This may not be the best time for Clinton allies to float Loretta Lynch as AG

[Moot]

Try again bud. Why do you attempt to tell me what my own intentions were? You have no idea.

Why don't you either add something relevant to the discussion...or go troll someone else?

 

[ajn678]

Why don't you either add something relevant to the discussion...or go troll someone else?

Why do you feel the need to say things like that about Thomas?

 

[TurtleDude]

Constitutional Law Professor.

Former President.

Good enough for anyone without an irrational hatred of him.

that is the sort of ignorant nonsense I would expect from someone who really doesn't understand the supreme court.


all the picks this century

graduated at the very very top of their Ivy League college (Roberts-Kagan Harvard, Alito and Sotomayor Princeton-all Summa cum laude)

All at the very top of their law school classes- (Roberts, and Kagan Harvard, Alito and Sotomayor Yale) all editors of the law review

three of the four were sitting court of appeals judges (Kagan was not). Alito had more time in that position than I believe any other SC justice. Plus he was the US attorney. Roberts, before becoming a judge, was widely regarded as the very top supreme court advocate in the USA. Kogan was the SG. Sotomayor was a Court of Appeals judge as well.

Obama-has the harvard law review credentials

he wasn't anywhere near the top of his class in college. No record of even any honors at Columbia

Kagan clerked for AJ Marshall, Roberts for CJ Rehnquist, Alito for a prominent Federal Appellate Judge. Obama didn't apply for a clerkship-a position that enhances any legal career you can choose-probably because of the extensive background check one has to go through

Obama was not a top law professor. He was not a top appellate attorney with numerous arguments before the USSC. he has never been a judge

His credentials are not nearly high enough to be a USSC.

 

[Moot]

Why do you feel the need to say things like that about Thomas?

This is a political debate forum where political opinions are welcome. If you don't like it then go join a knitting circle.

 

[ajn678]

This is a political debate forum where political opinions are welcome. If you don't like it then go join a knitting circle.

Okay let me rephrase that. Where is your evidence that Thomas can't think without the help of someone else?

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay let me rephrase that. Where is your evidence that Thomas can't think without the help of someone else?

its what some far left blog probably claimed.

 

[ajn678]

its what some far left blog probably claimed.

Yea, I have read them myself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yea, I have read them myself.

its generally twaddle from people who don't know the difference between the supreme court and a tennis court

 

[Threegoofs]

that is the sort of ignorant nonsense I would expect from someone who really doesn't understand the supreme court.


all the picks this century

graduated at the very very top of their Ivy League college (Roberts-Kagan Harvard, Alito and Sotomayor Princeton-all Summa cum laude)

All at the very top of their law school classes- (Roberts, and Kagan Harvard, Alito and Sotomayor Yale) all editors of the law review

three of the four were sitting court of appeals judges (Kagan was not). Alito had more time in that position than I believe any other SC justice. Plus he was the US attorney. Roberts, before becoming a judge, was widely regarded as the very top supreme court advocate in the USA. Kogan was the SG. Sotomayor was a Court of Appeals judge as well.

Obama-has the harvard law review credentials

he wasn't anywhere near the top of his class in college. No record of even any honors at Columbia

Kagan clerked for AJ Marshall, Roberts for CJ Rehnquist, Alito for a prominent Federal Appellate Judge. Obama didn't apply for a clerkship-a position that enhances any legal career you can choose-probably because of the extensive background check one has to go through

Obama was not a top law professor. He was not a top appellate attorney with numerous arguments before the USSC. he has never been a judge

His credentials are not nearly high enough to be a USSC.

Your opinion is noted and summarily discarded.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your opinion is noted and summarily discarded.

of course you discarded it-you have no clue about these matters so you don't understand what I was saying

all that matters to you is that Obama is your idol

 

[Threegoofs]

of course you discarded it-you have no clue about these matters so you don't understand what I was saying

all that matters to you is that Obama is your idol

No...I just dismiss your rabid, incoherent partisanship.

 

[TurtleDude]

No...I just dismiss your rabid, incoherent partisanship.

no you didn't-you couldn't refute my factually accurate comments with facts so you replied with rabid incoherent ignorant partisanship

tell me how Obama's credentials in the law compare to say Alito's or Sotomayor's

 

[Threegoofs]

no you didn't-you couldn't refute my factually accurate comments with facts so you replied with rabid incoherent ignorant partisanship

tell me how Obama's credentials in the law compare to say Alito's or Sotomayor's

Maybe Taft is a better comparison.

