thanks for your correction Pepe my mistake I diden't check that stuff,my bad....I still don't trust the guy.
and no I don't think it was she could have been a little more polite in her post,when I'm wrong I'll gladley accept the truth and apoligize all you have to do is say so.
Godfather.
She could've been a little more polite, but you also could've taken the high road and refrained from calling her a bitch...
yes your right but she pissed me off, was this such a bad thing because she is a woman that I posted towards
or you all just upset over my language ? I would love to hear this one.
Godfather.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
thanks for your correction Pepe my mistake I diden't check that stuff,my bad....I still don't trust the guy.
and no I don't think it was she could have been a little more polite in her post,when I'm wrong I'll gladley accept the truth and apoligize all you have to do is say so.
Godfather.
She could've been a little more polite, but you also could've taken the high road and refrained from calling her a bitch...
yes your right but she pissed me off, was this such a bad thing because she is a woman that I posted towards
or you all just upset over my language ? I would love to hear this one.
Godfather.
The language was the problem the fact that she was a female and may disagre with you matters none. This is a public forum and we should all respect each other. Calling out stupidity is one thing but calling a person a name such as that is out of order is totally disrespectful. We've all made mistakes on here and I know I've and I've been called out but I find no need to call someone else a bitch. That to me is a NO NO, I thought you knew better.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I usually keep my cool around here, I'm not sure what the difference was this morning, but I regret posting that. It was a knee jerk reaction when I saw the quote. However, he posted a pretty terrible and disrespectful quote written by a conservative and then attributed it to Obama. So this is not a difference of opinion - it's a complete fabrication which he put in quotation marks. Add to that that this is not the first time he's posted these email forwards without any fact-checking and then tried to get away with a quick "my bad" afterwards.
If you want to be considered intelligent than you don't just forward any old piece of drivel that someone sends you. Just because someone puts it in an email or in quotation marks doesn't make it true. Question it, look it up first.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you hate Obama so much is that you believe these things you are forwarded? And maybe he's not the monster these emails like this make him out to be?
G under P............I know, but what's the difference here both were a crappy display of human kindness
as a matter of fact this whole forum reeks of it from time to time,name calling or personal attacks where is the line drawn ?.
I do apoligize for my out-burst to michell (NO NO noted G )
I usually keep my cool around here, I'm not sure what the difference was this morning, but I regret posting that. It was a knee jerk reaction when I saw the quote. However, he posted a pretty terrible and disrespectful quote written by a conservative and then attributed it to Obama. So this is not a difference of opinion - it's a complete fabrication which he put in quotation marks. Add to that that this is not the first time he's posted these email forwards without any fact-checking and then tried to get away with a quick "my bad" afterwards.
If you want to be considered intelligent than you don't just forward any old piece of drivel that someone sends you. Just because someone puts it in an email or in quotation marks doesn't make it true. Question it, look it up first.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you hate Obama so much is that you believe these things you are forwarded? And maybe he's not the monster these emails like this make him out to be?
OOOOOOH boy ! good night Gracie.
Godfather.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
G under P............I know, but what's the difference here both were a crappy display of human kindness
as a matter of fact this whole forum reeks of it from time to time,name calling or personal attacks where is the line drawn ?.
I do apoligize for my out-burst to michell (NO NO noted G )
Godfather.
Sometimes we should ALL laugh at ourselves. I gather that No No comes from years ago when I used to teach pre-school. I can specifically recall saying that to a pre-schooler who used the N-word on the playground. Definately a No No.
It's all good....GF
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I usually keep my cool around here, I'm not sure what the difference was this morning, but I regret posting that. It was a knee jerk reaction when I saw the quote. However, he posted a pretty terrible and disrespectful quote written by a conservative and then attributed it to Obama. So this is not a difference of opinion - it's a complete fabrication which he put in quotation marks. Add to that that this is not the first time he's posted these email forwards without any fact-checking and then tried to get away with a quick "my bad" afterwards.
If you want to be considered intelligent than you don't just forward any old piece of drivel that someone sends you. Just because someone puts it in an email or in quotation marks doesn't make it true. Question it, look it up first.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you hate Obama so much is that you believe these things you are forwarded? And maybe he's not the monster these emails like this make him out to be?
