Stace said:And what exactly is your point here? It looks like you just copied and pasted this from some chain email.
tecoyah said:I dont get it......is he still president or something?
Stinger said:Well he would like to be on the Supreme Court and depending on who is the next President he could be nominated. Now wouldn't that be a hoot, a man who is barred from ever practicing in front of the SCOTUS sitting on it as a judges, and a pardoned felon at that. And AFAIK the originators post is historically correct.
Or Clinton would like to be Secretary of the UN, and the UN just might elect him if a President is elected who would support him. And Mrs. Bill Clinton just might be running for President and certainly has a chance at it. And he would be First Man? And he is still one of the most prominent spokesman for the Democrat/Liberal side. He places himself in the political spotlight and is more than willing to go on national TV or national publications and critize the Bush adminsistration.
So to question with he is a topic of discussion when he is still a major player on the Democrat side is folly.
The question to you is knowing what you know about him would you support him ever holding a high political position ever again?
Stace said:Actually, he resigned from the Supreme Court bar.
Stinger said::rofl you fell for that? AFTER he had already been suspended!! First he boasted he would fight it, but then when he realized he would lose, he so graciously resigned. Geez and you fall for his BS.
Stace said:Doesn't matter, he still resigned. Spin it any way you want, but from what I understand, no former President has ever actually been disbarred from the Supreme Court.
Stinger said:No you are spinning it and it doesn't matter that he sent in a resignation letter, he had ALREADY been suspended from ever practicing before the SCOTUS, what he did after that is moot. They gave him a chance to argue his case before them, but since he knew he had no chance he did not fight it. And he also lost his license to practice law AT ALL for 5 years. And he was pardoned for a felony according to the oringating post.
So what if Mrs. Bill Clinton wins the WH and nominates for the SCOTUS, should he be confirmed?
Stace said:Suspended is not the same as disbarred.
He had never before argued before the Supreme Court,
and it was expected that he never would, therefore, it didn't really matter.
Other people have been disbarred for far less.
If Hillary becomes President, and a spot opens up, and she wants to nominate Bill, I think he should have a fair hearing just like anyone else that might be nominated.
Whether or not he gets confirmed would depend upon how those hearings went, just like anyone else.
Stace said:Stinger, that is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen.
Especially seeing as how Clinton was never disbarred, period. He was only suspended in Arkansas, as well.
And there is a separate bar for presenting cases before the Supreme Court. So yes, they CAN disbar a lawyer.
Stinger said:Only because you would rather argue silly semantics than facts. And I note your failure to respond to the real question here.
Could he practice law in the State of Arkansas for those five years? Was he a member in good standing of the bar?
Whatever you want to call, should he thus be appointed to sit on that court then?
tecoyah said:I dont get it......is he still president or something?
Seems to be more Clinton Bashing now...than there was after he got blown in the Oval Office. Almost as if....someone is trying to change the focus of a magnifying glass.....hmmmmm.
Honestly, who gives a Sh!t what Bill Clinton did....he was an OK president in comparison. Perhaps we should drag up the war record of Mr. Bush....oh....wait....we cant, the records are missing.
Stace said:Well, it's not for us to decide whether or not he's qualified to sit on the court, now, is it?
No, I believe that is up to....oh, that's right, Congress. So, until you or I become a Senator or a Representative, we have VERY little say in the matter.
Stinger said:It most certainly is through our elected representitives. And I certainly haven't seen you posting any messages objecting to the liberal groups very very vocally expressing their wish upon those representitives.
What a blatant weasling out.
Oh well can't answer the question can you, how telling.
Stace said:What, are you stalking me around here, reading every post I make?
We're not in the basement, so I will kindly refrain from saying what I'd really like to say right now.
Don't tick off a pregnant lady with raging hormones, buddy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?