• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

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

And your mom was out on the cold campaign trail for months and months and months, giving public speeches nearly every day, stop after stop, in an intense media zoo atmosphere - traveling to and fro across the country in a wild marathon too, right?
 
Cons are so weird.

I recall a few months back she was questioned for 11 straight hours by pubs trying to hammer her at ever turn in an intense congressional hearing, and as the evening wore on, she had a small coughing jag -- and cons go: heeeeeeeeeyyyy! whassup with that? She's sick! Not qualified!

Seriously. You guys sometimes.
 
And your mom was out on the cold campaign trail for months and months and months, giving public speeches nearly every day, stop after stop, in an intense media zoo atmosphere - traveling to and fro across the country in a wild marathon too, right?

Nah, more like arguing constantly with anti abortion protestors when she was head of PP. Talking a lot doesn't cause that sort of coughing-at least according to the doctors I talked to
 
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.

Like many lefties you confuse her getting positions due to her race with her getting those positions DESPITE her race. When she applied to law school, being a black female was a huge advantage over far better qualified white males
 
Is a Harvard background a new requirement for Supreme Court justices?

NO, Yale and Stanford law graduates are on the court or have been. Stephens was the last guy who didn't go to one of the big three that I can recall. he went to Northwestern which is a damn good school but its not a first choice for those who have the top credentials applying to law schools.
 
Like many lefties you confuse her getting positions due to her race with her getting those positions DESPITE her race. When she applied to law school, being a black female was a huge advantage over far better qualified white males

Interestingly enough, I feel that you suffer from the exact opposite affliction.
 
Interestingly enough, I feel that you suffer from the exact opposite affliction.

well that's rather stupid since you are making stuff up and have no clue of what you are talking about. And I am not the issue here, since I am not being suggested as a quota pick for a position that should really be the best and the brightest legal scholar in the country or at least someone who is in that league. LL is not in that league
 
well that's rather stupid since you are making stuff up and have no clue of what you are talking about. And I am not the issue here, since I am not being suggested as a quota pick for a position that should really be the best and the brightest legal scholar in the country or at least someone who is in that league. LL is not in that league

Where did I make anything up? Everything that I have said is based in fact (by the way, I am still waiting on you to back up your legal argument on how Heller supports your assertion that any gun ban is unconstitutional despite the language that actually comes from the Heller decision to the contrary). The lone statement that I have made that could be inferred as "made up" because it is, in fact, "opinion" is the notion where I claimed you are assuming the opposite - namely that she achieved her accomplishments because of her race, instead of in spite of her race.
 
Where did I make anything up? Everything that I have said is based in fact (by the way, I am still waiting on you to back up your legal argument on how Heller supports your assertion that any gun ban is unconstitutional despite the language that actually comes from the Heller decision to the contrary). The lone statement that I have made that could be inferred as "made up" because it is, in fact, "opinion" is the notion where I claimed you are assuming the opposite - namely that she achieved her accomplishments because of her race, instead of in spite of her race.

when you can establish that firearms commonly used by police officers are both NOT IN COMMON USE and are unusually dangerous, get back to me

anyone who applied to top tier law schools in the 80s knows what sort of breaks Harvard was giving blacks back then
 
when you can establish that firearms commonly used by police officers are both NOT IN COMMON USE and are unusually dangerous, get back to me

anyone who applied to top tier law schools in the 80s knows what sort of breaks Harvard was giving blacks back then

So...that's your argument? That any firearm regularly used by cops must be allowed? You have some language from the Heller decision to support that claim? Any how about the reference to "in common usage at the time"? That gets dismissed outright?

And I don't suppose Harvard supplied breaks to blacks in the 1980s because of oppression felt by Black in the 1960s and 1970s? Nooooo, that doesn't make any sense at all.
 
So...that's your argument? That any firearm regularly used by cops must be allowed? You have some language from the Heller decision to support that claim? Any how about the reference to "in common usage at the time"? That gets dismissed outright?

And I don't suppose Harvard supplied breaks to blacks in the 1980s because of oppression felt by Black in the 1960s and 1970s? Nooooo, that doesn't make any sense at all.



why would civilian cops be issued weapons that are unusually dangerous?

automatic hand held weapons have been used by civilians for 100 years. the only reason why they aren't more commonly used was because of government restrictions. You do see the flaws in the Heller reasoning but common use also means civilian law enforcement use them


affirmative action was based on that thought. But that point has nothing to do with the fact that blacks with far lower scores were given admissions ahead of much better qualified whites. And many recipients of that affirmative action were wealthy blacks who had gone to expensive private prep schools or expensive undergraduate schools like Amherst or Cornell (in other words, they had no excuse for not making the same grades whites were making to get into HLS)
 
here are the curveballs Obama could throw....and either could be confirmed in my opinion

Judge Jane Kelly, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Kelly is only the second woman to serve on the St. Louis-based court, appointed in 2013. She spent most of her legal career as a federal public defender in Iowa. One of her biggest fans is fellow Iowan Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Judge Brett Kavanaugh, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Kavanaugh began his job May 2006 in a court that has seen several of its former members make the jump to the Supreme Court. A former top official in the George W. Bush White House, his nomination to the prestigious D.C. circuit was held up for three years by Democrats who accused him of misleading over whether he helped formulate policy on the detention and questioning of accused terrorists held overseas. He is considered one of the brightest young conservative legal minds.
 
Back
Top Bottom