Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 16, 2016

JumpinJack said:
Native Americans are in the same race family as Asian and Indian. Hawaiian is in the Asian family. I said "and races/ethnicities like that," so all other races are included.

Oh so, a Korean, has the same world experience as a cherokee, and if either made it to the supreme court we would be good on that "diversity" check box?

Diversity isn't mandated. But it's important that one's culture be represented in various government posts. You are white male. Imagine what the laws of the country would look like if all the govt posts consisted of black men and women. I think you'd think your culture isn't being represented very well.

Why would I think that? I don't think Obama doesn't represent me due to his skin color, but his policies. furthermore scotus is about interpreting laws and applying decisions as to thier constitutionality, the race, ethnicity, isn't a factor.

Why is it a factor to you?

But until recent years, almost all govt posts were held by white males. Not saying the laws are not just, but they would naturally be laws set from the viewpoint of white males. Diversity is important.

diversity is desirable provided that it isn't a goal. what differences would a more "diverse" govt post world look like as far as what laws would they have and not have compared to evil white men?

I think the Srinivisan man will be nominated. Super intelligent, seems to be well liked, knowledgeable of the S.Ct. (teaches a course on it at Harvard Law), experienced, and I've read he's moderate and believes in the strict application of the law, regardless of one's political viewpoint (which is the way it should be). His race/ethnicity is also not already represented on the Court, so that's a plus. (not a requirement; a plus). The country has a lot of Indian/Asian/ME citizens. He's also the right age (48). But we'll see what happens.

Yes, I agree he may actually be a decent pick, I look forward to reading more about him.

his hinduness, is irrelevant.

shrubnose · Feb 16, 2016

MickeyW said:
Just curious. You seem to be so **** sure that Hillary, the most evil woman in politics, is going to win this year.

Are you a member of the Illuminati and privy to the Shadow Govt.?

Click to expand...

No, I'm just expressing my opinion based on what I see going on. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong.

Check the news after the November election.

MrT · Feb 16, 2016

ReverendHellh0und said:
The charade is that you and the left actually care about minorities, you can clearly see that you are far more than ok to use the ethnicity, and race of a person as the sole basis to mount an attack against people who have made NO issue of either.

and, counselor, a question, cannot be a strawman.

A question can absolutely be a strawman when it implies a false argument being made by the other side. Here, let me demonstrate:

You've made the argument that having sex with your siblings should be encouraged, isn't that right?

Thrilla · Feb 16, 2016

shrubnose said:
Not just about race,about race and gender.If this the GOP tries to block this Black woman they'll live to regret that.

Wait and see.

The American people had a voice in Obama's choice of a nominee when they sent Obama to the White House.

"Better days are coming." ~But not for today's out of touch,running out of time, GOP.

so you're preemptively accusing the GOP of racism and sexism if they don't bend to Obama's will on that particular potential nominee.

in short, just another day at the office for you.

Geoist · Feb 16, 2016

shrubnose said:
How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

It did not stopped many of them from opposing a highly qualified hispanic female. And this is a much more contentious political climate compared to 2009.

If Obama was smart he would go with a more moderate pick to ensure the choice doesn't go to a Republican president.

Mason66 · Feb 16, 2016

JumpinJack said:
Three females, one black male, 5 old white rich dudes (until Scalia died). That's a majority. So the white male faction of the country is well represented on the Court. The female viewpoint is represented. One could say the Af. American is underrepresented, but actually 1 of 9 is about the same ratio as Af Americans to the whole American population.

What is missing is the category of Asian or Indian (from India), Middle Eastern, and those sorts of ethnicities/races.

Why are the minorities just minorities but you have to mention the old dudes are rich?

Mason66 · Feb 16, 2016

JumpinJack said:
Native Americans are in the same race family as Asian and Indian. Hawaiian is in the Asian family. I said "and races/ethnicities like that," so all other races are included.

Diversity isn't mandated. But it's important that one's culture be represented in various government posts. You are white male. Imagine what the laws of the country would look like if all the govt posts had been held by black men and women for centuries. I think you'd think your culture isn't being represented very well.

But until recent years, almost all govt posts were held by white males. Not saying the laws are not just, but they would naturally be laws set from the viewpoint of white males. Diversity is important.

I think the Srinivisan man will be nominated. Super intelligent, seems to be well liked, knowledgeable of the S.Ct. (teaches a course on it at Harvard Law), experienced, and I've read he's moderate and believes in the strict application of the law, regardless of one's political viewpoint (which is the way it should be). His race/ethnicity is also not already represented on the Court, so that's a plus. (not a requirement; a plus). The country has a lot of Indian/Asian/ME citizens. He's also the right age (48). But we'll see what happens.

You don't think somebody of a gender or a race can use the law to make decisions for a member of a different gender or race?

Mason66 · Feb 16, 2016

Geoist said:
It did not stopped many of them from opposing a highly qualified hispanic female. And this is a much more contentious political climate compared to 2009.

If Obama was smart he would go with a more moderate pick to ensure the choice doesn't go to a Republican president.

If Obama was smart he would go with somebody that is so qualified that nobody on wither side could find a reason to oppose him/her.

I don't think Obama is smart, however.

kamikaze483 · Feb 16, 2016

MrT said:
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News

Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.

This is a great admission of how liberals try to create racism and sexism where none exists. Disgusting.

MickeyW · Feb 16, 2016

MrT said:
Just a observer of the Republican party, the lone party capable of thwarting Ms. Clinton, tearing itself apart and on the verge of nominating one of two individuals (assuming that they avoid a brokered convention) that are supremely unpopular with folks outside of the base of the Republican party.

