree, it's unlikely, but Obama actually IS qualified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wants to see Trump win....just to see what happens!
I actually think him not being a natural politician counts hugely in his favour.... too often politics and reality become detached. So many politicians get elected having done nothing but politics in their lives and theyre just detached from reality IMO.
Similar to teachers.... very often the best ones have spent some years doing other things in life before they went into teaching.
I'm not sure a mega-rich businessman who inherited his wealth effectively is any less detached from reality than some career politicians.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wants to see Trump win....just to see what happens!
Trump will pick alt-right friendly SCotUS and circuit judges, and likely get us deeper into foreign conflicts that will kill tens of thousands and cripple the county with debt. Pence will gleefully implement his forced-birther/anti-women & anti-LBGTQ policies. The Tea Partier & alt-right House will cripple/repeal the Affordable Care Act and gut the rest of the social safety net. I'm happy for you, your loved ones, and your friends that will all manage to weather the Category 5 sh!tstorm & 8+ Richter scale earthquake that Trump's presidency will unleash on the US and beyond.
... as a poor barely-employed lesbian woman with some health issues, my prospects will be much much bleaker. The prospects of my family, my loved ones, my friends aren't any better. But hey, at least most of us can pass as white Christians; it could be even worse.
I actually think him not being a natural politician counts hugely in his favour.... too often politics and reality become detached. So many politicians get elected having done nothing but politics in their lives and theyre just detached from reality IMO.
Riiiiiight. Your saying Trump, a millionaire since birth who never worked all that hard for anything in his life, is in touch with the issues and stresses of the workers, the middle class, and the poor? From the evidence so far, I find it hard to believe Trump is even in touch with reality.
Similar to teachers.... very often the best ones have spent some years doing other things in life before they went into teaching.
That argument would be applicable for Trump if he was actually good at anything else other than being a narcissist attention-seeking bullsh!t artist.
The teleprompter usage and the overall tight lease Trump's campaign staff currently have on Trump seems to be helping quite a bit. the newest RealClear politics electoral map has WI, PA, and VI going from leaning Clinton to Toss up. Kind of fits my general sense that the American public has a really short memory.
Here's hoping that Trump fails miserably enough in his first debate to widen the current lead Hillary has over him.
Right, because the only thing that matters is star power and the ability to be spontaneous, not the ability to carefully create a plan and stick with it after using reason and good sense to decide your course of action.
Oh, wait...
well the fact that the Republicans have a presidential candidate that can't be allowed to even speak without saying something that turns off large segments of voters, including voters that should be supportive of his election run, is pretty damn hilarious.
This is a pretty good counterpoint to the ongoing Clinton Foundation "scandal" narrative that is being pushed: [WaMo] "How the Press is Making the Clinton Foundation into the New Benghazi".
For the presidential debate I want politifact checking the politicians and the "pants on fire" rating to be literal.
This seems a better counterpoint
A candidate's foundation getting busted for an actual illegal donation to a campaign group that appears to involve actual quid pro quo. But it's not the Clintons so who cares.
Or bribery in a criminal case...
Glastris? That's the former Clinton (Bill) speechwriter, right?
[Google searches]
Oh yeah, I saw him on Democracy Now!, where I first heard the "Bush had a foundtain, too!" talking point.
Debate: Should the Clinton Foundation Be Shut Down If Hillary Clinton Wins?
The teleprompter usage and the overall tight lease Trump's campaign staff currently have on Trump seems to be helping quite a bit. the newest RealClear politics electoral map has WI, PA, and VI going from leaning Clinton to Toss up. Kind of fits my general sense that the American public has a really short memory.
Here's hoping that Trump fails miserably enough in his first debate to widen the current lead Hillary has over him.
According to Reuters, that lead exists no longer. I wouldn't put too much truck in debates. Both Bushes and their VP picks pretty much performed like idiots in their debates, but that didn't stop them both from getting landslide victories. The "Willie Horton" card was far more effective for the Republicans than facts and logic ever played for the Democrats.
]Trump will complain when they soak his pants in oil before he goes to the podium, but it's really just
..hair product runoff.