I should post some of the stuff my father-in-law sends me. It's all about how Obama was born in Kenya, how he comes from a long line of socialists, and how he's part of some far-reaching conspiracy to bring American down. The best part is that after we started sending him the Snopes pages refuting what he sent, he started sending them with "I checked this on Snopes and it's true" attached, assuming we wouldn't then bother to check (we still checked, and they still weren't true).
The saddest example I have is when a friend of his, before the election, sent around the oft-forwarded email about how Obama was a Kenyan who was raised in a terrorist training school. I replied and went through line-by-line correcting all of the inaccuracies, and then told her she shouldn't forward hate-filled emails that had no basis in reality. She replied "Well, it's still something worth thinking about."
Some people you just can't talk to.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained. "Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute.." "I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country, "Obama continued "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
-obama
I hope nobody is superised by his latest choices, the fool is full of superises and they just keep getting better
Q: Did Obama accuse veterans of "selfishness" and whining? Would he have forced them to "pay for their war injuries"?
A: This chain e-mail contains fabricated quotes and misrepresents a budget idea that the White House scrapped. The quotes were intended as satire.
FULL QUESTION
This e-mail is circulating. What is the truth about this one?
FULL ANSWER
We’ve received many copies and variations of this e-mail in the past few weeks.
Made-up Quotes
To start, the e-mail’s anonymous author offers no evidence to substantiate the disparaging remarks about veterans that he or she attributes to President Obama. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told us that "these quotes are fabricated."
Our own research backs that up. We searched news databases and turned up no news organization that has ever quoted Obama this way. We conclude that these quotes are simply made-up, and perhaps intended as satire.
Update, Sept. 25: Long after we posted this article, we discovered that the quotes were indeed intended as satire. They are the product of conservative humorist John Semmens, who posted them originally March 21, 2009. They appeared in Semmens’ column, "Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News," at the online publication The Arizona Conservative.
thanks for your correction Pepe my mistake I diden't check that stuff,my bad....I still don't trust the guy.
and no I don't think it was she could have been a little more polite in her post,when I'm wrong I'll gladley accept the truth and apoligize all you have to do is say so.
Godfather.
quote="g under p"Well Godfather, your post was a post of stupidity and it appears she was calling it as she sees it and rightfully so.
Peace
And he was calling it, as it is !......
Double standards?
I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.
Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(
After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.
Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(
After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.
Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(
something like 40 of the 111 supreme court justices have not had experience being a judge, so I don't know why everyone is worried about this. To say she "isn't experienced" is ridiculous. She is probably one of the top 10 people in Law in the damn world. A judge has experience... making decisions based on the facts perceieved truths. Its not like she wants to become an astronaut and has never flown a plane before...
I do not like her opinion on holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial.
I do like her stance on gay rights, marriage, etc.
Other than that, we know very little about her stance on key topics...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
And he was calling it, as it is !......
Double standards?
I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female
If he can't take the insults that come his way, maybe he should stop posting gibberish fabricated quotes without fact-checking them first?
The original insult was harsh, and she apologized for it - but it's not like godfather comes out of this smelling like roses, either. He posted utter bollocks, and later admitted that he hadn't even taken 10 seconds to fact-check it before posting it, but when he got called out for it he called the person a bitch.
Seriously, is yet another threat on AMT going to be hijacked by name calling?
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.
Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(
that's what people say about obama too !
Godfather.
the supreme court justices have the most power in just about all of the government. Think about it, they are appointed for life, and basically get to choose how the federal and state governments get to legislate based on their interpretations of the constitution. For someone to be nominated to the position without ever deciding a case is very unnerving. The cases these justices hear are the cream of the crop so to speak.
I think the whole country finally realized how important the justices were during the 2000 election. For instance, if the AG challenges are heard, this woman could be deciding the legalities of the new health care law, do we really want someone with no experience as a judge deciding something that will effect the whole country and put new implied powers in the constitution? If she is confirmed hopefully this worry will all be for not. I don't care if she is a liberal "living document" type judge or a strict contitutionalist, just hope she is up for the challenge. She has about as much judge experience as Harriet Miers and she was roundly rejected. Not to say they are the same, but just because you are smart or a good lawyer doesn't mean you will make a good judge.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
again, 40 of the 111 supreme court justices did not have experience being a judge.
it isn't that rare, although it hasn't happened during the past few decades.
some of the "best" justices didn't have experience being a judge... Earl Warren (social freedoms), William Rehnquist (federalism), John Marshall (made the Supreme Court a center of power). Marshall is considered by most historians to be the "best" justice of all time.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
again, 40 of the 111 supreme court justices did not have experience being a judge.
it isn't that rare, although it hasn't happened during the past few decades.
some of the "best" justices didn't have experience being a judge... Earl Warren (social freedoms), William Rehnquist (federalism), John Marshall (made the Supreme Court a center of power). Marshall is considered by most historians to be the "best" justice of all time.