And that base is much larger than in past years....and Hillary seems to have a medical problem.

shrubnose · Feb 17, 2016

Thrilla said:
so you're preemptively accusing the GOP of racism and sexism if they don't bend to Obama's will on that particular potential nominee.

Click to expand...

in short, just another day at the office for you.

No, I'm just echoing what the media will say if the GOP doesn't give her a fair hearing.

Linc · Feb 17, 2016

shrubnose said:
No, I'm just echoing what the media will say if the GOP doesn't give her a fair hearing.

It's rare for McDoucheBag to miscalculate like this.
McCockSuck has always been more savvy of a politician than this .

shrubnose · Feb 17, 2016

Geoist said:
It did not stopped many of them from opposing a highly qualified hispanic female. And this is a much more contentious political climate compared to 2009.

If Obama was smart he would go with a more moderate pick to ensure the choice doesn't go to a Republican president.

Click to expand...

The USA won't have a Republican president anytime soon.

MrT · Feb 17, 2016

kamikaze483 said:
This is a great admission of how liberals try to create racism and sexism where none exists. Disgusting.

Public perception is not always based on your reality or even the reality according to the person making the statements. If the conservatives want to dig their heels in and say no to Loretta Lynch, then they should be scrutinized to ensure that her race or sex are not the actual or underlying reasons for the dismissal.

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 17, 2016

MrT said:
A question can absolutely be a strawman when it implies a false argument being made by the other side. Here, let me demonstrate:

You've made the argument that having sex with your siblings should be encouraged, isn't that right?

That is not a strawman, but actually would be a "lying" fallacy, and an example of a "loaded question" fallacy.

Moderate Right · Feb 17, 2016

Hillary went into a big coughing spell again the other day. Wonder what the deal is with that? It seems to happen somewhat regularly.

TurtleDude · Feb 17, 2016

MrT said:
Public perception is not always based on your reality or even the reality according to the person making the statements. If the conservatives want to dig their heels in and say no to Loretta Lynch, then they should be scrutinized to ensure that her race or sex are not the actual or underlying reasons for the dismissal.

why should someone who didn't make the law review at Harvard, didn't graduate in the top 40% of her class even be considered for a job that is for the best and the brightest legal thinkers?

TurtleDude · Feb 17, 2016

Moderate Right said:
Hillary went into a big coughing spell again the other day. Wonder what the deal is with that? It seems to happen somewhat regularly.

lung cancer, COPD, are both possible. My mom died of complications of COPD, and that is how we knew things were wrong-coughing fits

Unitedwestand13 · Feb 17, 2016

TurtleDude said:
why should someone who didn't make the law review at Harvard, didn't graduate in the top 40% of her class even be considered for a job that is for the best and the brightest legal thinkers?

Is a Harvard background a new requirement for Supreme Court justices?

MrT · Feb 17, 2016

TurtleDude said:
why should someone who didn't make the law review at Harvard, didn't graduate in the top 40% of her class even be considered for a job that is for the best and the brightest legal thinkers?

Well, let us start by noting that excellent grades are not a requirement (nor even a legal degree) for the Supreme Court. With that said, Ms. Lynch is the current Attorney General, has been a federal prosecutor for more than 20 years, and she has served on the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank. She is also a Harvard Law Graduate. And while I recognize that you believe all of her accomplishments were caused by her race, I would argue that her accomplishments are impressive because of the disadvantages suffered due to her race.

You wanted an argument for why she should "even be considered" and I have given you one. The fact that you believe there are more qualified individuals is largely irrelevant as to that topic.

MrT · Feb 17, 2016

Unitedwestand13 said:
Is a Harvard background a new requirement for Supreme Court justices?

Not just a Harvard background, but an excellent performance while at Harvard Law.

tres borrachos · Feb 17, 2016

Gaius46 said:
What makes her "highly qualified?" She's spent most of her life as a prosecutor or in private practice. Neither necessarily gives someone the experience with Constitutional questions that an SC justice needs. As far as I know she's never held a judgeship, let alone sat on an appeals court. Nor does she have, again as far as I know, significant experience as an appellate lawyer. Frankly Ted Cruz, who has argued before the court, is probably more qualified.

I tend not to like Ted Cruz, but I get your point here. And your post is 100% spot on and correct.

I hope this isn't true and Obama does not plan to nominate her. That is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

humbolt · Feb 17, 2016

yankintx said:
I think your wrong, the public, meaning INDEPEDENT voters will be fed up. That is partisan wishful thinking there will be no blow back for the GOP come election day.

I'm a registered Independent voter here in Virginia.

Bucky · Feb 17, 2016

tres borrachos said:
I tend not to like Ted Cruz, but I get your point here. And your post is 100% spot on and correct.

I hope this isn't true and Obama does not plan to nominate her. That is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

The #1 thing a Supreme Court Justice needs to be is qualified - liberal or conservative.

Whether you agree with their politics shouldn't be the first priority. That being said America elected a unqualified President in 2008. Paper thin resume with no proven background of working with other people of different backgrounds and beliefs.

It is not surprising then Obama would play "buddy ball" and nominate paper-thin resume candidates.

rabbitcaebannog · Feb 17, 2016

She's a friend of Wall Street.

Elizabeth Warren Hammers The Endless Failures Of Wall Street Regulators

Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

shrubnose

MrT

Thrilla

Geoist

Mason66

Mason66

Mason66

kamikaze483

MickeyW

shrubnose

Linc

NIMBY

shrubnose

MrT

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Moderate Right

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Unitedwestand13

MrT

MrT

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

humbolt

Bucky

rabbitcaebannog

Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

I don't respect you.

NIMBY

I don't respect you.

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

HoHoHo

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency