Prominent Clinton Researcher Author Victor Thorn found dead of apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound
note–at this point the info is scant, but the ‘official’ story is that Victor apparently took his own life.
A shit load of people with close ties to the Clintons and their respective operations turning up dead. All coincidences, right? I've never paid to much attention to these because that's when you really start to appear like a conspiracy nut, however the recent deaths of that DNC data guy and now this guy are very troubling
Typically, with any pieces of legitimate news, you would see some legitimate news sites listed, instead of nearly plain-text conspiracy-leaning news sites such as: American Free Press, Citizens for Legitimate Government, govtslave.info, theuglytruth.wordpress.com. Or it could be Victor Thorn's 2012 book, The Holocaust Hoax Exposed. Yes - you really are starting to appear like a conspiracy nut when that's what a search for Victor Thorn yields on Google's first page of results.
Edactly what "legitimate news sites" are you talking about? And why would you think of any sort of this sort of news of the kind would ever be wide spread?
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I really like this answer...so reasonable and well-thought. I also think he'd be a great justice but only the best and most experienced should make it to the 9.
1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...
2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...
That's an interesting paradox. You want there to be some valuation for social responsibility, but you deride those companies that try to achieve that as unsustainable.
it's not a paradox whatsoever ... do you own any of these funds!? ... do a semi-deep dive and look at the companies ...
ultimately, it's not about these funds or any other ... it's about an economic and societal system that factors in externalities that currently are not factored into the equation ... you can't operate within a model that is both dependent on our natural resources but not yet factor in the preservation of those resources ... right now - we are supposed to believe that things are great if an oil company can produce as much oil as possible for as little as possible ... nothing in that valuation considers the impacts of pollution, global warming, destroyed ecosystems or the like ... how is that a good model?
As far as your chief complaint, here is the great thing about America... if you really care about the environment, employee relations, charitable work, etc., there is information and FREEDOM to invest in the companies that best represent your value system. The information is available for you. I would guess you would never invest in Exxon regardless of what its P/E ratio is. By contrast, if you don't give a shit about those things, you have the option to invest purely based on PE, beta, ROI, EPS, whatever metric you want.
But if enough people care about it and start making it a factor in their investment decisions, and this manifests into decisions by institutional investors, who by far are the ones that move the market, then every company will start incorporating this information into their investment calls. That's how it happens.
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
Me too, but it seems to be a moot point. Obama already said that he's not interested in being a judge after his presidency.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
Me too, but it seems to be a moot point. Obama already said that he's not interested in being a judge after his presidency.
He is going to fulfill his dream of being a cage fighter.
I would say that's the idea when you run ... take votes from the other parties anyway you can. Not hard to be president of the us...just do as corporate America wants.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...
2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...
That's an interesting paradox. You want there to be some valuation for social responsibility, but you deride those companies that try to achieve that as unsustainable.
it's not a paradox whatsoever ... do you own any of these funds!? ... do a semi-deep dive and look at the companies ...
ultimately, it's not about these funds or any other ... it's about an economic and societal system that factors in externalities that currently are not factored into the equation ... you can't operate within a model that is both dependent on our natural resources but not yet factor in the preservation of those resources ... right now - we are supposed to believe that things are great if an oil company can produce as much oil as possible for as little as possible ... nothing in that valuation considers the impacts of pollution, global warming, destroyed ecosystems or the like ... how is that a good model?
As far as your chief complaint, here is the great thing about America... if you really care about the environment, employee relations, charitable work, etc., there is information and FREEDOM to invest in the companies that best represent your value system. The information is available for you. I would guess you would never invest in Exxon regardless of what its P/E ratio is. By contrast, if you don't give a shit about those things, you have the option to invest purely based on PE, beta, ROI, EPS, whatever metric you want.
But if enough people care about it and start making it a factor in their investment decisions, and this manifests into decisions by institutional investors, who by far are the ones that move the market, then every company will start incorporating this information into their investment calls. That's how it happens.
well ... firstly, you completely missed my point on your socially responsible funds ... it isn't their performance - it's actually which companies qualify in these funds ... mining, oil and gas ... the criteria is loose and it's all based on self-reporting and we all know corporations cannot be trusted to be truthful ... it's essentially buying diet soda ... you may think it's good for you but in reality it's crap ...
secondly, I've mentioned in other threads that our true medium for change is not gov't but in fact our choices with our consumer spending ... so, I'm already doing that ... but I also have the luxury of being able to afford the choices I make in that regard for my necessities ...
lastly - all of the above doesn't change the fact that not only is the game rigged ... it's objective is faulty ... the current game is based on people exploiting and sacrificing other people in order to get to the top of a mountain no one needs to be on ... when really the game's objective is that we all can live in peace in perpetuity ...
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution. He may have claimed he wasn't, but it certainly appeared that way. I believe he called himself a 'textualist' or something like that.
You could argue Clarence Thomas has been ineffective, but that's different as unqualified.
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.
So your argument that Scalia was unqualified was because he's a conservative?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.
So your argument that Scalia was unqualified was because he's a conservative?
No, not specifically. A left winger could do the exact same thing, though I think it's definitely more common with the bible thumpers, and those are always conservatives. It's because he allowed his personal beliefs to outweigh what the Constitution (not to mention logic) clearly supports. Really, if all of the SCOTUS justices were doing their jobs properly, there wouldn't be so many votes split down the middle.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.
So your argument that Scalia was unqualified was because he's a conservative?
No, not specifically. A left winger could do the exact same thing, though I think it's definitely more common with the bible thumpers, and those are always conservatives. It's because he allowed his personal beliefs to outweigh what the Constitution (not to mention logic) clearly supports. Really, if all of the SCOTUS justices were doing their jobs properly, there wouldn't be so many votes split down the middle.