But why compare at all? One doesn't need a law degree to be on SCOTUS.

But you couldn't see that, due to your irrational drooling partisanship.

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe Taft is a better comparison.

But why compare at all? One doesn't need a law degree to be on SCOTUS.

But you couldn't see that, due to your irrational drooling partisanship.

You are being contrarian and posting dishonest nonsense. tell us why Obama would be the best pick for the supreme court. and given many obama administration actions will be before the court for the next few years, does the figure into your apparent idolization of Obama? the fact is-Obama has no professional background that even comes close to Kagan-who has the lightest resume of the four last justices picked.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are being contrarian and posting dishonest nonsense. tell us why Obama would be the best pick for the supreme court. and given many obama administration actions will be before the court for the next few years, does the figure into your apparent idolization of Obama? the fact is-Obama has no professional background that even comes close to Kagan-who has the lightest resume of the four last justices picked.

Nope. He would be as good
As Taft.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope. He would be as good
As Taft.

i guess you are just unable to comprehend its 2016 and the standards for USSC justices has changed dramatically over the years. so we will put you down as just an Obama fan boy who really cannot argue for Obama being on a court where half the cases over the next ten years he'd be recused from hearing

 

[matchlight]

She's a lot more qualified than Clarence.

I can only assume that you have never read any of Justice Thomas' opinions. However anyone may rate his qualifications, he consistently writes more academic, insightful, better -researched and better-reasoned opinions than any other justice, now that Justice Scalia is dead. He lets the others asks questions in oral arguments, while he studies the responses. His reasoned, academic style reminds me of Justice Frankfurter.

Many leftists dislike Justice Thomas because he is a Negro who does not know his place--which, for them, is stooping over on Uncle Sam's plantation, happily singing the praises of an ever-larger and ever-more-lawless federal government. Lynch, in contrast, is someone any statist president could count on to do just that. She would no more care about fulfilling her duty to interpret our Constitution than she has cared about fulfilling her duty to enforce our laws.

 

[Moot]

I can only assume that you have never read any of Justice Thomas' opinions. However anyone may rate his qualifications, he consistently writes more academic, insightful, better -researched and better-reasoned opinions than any other justice, now that Justice Scalia is dead. He lets the others asks questions in oral arguments, while he studies the responses. His reasoned, academic style reminds me of Justice Frankfurter.

Many leftists dislike Justice Thomas because he is a Negro who does not know his place--which, for them, is stooping over on Uncle Sam's plantation, happily singing the praises of an ever-larger and ever-more-lawless federal government. Lynch, in contrast, is someone any statist president could count on to do just that. She would no more care about fulfilling her duty to interpret our Constitution than she has cared about fulfilling her duty to enforce our laws.

You're the second righty to pull the race card on the same thread. I think I'm going to have to start a list to show the next righty that accuses the left of pulling the race card. So thanks for the ammo, matchlight.

 

[matchlight]

You're the second righty to pull the race card on the same thread. I think I'm going to have to start a list to show the next righty that accuses the left of pulling the race card. So thanks for the ammo, matchlight.

I've read and analyzed dozens of Justice Thomas' opinions. I doubt you have read so much as a paragraph of even one of them, or that if you had tried, you would have understood what you were reading well enough to make any informed judgment about his abilities. You must resent Thomas because he refuses to disrespect the Constitution--or for some other reason.

I don't know what a "righty" is. And I have not pulled anything. I only commented on the resentment of blacks, if they respect the principles on which this country was founded, that I have observed among many people who ironically consider themselves "liberals." These fake liberals, who could more accurately be described as statists or totalitarians, like their blacks to be obedient, reliable supporters of the all-powerful, extra-constitutional, and un-American government they favor.

Ms. Lynch is not qualified even for her current job. She publicly sided with the view of the damned Marxist liar who continues to disgrace the White House that certain federal laws should not be enforced. That in itself should have disqualified her from becoming the Attorney General of the U.S. She has no more respect for our laws than her boss does, and their rigging of Mrs. Clinton's e-mail case is only further proof of it. All three of them--crooks.

 

[Moot]

Okay let me rephrase that. Where is your evidence that Thomas can't think without the help of someone else?