I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge. It certainly can work out and hopefully it does. My guess is she will have a tough confirmation simply because of the fact she hasn't been a judge. Can you imagine someone bringing up a paper you wrote 20 years ago and questioning you about it? no thanks.
That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.
I don't think there is any question about that. She has a conservative view about terrorist suspects but I don't find that to be odd at all, considering she is Jewish. Everything else should tell us that she'll be a liberal voice for years to come... but I'm not of the opinion that that is definitely a good thing. If we use the word conservative in its modern definition, then yes I wouldn't want another conservative person in the court. But if we use the appropriate definition of conservative (minimal government, personal freedom, staunch support of the 10th amendment) then I would be all for it. The modern liberal approach is becoming over-bearing in my opinion. We might as well just nerf the whole fucking world to make everyone safe.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:
"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.
“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Because I like the idea of someone who has made decisions and presided over cases with worry of any decision they make being overturned at appeal. It just seems to me that someone who has gone through this type of decision making would be better suited for such an important position. Again it is only my opinion, it isn't like it is impossible to do a good job without going through those things. I just would be more comfortable with someone who has made decisions before overturning cases than someone who hasn't.
That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.
I don't think there is any question about that. She has a conservative view about terrorist suspects but I don't find that to be odd at all, considering she is Jewish. Everything else should tell us that she'll be a liberal voice for years to come... but I'm not of the opinion that that is definitely a good thing. If we use the word conservative in its modern definition, then yes I wouldn't want another conservative person in the court. But if we use the appropriate definition of conservative (minimal government, personal freedom, staunch support of the 10th amendment) then I would be all for it. The modern liberal approach is becoming over-bearing in my opinion. We might as well just nerf the whole fucking world to make everyone safe.
possibly, I just like the idea of opposite ideologies sitting on the bench. If they all thought the same, or we only put in people who think the same, there might as well only be one. I don't agree with a lot of the liberal agenda but firmly believe that they need a voice on the bench considering many in this country do agree with it.[/quote]
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:
"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.
“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"
She made absolutely the right decision here and upheld the discrimination rule... it doesn't matter at all who it is doing the discrimination (Acme Inc or the US Military).
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:
"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.
“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"
She made absolutely the right decision here and upheld the discrimination rule... it doesn't matter at all who it is doing the discrimination (Acme Inc or the US Military).
i saw on fox news, of all places, this is actually not true. she never banned recruiters from harvard, as chris matthews said last night
The facts behind the decision not to allow military recruiters at Harvard are subtler than Kagan’s critics make them out to be. For one thing, Kagan wasn't the one who barred the recruiters. Her predecessor as dean, Robert Clark, has explained that the military was barred from the law school’s Office of Career Services under its antidiscrimination policy since 1979—long before Kagan had even entered Harvard Law School, much less taken the job as dean.
so not only did she not do it but they were only banned from 1 office, not the campus
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
President Obama nominates Solicitor General Elena Kagan to U.S. Supreme Court, potentially making her first justice without judicial experience in 38 years...........obama had no experience either..what a superise :?
Godfather.
dubyaa's dad brought 1 up with less than 1 year experience and dubyaa picked 1 with less than 2 years.
and what was dubyaa experienced at anyway?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge.
Why?
Are you serious? You can't figure it out?
I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.
She listens to arguments and makes a decision based on the evidence... she has been part of this process for years so I think she understands it fairly well.
Listen.
Understand.
Decide.
This is so fucking retarded.... its not like a judge has some sort of skill that can only be acquired by wearing a fucking black robe.
So please can anyone else explain this to me? She has the most impressive Law Resume I've ever seen, a judge has an incredibly simple job description... what is the g'damn problem?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
And he was calling it, as it is !......
