- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 8,260
- Reaction score
- 1,064
- Location
- Whitewater, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I'm not that impressed with a Harvard resume to be honest, what was once a very respectable school has become nothing more than a grandiose groupthink session.
Depends on the school, I don't mind a political lean to a school as long as critical thinking and actual intellectual persuits are engaged. What I find with some schools is that you get a padded resume based on the prettiest recitation of the prevailing theory, that isn't a sign of intelligence, I can train a parrot to do that. This being said, some ivy league schools are still credible, like Cornell, Columbia, Tulane, etc. But Yale and Harvard? Yeah right.I have never been a fan of the ivy league. I see those schools as havens for elitest asshats.
Depends on the school, I don't mind a political lean to a school as long as critical thinking and actual intellectual persuits are engaged. What I find with some schools is that you get a padded resume based on the prettiest recitation of the prevailing theory, that isn't a sign of intelligence, I can train a parrot to do that. This being said, some ivy league schools are still credible, like Cornell, Columbia, Tulane, etc. But Yale and Harvard? Yeah right.
Absolutely, the problem with some academics is they forget the essence of learning, and that is to do, not to hear and regurgitate.Good point. Cornell and Colombia are still good schools. I suppose there are still a few schools that deserve some credit.
No, it wouldn't be rude for a Justice to do that, because that's not uncommon. That's their job. Its a regular, typical, every day (relatively speaking) thing for a Supreme Court Justice to make a ruling on a case.
What isn't usual, or common, or even precedented in over 30 years, is using the State of the Union to speak negatively about a Supreme Court decision, while they're sitting there, when the court is meant to be roughly apolitical would be inappropriate for them to actively publicly defend themselves against a flat out lie by the President.
I don't know why you're so up in arms about a man who just got unprecedentatly attacked on a national stage privately whispering his disagreement to someone.
I have never been a fan of the ivy league. I see those schools as havens for elitest asshats.
I am merely disgusted. He has to defend himself? Did Obama call him a name? Justice Roberts remained stonefaced, which is what someone with class does.
I really have no political agenda.
How Aps got the idea that this is a display of loss of emotional control is a flight in fantasy you will need some sturdy wings to undertake.The most powerful singular figure in all of America in his biggest speech of the year just stated a bold face lie to the entire nation in the process of accusing the Supreme Court of selling out the country.
I'd say that's a bit worse than if he called Alito a jerk.
I'd hardly call a singular whisper to someone near by in disagreement with the President is a sign the man can't "control his emotions"
Someone with "class" doesn't purposely misrepresent a Supreme Court case in a SOTUA to score political points, while they're sitting right there and are "expected" just to sit there and take it.
If we're talking law school, even state schools have asshats. I was shocked at how much law school students bragged. It was annoying and pathetic.
Yikes. If Alito mouthed that, he has a complete lack of decorum. Shame on HIM--not Obama.
Someone with "class" doesn't purposely misrepresent a Supreme Court case in a SOTUA to score political points, while they're sitting right there and are "expected" just to sit there and take it.
Yes, don't place any blame on the man who told the lie, complain about the man he's lying about.
Standard leftist doctrine, that.
And yet justice Stevens and three others said basically the same thing Obama did. Did he misrepresent?
And yet justice Stevens and three others said basically the same thing Obama did. Did he misrepresent?
2 U.S.C. Section 441e
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make - (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b) "Foreign national" defined As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means - (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
Read more: 2 USC 441e - U.S. Code - Title 2: The Congress - 2 USC 441 - Sec. 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals - vLex
Virtually every single legal "expert" and analyst I have seen and heard from (NRP, BBC, PBS, Fox and CNN) has stated plainly that Obama was completely wrong and misleading in making that statement, not to mention in pretty poor taste. In fact I have not seen anyone yet say Mr. Obama's comment was not out place and a breach of long held decorum. Well except Aps. Of course some tempered their words and stated misleading, other were more bold and used the word lie. All of them agreed that a constitutional scholar with a legal team that supposedly vetted his comments before hand, should not have made such a claim.And yet justice Stevens and three others said basically the same thing Obama did. Did he misrepresent?
And yet justice Stevens and three others said basically the same thing Obama did. Did he misrepresent?
We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”).
Certainly.
Page 53 of the decision:
They struck down Sec. 441b and left 441e intact, indicating that if Congress wishes to restructure something with exactly foreign contributions in mind, this decision does not hinder that.
The most powerful singular figure in all of America in his biggest speech of the year just stated a bold face lie to the entire nation in the process of accusing the Supreme Court of selling out the country.
I'd say that's a bit worse than if he called Alito a jerk.
I'd hardly call a singular whisper to someone near by in disagreement with the President is a sign the man can't "control his emotions"
Right, but what that is is saying that if you change the law, then, and only then, will this potential problem that Stevens refers to go away. Until then, it is a legitimate possible problem, and we have all seen this past year how hard it can be to change laws.
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
Someone with "class" doesn't purposely misrepresent a Supreme Court case in a SOTUA to score political points, while they're sitting right there and are "expected" just to sit there and take it.
The most powerful singular figure in all of America in his biggest speech of the year just stated a bold face lie to the entire nation in the process of accusing the Supreme Court of selling out the country.
I'd say that's a bit worse than if he called Alito a jerk.
I'd hardly call a singular whisper to someone near by in disagreement with the President is a sign the man can't "control his emotions"
Yeah ... that is a good point. Some of them are downright arrogant.
Sheesh!
The scariest part of it is that they don't change after they graduate.
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?