I'm trying to remember, but wasn't it in Florida where Trumps' former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was charged with battery but the attorney declined to prosecute? Is that payment for services rendered?
No, because that wasn't battery. She was getting in a candidates face in an area designated for people to be able to walk through, he moved her away. It's on video and genuinely not indictable.
And then you get to worry about what polls are counted towards the averages, and if that biases things. Isn't it fun? 8D
Sarah palin's Caribou barbie routine where you pulled a cord and she spouted some random non sequitur prepared speech completely unrelated to the question during the speech worked oddly well for her with the base. I would expect trump to be better at it with more insults and it worries me how effective that often is in swaying people.
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.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.
Hillary's lead over Trump? Nationally it might be much closer, but the electoral map is really what counts. Hillary still has a much larger lead on that count than Trump. But the more toss up states lean her direction the more comfortable I will be with election day nearing
As for debates, I think the key difference between Trump and past Republican nominees is that Trump, if not giving a prepared speech, is far more likely to say or do things offensive to key voters. Hence the constant teleprompter use. However he can't really do that for a debate, and the fact he is incredibly thin-skinned makes me think hilarity will ensue. Assuming he doesn't find a way to back out of the debate at the last minute.
... 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.
"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!"I can't find the whole skit
That is why I have been predicting that Trump will win. (Like all of my presidential picks, it looks like I will be wrong yet again.) Trump can say just about anything, and his base will be very enthusiastic supporters. Trump might be an unhinged lunatic, but he is a genuine unhinged lunatic, and has been for decades. Republicans love charismatic showman who ignore the truth, like Reagan. Hillary, on the other hand is attempting to appeal to a more rational and fact based audience. The problem is, her words are at odds with decades of Clinton neo liberalism, and a level of hawkishness not seen since Jack D Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. She is asking voters to look at the facts, and ignore them at the same time. Trump is just chanting USA! USA! They are both relying on voters cognitive dissonance, but Trump is embracing it, Hillary is fighting it.As far as Obama and the Supreme Court- He has shown an absolute disregard for the 4th Amendment as well other fundamental parts of US law (e.g. Assassinating US citizens with Drones). Throw in his failure to hold anyone accountable for torture (as required by Geneva Conventions- which once ratified became US Law), and you have someone who has shown total disrespect for the law, to a criminal degree.
Part of me wants to see Trump win....just to see what happens!
Part of me wants to see a global disaster... just to see how society might recover into a different form.
That doesn't mean that I'd vote for engineering a super virus.
|
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.
1. I don't know of any Supreme Court Justices who have no judicial experience, or no actual legal experience. Chief Justice Warren had only a few years worth, but he did have some. I only checked the justices from the last hundred years from this list, so if there was one in the 1700s or 1800s, let me know. Most of the Supreme Court's case load is death penalty review, and federal statutory construction. The sexy constitutional stuff is what makes the press.
2. I've only read two of Judge Posner's books, but I agree he is Supreme Court material. He was (is still?) an adjunct professor at U Chicago (or as they term it a Senior Lecturer). Judge Posner has 35 years of experience as an appellate judge, which alone qualifies him. Not sure what you're trying to say. President Obama was an adjunct professor (part time, non tenured, ect). That was clear in my original post.
As for President Obama being "qualified", as stated above there are no actual qualifications. It will never happen, but hey, I may be wrong -- look at President/ Chief Justice Taft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The republicans need to have a lesson for screwing things up. If there's no downside to throwing a tantrum and shutting down the government to get what they want why wouldn't they just keep trying it every time?
Democrats need to show some life or change their symbol to the possum.
Part of me wants to see Trump win....just to see what happens!Part of me wants to see a global disaster... just to see how society might recover into a different form.
That doesn't mean that I'd vote for engineering a super virus.
I am entering the academic job market again in the coming year. A Trump presidency has a good chance of derailing the overall economy, not to mention Republicans having that much control over policy creates the likelihood of severe cuts to science and education funding. So my personal livelihood and future may very well depend on Hillary winning.
Hillary's lead over Trump? Nationally it might be much closer, but the electoral map is really what counts.A thousand times this. At the least, Trump needs to win Florida, and either Pennsylvania or Ohio. Statistically not impossible, but improbable.
When I did a tally a while ago (admittably with the electoral map slightly more favorable for Hillary), I found that for Trump to win not only does he need to lock down every red state, but also win practically every toss up state. At the time Hillary only needed 1 toss up, and I think it's increased to maybe two or three depending on the state. Still Trump has much more of an uphill climb toward the magical 270 than Hillary does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I don't know of any Supreme Court Justices who have no judicial experience, or no actual legal experience. Chief Justice Warren had only a few years worth, but he did have some. I only checked the justices from the last...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.
Really? I mean we just went over this. I provided a list. There are two in what is my children's living memory for crying outloud. There are prior members with even less experience than President Obama has in the field of law. The only thing "odd" about him for SCOTUS is the fact that he has been president for two terms.