Aside from his abnormal silence for ten years....Chief Justice Roberts very seldom assigns him to write the majority opinion. Thomas wasn't vetted the way he should've been because his sex life got in the way of questioning him about his jurisprudence....which was largely unknown because he'd only been a circuit court judge for a year when Bush nominated him to the SC to fill Marshall's seat. It's pretty obvious he was only appointed because they wanted a black man to fill another black man's seat....as if all blacks were cut from the same cloth. Then of course there's his conflict of interests with is wife being an outspoken member of the tea party and his not filing tax returns and so on and so on.

 

[Moot]

I've read and analyzed dozens of Justice Thomas' opinions. I doubt you have read so much as a paragraph of even one of them, or that if you had tried, you would have understood what you were reading well enough to make any informed judgment about his abilities. You must resent Thomas because he refuses to disrespect the Constitution--or for some other reason.

I don't know what a "righty" is. And I have not pulled anything. I only commented on the resentment of blacks, if they respect the principles on which this country was founded, that I have observed among many people who ironically consider themselves "liberals." These fake liberals, who could more accurately be described as statists or totalitarians, like their blacks to be obedient, reliable supporters of the all-powerful, extra-constitutional, and un-American government they favor.

Ms. Lynch is not qualified even for her current job. She publicly sided with the view of the damned Marxist liar who continues to disgrace the White House that certain federal laws should not be enforced. That in itself should have disqualified her from becoming the Attorney General of the U.S. She has no more respect for our laws than her boss does, and their rigging of Mrs. Clinton's e-mail case is only further proof of it. All three of them--crooks.

So what opinions of Thomas's stands out most in your mind? For me it's his disdain for Affirmative Action. I don't disrespect Thomas for his opinions....I just don't think he has any of his own beyond how much he hates Affirmative Action for giving him the opportunity to succeed. But now that he has...he doesn't want other blacks to have the same opportunities that he had. He's a very bitter man.

You seem to know what a leftist is....so guess what a 'righty' is?

Yes, you pulled the race card because you wanted to shut down a discussion about a black man's character and qualifications to the Supreme Court. I bet you wouldn't have done that if the discussion was about Scalia or Alito.

NEWSFLASH: It's not racist to judge a man based on his character and opinions. But it is racist to pull the race card to prevent having a discussion about the man's character, opinion and qualification simply because he's black.

Ms. Lynch is more than qualified to sit on a court that has few constitutional requirements or barriers other than consent of the senate. The president can nominate anyone he choses...even a Harriet Myers....or a Robert Bork.

 

[matchlight]

Ms. Lynch is more than qualified to sit on a court that has few constitutional requirements or barriers other than consent of the senate. The president can nominate anyone he choses...even a Harriet Myers....or a Robert Bork.

None of those facts makes Lynch qualified to sit on the Court. And to lump her or Myers in with Judge Bork only highlights how you are pretending to know what you do not. Neither of them was fit to shine Bork's shoes, when it comes to legal qualifications. He taught consitutional law at Yale Law School for years and later served as Soliciter General. No one who had ever read his writings questioned his legal chops. He was the victim of a purely political hit job by collectivist mutts, just as Clarence Thomas nearly was some years later.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

None of those facts makes Lynch qualified to sit on the Court. And to lump her or Myers in with Judge Bork only highlights how you are pretending to know what you do not. Neither of them was fit to shine Bork's shoes, when it comes to legal qualifications. He taught consitutional law at Yale Law School for years and later served as Soliciter General. No one who had ever read his writings questioned his legal chops. He was the victim of a purely political hit job by collectivist mutts, just as Clarence Thomas nearly was some years later.

No one is doubting the fact that Robert Bork was a legal mind.

However, it was his veiws about how the constitution should be interpreted that bothered some people.

 

[matchlight]

No one is doubting the fact that Robert Bork was a legal mind.

However, it was his veiws about how the constitution should be interpreted that bothered some people.

The views of several justices now sitting on the Court about how various parts of the Constitution should be interpreted bother all hell out of me. I have read Judge Bork's explanation of his positions on certain issues that agitated some Senators, and they make very good sense to me. I believe some of the people deciding Bork's fate just weren't quite bright enough to understand the reasoning in some of his writings. In one of his books Bork himself spoke quizzically about the questions Arlen Specter, in particular, would ask him during the hearings on his nomination. He said the two of them sometimes spoke alone, and he recalled feeling like he was back teaching con law at Yale, trying to explain a difficult point to a student who seemed to be trying hard but just didn't get it.

 

[fmw]

She's a lot more qualified than Clarence.

In what way?