I hear what you're sahing. I just disagree on your premise that SCJ's are not qualified going in. What I mean by qualified is serving as a federal judge. I don't know the number, if any, of justices that weren't judges prior to them being niminated.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.
I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.
I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).
Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.
Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.
Which ones?
All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.
Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.
I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).
Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.
So your argument that Scalia was unqualified was because he's a conservative?
No, not specifically. A left winger could do the exact same thing, though I think it's definitely more common with the bible thumpers, and those are always conservatives. It's because he allowed his personal beliefs to outweigh what the Constitution (not to mention logic) clearly supports. Really, if all of the SCOTUS justices were doing their jobs properly, there wouldn't be so many votes split down the middle.
I hear what you're sahing. I just disagree on your premise that SCJ's are not qualified going in. What I mean by qualified is serving as a federal judge. I don't know the number, if any, of justices that weren't judges prior to them being niminated.
We're just talking semantics then. I'm just not using the word "qualified" the same way you are in this context. Some of the are unqualified to be SCOTUS justices the same way cops who excelled during training and got their badge but have extreme anger issues still aren't qualified to be a cop even though they are on paper. When it comes to the SCOTUS appointments, that's a big political game too, so there's another factor to consider. It's not like they are usually chosen just because they were good judges with a reputation for not allowing personal beliefs to get in the way of their judgments. I'm not sure I even want to know what kinds of backroom deals and wheel greasing has gone on in the name of SCOTUS appointments over the years.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,087
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Not sure what the intent of posting that was, though...as in, I'm curious what responses you expect toward something like that, whether or not people here support her or not.
Frankly, no better (and actually lower) than some of the other silly political stuff I've seen on this forum.
What do you make of it?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,087
Hell's bells, I don't know.
"You can believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." -Lou Reed
I have to admit, I think she looks rather strange at times. And there have been other reports about her having serious health issues. But look, I'm not trolling. I don't know any more than anyone else here. And what happens if she is seriously sick?
When it comes to environment, we can be fairly certain that with good research and personal observation and study we can get a fairly clear idea of what's going on. When it comes to politics, ANYTHING is possible.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
"You can believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." -Lou Reed
I have to admit, I think she looks rather strange at times. And there have been other reports about her having serious health issues. But look, I'm not trolling. I don't know any more than anyone else here. And what happens if she is seriously sick?
When it comes to environment, we can be fairly certain that with good research and personal observation and study we can get a fairly clear idea of what's going on. When it comes to politics, ANYTHING is possible.
If she's sick, and other than right wing assholes saying it, she's not... but if she got sick as POTUS, then Tim Kaine takes over. That's better than Mike Pence or Trump for that matter.
I believe someone mentioned how she (and most in her position) have their health checked on a regular basis.
That "serious health issues" are being raised strikes me as grasping at straws.
Same could be said for Bernie's fervor plus his age and actions.
"Heart attack coming!"
Every fucking candidate has looked and acted strange at times.
Fuck, so have I.
So silly, really, and I just don't see the point of perpetuating something you, or no one else close to her, have any idea about.
Would you want that done to you? I wouldn't,..not without valid cause, and surely not out of random speculation from strangers based on so-called reports.
Goose, gander. Can't we go by that?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,087
Not me, man, I am ALWAYS fucking normal, ALWAYS! ALWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
As far as your chief complaint, here is the great thing about America... if you really care about the environment, employee relations, charitable work, etc., there is information and FREEDOM to invest in the companies that best represent your value system. The information is available for you. I would guess you would never invest in Exxon regardless of what its P/E ratio is. By contrast, if you don't give a shit about those things, you have the option to invest purely based on PE, beta, ROI, EPS, whatever metric you want.
But if enough people care about it and start making it a factor in their investment decisions, and this manifests into decisions by institutional investors, who by far are the ones that move the market, then every company will start incorporating this information into their investment calls. That's how it happens.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
we will find a way, we will find our place
secondly, I've mentioned in other threads that our true medium for change is not gov't but in fact our choices with our consumer spending ... so, I'm already doing that ... but I also have the luxury of being able to afford the choices I make in that regard for my necessities ...
lastly - all of the above doesn't change the fact that not only is the game rigged ... it's objective is faulty ... the current game is based on people exploiting and sacrificing other people in order to get to the top of a mountain no one needs to be on ... when really the game's objective is that we all can live in peace in perpetuity ...
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
You could argue Clarence Thomas has been ineffective, but that's different as unqualified.
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
Not sure what the intent of posting that was, though...as in, I'm curious what responses you expect toward something like that, whether or not people here support her or not.
Frankly, no better (and actually lower) than some of the other silly political stuff I've seen on this forum.
What do you make of it?
"You can believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."
-Lou Reed
I have to admit, I think she looks rather strange at times. And there have been other reports about her having serious health issues. But look, I'm not trolling. I don't know any more than anyone else here. And what happens if she is seriously sick?
When it comes to environment, we can be fairly certain that with good research and personal observation and study we can get a fairly clear idea of what's going on. When it comes to politics, ANYTHING is possible.
That "serious health issues" are being raised strikes me as grasping at straws.
Same could be said for Bernie's fervor plus his age and actions.
"Heart attack coming!"
Every fucking candidate has looked and acted strange at times.
Fuck, so have I.
So silly, really, and I just don't see the point of perpetuating something you, or no one else close to her, have any idea about.
Would you want that done to you? I wouldn't,..not without valid cause, and surely not out of random speculation from strangers based on so-called reports.
Goose, gander. Can't we go by that?