Double standards?
I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female
If he can't take the insults that come his way, maybe he should stop posting gibberish fabricated quotes without fact-checking them first?
The original insult was harsh, and she apologized for it - but it's not like godfather comes out of this smelling like roses, either. He posted utter bollocks, and later admitted that he hadn't even taken 10 seconds to fact-check it before posting it, but when he got called out for it he called the person a bitch.
Seriously, is yet another threat on AMT going to be hijacked by name calling?
She listens to arguments and makes a decision based on the evidence... she has been part of this process for years so I think she understands it fairly well.
Listen.
Understand.
Decide.
This is so fucking retarded.... its not like a judge has some sort of skill that can only be acquired by wearing a fucking black robe.
So please can anyone else explain this to me? She has the most impressive Law Resume I've ever seen, a judge has an incredibly simple job description... what is the g'damn problem?
So by your definition, just about any parent is qualified for the supreme court.
Just like someone else said, she could be just fine. But I'd much rather have a current judge appointed to the Supreme Court. It's a lifetime thing ya know, you can't just hope for the best.
Comments
yes your right but she pissed me off, was this such a bad thing because she is a woman that I posted towards
or you all just upset over my language ? I would love to hear this one.
Godfather.
The language was the problem the fact that she was a female and may disagre with you matters none. This is a public forum and we should all respect each other. Calling out stupidity is one thing but calling a person a name such as that is out of order is totally disrespectful. We've all made mistakes on here and I know I've and I've been called out but I find no need to call someone else a bitch. That to me is a NO NO, I thought you knew better.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I usually keep my cool around here, I'm not sure what the difference was this morning, but I regret posting that. It was a knee jerk reaction when I saw the quote. However, he posted a pretty terrible and disrespectful quote written by a conservative and then attributed it to Obama. So this is not a difference of opinion - it's a complete fabrication which he put in quotation marks. Add to that that this is not the first time he's posted these email forwards without any fact-checking and then tried to get away with a quick "my bad" afterwards.
If you want to be considered intelligent than you don't just forward any old piece of drivel that someone sends you. Just because someone puts it in an email or in quotation marks doesn't make it true. Question it, look it up first.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you hate Obama so much is that you believe these things you are forwarded? And maybe he's not the monster these emails like this make him out to be?
as a matter of fact this whole forum reeks of it from time to time,name calling or personal attacks where is the line drawn ?.
I do apoligize for my out-burst to michell (NO NO noted G
Godfather.
OOOOOOH boy ! good night Gracie.
Godfather.
It's all good....GF
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I should post some of the stuff my father-in-law sends me. It's all about how Obama was born in Kenya, how he comes from a long line of socialists, and how he's part of some far-reaching conspiracy to bring American down. The best part is that after we started sending him the Snopes pages refuting what he sent, he started sending them with "I checked this on Snopes and it's true" attached, assuming we wouldn't then bother to check (we still checked, and they still weren't true).
The saddest example I have is when a friend of his, before the election, sent around the oft-forwarded email about how Obama was a Kenyan who was raised in a terrorist training school. I replied and went through line-by-line correcting all of the inaccuracies, and then told her she shouldn't forward hate-filled emails that had no basis in reality. She replied "Well, it's still something worth thinking about."
Some people you just can't talk to.
How exactly is an unsubstantiated rumor about her sexual preference relevant to whether or not she will do a good job on the Supreme Court?
Double standards?
I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female
Godfather.
Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(
that's what people say about obama too !
Godfather.
something like 40 of the 111 supreme court justices have not had experience being a judge, so I don't know why everyone is worried about this. To say she "isn't experienced" is ridiculous. She is probably one of the top 10 people in Law in the damn world. A judge has experience... making decisions based on the facts perceieved truths. Its not like she wants to become an astronaut and has never flown a plane before...
I do not like her opinion on holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial.
I do like her stance on gay rights, marriage, etc.
Other than that, we know very little about her stance on key topics...
If he can't take the insults that come his way, maybe he should stop posting gibberish fabricated quotes without fact-checking them first?
The original insult was harsh, and she apologized for it - but it's not like godfather comes out of this smelling like roses, either. He posted utter bollocks, and later admitted that he hadn't even taken 10 seconds to fact-check it before posting it, but when he got called out for it he called the person a bitch.