Which I would argue could make for an excellent counterpoint. That prior experience in the presidency could help him cut through the bullcrap easier or have a better idea of where the government is coming from when before the bench leading to a more critical eye.
1. I don't know of any Supreme Court Justices who have no judicial experience, or no actual legal experience. Chief Justice Warren had only a few years worth, but he did have some. I only checked the justices from the last...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.
Are you claiming that every person on the list you linked had judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court?
|
OTOH, he'd have to recuse himself from far too many cases. Anything involving laws he'd signed or policies that started in his administration.Really? I mean we just went over this. I provided a list. There are two in what is my children's living memory for crying outloud. There are prior members with even less experience than President Obama has in the field of law. The only thing "odd" about him for SCOTUS is the fact that he has been president for two terms.
Which I would argue could make for an excellent counterpoint. That prior experience in the presidency could help him cut through the bullcrap easier or have a better idea of where the government is coming from when before the bench leading to a more critical eye.
Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.OTOH, he'd have to recuse himself from far too many cases. Anything involving laws he'd signed or policies that started in his administration.Really? I mean we just went over this. I provided a list. There are two in what is my children's living memory for crying outloud. There are prior members with even less experience than President Obama has in the field of law. The only thing "odd" about him for SCOTUS is the fact that he has been president for two terms.
Which I would argue could make for an excellent counterpoint. That prior experience in the presidency could help him cut through the bullcrap easier or have a better idea of where the government is coming from when before the bench leading to a more critical eye.
The ACA doesn't have his name on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.
Their heads explode, the lawsuits drop. We'll be fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ACA doesn't have his name on it.Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.OTOH, he'd have to recuse himself from far too many cases. Anything involving laws he'd signed or policies that started in his administration.Really? I mean we just went over this. I provided a list. There are two in what is my children's living memory for crying outloud. There are prior members with even less experience than President Obama has in the field of law. The only thing "odd" about him for SCOTUS is the fact that he has been president for two terms.
Which I would argue could make for an excellent counterpoint. That prior experience in the presidency could help him cut through the bullcrap easier or have a better idea of where the government is coming from when before the bench leading to a more critical eye.
After years of listening to the Republicans put his name on the ACA as a pegorative, Obama decided to turn the tables on them and embrace it.
And people are living a mindset of denial if they believe that Justices in the Court have no political bias.
I don't know, he left bruises on her wrist, and she wasn't baring Trump's progress.
He would have had to push her, whatever that thing is she's holding, out of the way to move forward faster. That is way to close for someone to be.
She was somewhere she shouldn't be, someone that was supposed to be there removed her out of the way with a minimum amount of force.It was grab yoink done. It's perfectly legal. Bruises happen when you grab people.
trumps statements on the matter are headeskingly bad and the guy lied about it, but it is your event and you can scoot people out of it, unless you want to make every bouncer, security guard and store manager a criminal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Don't know why I was prompted to look up Corey Lewandowski, but when I did I learned that he was raised in Lowell (son of a union printer), graduated from UMass Lowell and resides in New Hampshire.
It's like he's the Anti-Anklebiter or something.
Did he sign it with an 'X' then?Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.The ACA doesn't have his name on it.
Who can read cursive anymore
is that they're law enforcement and can lawfully put their hands on people to protect who they're assigned to safeguard.
You do not need to be law enforcement to do that. Bouncers toss people out all the time, and some of them are actually hurt.
As to if the reporter had a right to be there or not, they were leaving a press conference, which as a member of the press she was allowed to attend, and Trump was walking down the center of the conference floor. Suggesting that she was somewhere she shouldn't have been is ridiculous.
She is in his face, way too close, and not getting out of the way. That's somewhere she's not supposed to be. Nothing morally wrong with a reporter being pushy (if you're not you don't get your questions answered) but if you act like that people are going to push back. There's nothing remotely suspicious about not prosecuting a case they can't win over an injury that small.
|
She is in his face, way too close, and not getting out of the way.
Entirely subjective. From the video I recall it seemed like she approached him from the side and asked a question without impeding his progress at all. At that... he was walking through a crowd of reporters, and talking to many of them as he went. Making the whole, 'she should not have been there asking him questions' bit ridiculous.
There's nothing remotely suspicious about not prosecuting a case they can't win over an injury that small.
Here I agree.
Not that Lewandowski didn't commit simple assault... but rather that it isn't suspicious the charges were dropped, because it is almost impossible to prove assault in those circumstances. Lewandowski need only present things the way you have been doing. Fields touched Trump's arm (very lightly, to get his attention)... Lewandowski claimed he was concerned for Trump's safety. Maybe Fields was assaulting Trump! She lost her balance and he just held on to keep her from getting hurt worse. Et cetera.
The ACA doesn't have his name on it.Biggest point against him right there. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans are done suing about Obamacare, yet. You can't fairly consider a law with your name on it.OTOH, he'd have to recuse himself from far too many cases. Anything involving laws he'd signed or policies that started in his administration.Really? I mean we just went over this. I provided a list. There are two in what is my children's living memory for crying outloud. There are prior members with even less experience than President Obama has in the field of law. The only thing "odd" about him for SCOTUS is the fact that he has been president for two terms.
