Hillary won more votes for President

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

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.

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

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.

^^ I make out that either you are trolling in good fun or have been taken in by the today's right wing talking point, pushed by the Drudge Report..

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.

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?

Alright, no normal. I get that. No one is, really.

Would be nice though if posts like the above weren't then laughed off when met with genuine response.

brianlux said:

And would be nice if every post was not met with so much criticism. Fine. Good evening.

Not every post (really?), and not critical though I get you and some may take it that way.

Questioning, responding.

Who hasn't done that here? That's what this place is about.

Damn, comments are viewed this way now. Only when not in line or in general?

I don't think I came off as disrespectful. Tried to be as honest as you and others here.

Fine indeed. We can both keep on keeping on.

mrussel1 said:

Good article today in Bloomberg. The focus of it was the shifting of white college educated women towards Democrats. This is a constituency that was historically very close, but Clinton has opened a 19 point lead with them. This is obviously because of Trump and the "Alt-right" movement that has taken over the GOP. This movement will be the death of the GOP as it has been known since the 80's. The second punchline is this, focused on a center-left alliance: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-08/without-educated-white-women-republicans-are-doomed

It's possible that the end result of this may be a decidedly Clinton-esque pro-establishment Democratic Party anchored by African-American and Hispanic voters, well-educated suburban whites, and 21st-century business interests. Working-class white males, intellectual conservatives and anti-establishment liberals would find themselves shut out of the political process.

Why is this highlighted? Is this the goal- to shut certain groups out of the political process?

Interesting also how this article illustrates how business oriented the Clinton campaign is. Not environmental. Not social justice. Business. But we knew that.