Seriously, is yet another threat on AMT going to be hijacked by name calling?
the supreme court justices have the most power in just about all of the government. Think about it, they are appointed for life, and basically get to choose how the federal and state governments get to legislate based on their interpretations of the constitution. For someone to be nominated to the position without ever deciding a case is very unnerving. The cases these justices hear are the cream of the crop so to speak.
I think the whole country finally realized how important the justices were during the 2000 election. For instance, if the AG challenges are heard, this woman could be deciding the legalities of the new health care law, do we really want someone with no experience as a judge deciding something that will effect the whole country and put new implied powers in the constitution? If she is confirmed hopefully this worry will all be for not. I don't care if she is a liberal "living document" type judge or a strict contitutionalist, just hope she is up for the challenge. She has about as much judge experience as Harriet Miers and she was roundly rejected. Not to say they are the same, but just because you are smart or a good lawyer doesn't mean you will make a good judge.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it isn't that rare, although it hasn't happened during the past few decades.
some of the "best" justices didn't have experience being a judge... Earl Warren (social freedoms), William Rehnquist (federalism), John Marshall (made the Supreme Court a center of power). Marshall is considered by most historians to be the "best" justice of all time.
I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge. It certainly can work out and hopefully it does. My guess is she will have a tough confirmation simply because of the fact she hasn't been a judge. Can you imagine someone bringing up a paper you wrote 20 years ago and questioning you about it? no thanks.
That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why?
I don't think there is any question about that. She has a conservative view about terrorist suspects but I don't find that to be odd at all, considering she is Jewish. Everything else should tell us that she'll be a liberal voice for years to come... but I'm not of the opinion that that is definitely a good thing. If we use the word conservative in its modern definition, then yes I wouldn't want another conservative person in the court. But if we use the appropriate definition of conservative (minimal government, personal freedom, staunch support of the 10th amendment) then I would be all for it. The modern liberal approach is becoming over-bearing in my opinion. We might as well just nerf the whole fucking world to make everyone safe.
"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.
“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Because I like the idea of someone who has made decisions and presided over cases with worry of any decision they make being overturned at appeal. It just seems to me that someone who has gone through this type of decision making would be better suited for such an important position. Again it is only my opinion, it isn't like it is impossible to do a good job without going through those things. I just would be more comfortable with someone who has made decisions before overturning cases than someone who hasn't.
possibly, I just like the idea of opposite ideologies sitting on the bench. If they all thought the same, or we only put in people who think the same, there might as well only be one. I don't agree with a lot of the liberal agenda but firmly believe that they need a voice on the bench considering many in this country do agree with it.[/quote]
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
She made absolutely the right decision here and upheld the discrimination rule... it doesn't matter at all who it is doing the discrimination (Acme Inc or the US Military).
Are you serious? You can't figure it out?
I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.
i saw on fox news, of all places, this is actually not true. she never banned recruiters from harvard, as chris matthews said last night
http://www.campusprogress.org/opinions/ ... -about-her
The facts behind the decision not to allow military recruiters at Harvard are subtler than Kagan’s critics make them out to be. For one thing, Kagan wasn't the one who barred the recruiters. Her predecessor as dean, Robert Clark, has explained that the military was barred from the law school’s Office of Career Services under its antidiscrimination policy since 1979—long before Kagan had even entered Harvard Law School, much less taken the job as dean.
so not only did she not do it but they were only banned from 1 office, not the campus
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
dubyaa's dad brought 1 up with less than 1 year experience and dubyaa picked 1 with less than 2 years.
and what was dubyaa experienced at anyway?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
She listens to arguments and makes a decision based on the evidence... she has been part of this process for years so I think she understands it fairly well.
Listen.
Understand.
Decide.
This is so fucking retarded.... its not like a judge has some sort of skill that can only be acquired by wearing a fucking black robe.
So please can anyone else explain this to me? She has the most impressive Law Resume I've ever seen, a judge has an incredibly simple job description... what is the g'damn problem?
I also apologized cajun,get over it I did.
Godfather.
So by your definition, just about any parent is qualified for the supreme court.
Just like someone else said, she could be just fine. But I'd much rather have a current judge appointed to the Supreme Court. It's a lifetime thing ya know, you can't just hope for the best.