Which I would argue could make for an excellent counterpoint. That prior experience in the presidency could help him cut through the bullcrap easier or have a better idea of where the government is coming from when before the bench leading to a more critical eye.
After years of listening to the Republicans put his name on the ACA as a pegorative, Obama decided to turn the tables on them and embrace it.
And people are living a mindset of denial if they believe that Justices in the Court have no political bias.
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.
Like you thejeff, I don't think it's ever going to happen, but wouldn't he be uniquely qualified to explain the original intent? You'd think the more conservative justices would jump at the chance. It'd be like consulting the founding fathers about the Bill of Rights! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like you thejeff, I don't think it's ever going to happen, but wouldn't he be uniquely qualified to explain the original intent? You'd think the more conservative justices would jump at the chance. It'd be like consulting the founding fathers about the Bill of Rights! :P
I think you would need to go to the "architect" of the ACA, Elizabeth Folwer. She bounced back and forth between working as a lobbyist for the nations largest health insurance company, Wellpoint, and working as counsel for the head of the committee that drafted the ACA.
I'm going to guess that most of those people don't even understand the concept of reclusing oneself...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to guess that most of those people don't even understand the concept of reclusing oneself...
Scalia didn't recuse himself back in 2014 in his hunting buddy's Cheney's court case. Thomas didn't recuse himself from cases involving Liberty Central (where his wife worked) and Monsanto (who he himself previously worked for).
Edit: Although with Scalia dead and having no one else to copy answers from, Thomas might as well recluse himself.
"Quack, quack," Pillbug.
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Other than his signature, of course.
I don't know beyond that what you mean by "his name on it". For the original purposes of bringing it up, should he be appointed to the Supreme Court, he should recuse himself from any cases involving it.
I think it would be highly debatable if he should or shouldn't. Ultimately though, it would be his choice as their is no legal mechanism to force a Supreme Court justice's recusal, nor penalties for not doing so. There are only guidelines.
Judges are supposed to recuse themselves for any case which they have expressed an opinion on before. So any justice that wrote an opinion on a case involving a law, would basically have to recuse themselves for having written that opinion/dissent.
Kagan recused her self 28 times, but didn't for the case involving the ACA, even though she was on staff at the White House and helped prepare legal defenses for the bill. It can be argued what she should have done, but the fact remains that nothing stopped her from making a decision on the case.
Our only other direct precedent, Taft, only recused himself voluntarily once. He recused himself several other times, but he retired and then died several weeks later, so it was just a health decision. Of course, during that era, most cases involving the constitutionality of laws were state laws as not many federal laws got challenged.
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Other than his signature, of course.
I don't know beyond that what you mean by "his name on it". For the original purposes of bringing it up, should he be appointed to the Supreme Court, he should recuse himself from any cases involving it.
Why? Because he signed it? That, besides being it's advocate is his only actual involvement in it. The name "Obamacare" is still in the main, one used only by news commentators, and Republicans who want to destroy it. For awhile it also went by Rommneycare as it's essentially identical to the system Mitch Romney put in when he was Governer.
By that logic, given that he was the Executor of all of U.S. policy, he'd have to recuse himself from anything involving the United States during his eight years as President. More if you're going to throw in his years as a Senator as well.
It's moot, because I don't think that Obama is either, a good Supreme Court candidate, nor is he interested in the job.
Entirely subjective.
But legitimately subjective to us watching the play by play from the camera angle. Doubly so for the guy on the floor reaching past other people
Making the whole, 'she should not have been there asking him questions' bit ridiculous.
It's not. He's walking down the isle and there's a stream of people. There's no ropes or anything but the people leaving have a pretty obvious path and she hopped into the stream. He might have used another way to get rid of her, but there was another guy in suit in between them that he had to reach past.
Or for that matter, since we're talking about Corey Lewandowski, that he went from campaign chair to CNN political commentator while still collecting pay from the campaign. Apparently now helping him prep for the debates.
It's weird that you can buy an election without comment but "oh my god he touched a girl!" gets outrage.
yay liberal media. I only have ONE person paid to promote my viewpoints while pretending to be an unaffiliated talking head.
I probably shouldn't ask what you mean by that.
That the standard for "liberal" media is that you only get to buy 1 talking head instead of owning the entire set (like fox "news")
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.
Dude, I checked.
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Dude, I checked.
And what's the name of the bill?
I agree, his name is on the signature of the bill. We don't call every bill over the past 8 years "Obama[bill specific reference]"
I'm really done with the recusal discussion. It's a hypothetical on a hypothetical.
I think SC justices should recuse themselves when they feel their judgement is compromised. We put them there to be our highest arbiters, they should sit on cases that come, unless they know they can't actually judge fairly. To that ends, we have to trust them to be their own best judges, because they aren't answerable to anyone else.