• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Does this sound like someone you know?

fff

Well-known member
The two ranking Senators on the Judicary committee are suggesting Obama NOT select a judge for the next SCOTUS vacancy. Interesting, huh?

“I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery - somebody who has had some real-life experience,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told ABC’s “This Week.”


Specter told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he’d like a replacement for retiring Associate Justice David Souter “who has done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives.”

Man, that opens up a lot of possibilities, doesn't it? :lol: :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
The two ranking Senators on the Judicary committee are suggesting Obama NOT select a judge for the next SCOTUS vacancy. Interesting, huh?

“I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery - somebody who has had some real-life experience,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told ABC’s “This Week.”


Specter told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he’d like a replacement for retiring Associate Justice David Souter “who has done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives.”

Man, that opens up a lot of possibilities, doesn't it? :lol: :lol:

Yes it does. Perez Hilton, Simon Cowell, and Paula Abdul have "Judging" experience though. Give them a shot at it?

When you have a President with as little experience as he does, it only makes sense to lower the bar to zero (Zer0) for SCOTUS nominees also?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Leave it to a Democrat to think a Judge opening should be replaced with Tom, Dick or Harry!

The job is being a Judge and interpreting the constitution why do they need any outside interest besides understanding the law. Democrats want to make it an personal opinion spot not an interpretation spot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Leave it to a Democrat to think a Judge opening should be replaced with Tom, Dick or Harry!

The job is being a Judge and interpreting the constitution why do they need any outside interest besides understanding the law. Democrats want to make it an personal opinion spot not an interpretation spot.

Nothing new...In fact used to be quite common practice....41 Supreme Court Justices, including several Chief Justices, never sat on the bench before they were nominated to be a Justice....
The most prominent I can think of off the top of my head was Warren- appointed by a Repub (Ike)- who had served as AG and Governor of California- but never as a sitting Judge as far as I know...

Personally I'd like to see a Constitutional scholar with real life experience....
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Leave it to a Democrat to think a Judge opening should be replaced with Tom, Dick or Harry!

The job is being a Judge and interpreting the constitution why do they need any outside interest besides understanding the law. Democrats want to make it an personal opinion spot not an interpretation spot.

Nothing new...In fact used to be quite common practice....41 Supreme Court Justices, including several Chief Justices, never sat on the bench before they were nominated to be a Justice....
The most prominent I can think of off the top of my head was Warren- appointed by a Repub (Ike)- who had served as AG and Governor of California- but never as a sitting Judge as far as I know...

Personally I'd like to see a Constitutional scholar with real life experience....

Too bad you didnt' want those requirements in your presidential candidate a well.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Leave it to a Democrat to think a Judge opening should be replaced with Tom, Dick or Harry!

The job is being a Judge and interpreting the constitution why do they need any outside interest besides understanding the law. Democrats want to make it an personal opinion spot not an interpretation spot.

Nothing new...In fact used to be quite common practice....41 Supreme Court Justices, including several Chief Justices, never sat on the bench before they were nominated to be a Justice....
The most prominent I can think of off the top of my head was Warren- appointed by a Repub (Ike)- who had served as AG and Governor of California- but never as a sitting Judge as far as I know...

Personally I'd like to see a Constitutional scholar with real life experience....

Too bad you didnt' want those requirements in your presidential candidate a well.

Obama came the closest-- a Constitutional scholar that has taught constitutional law, that had worked in the real world with real people and arguing real arguments in court- rather than marrying a millionaire heiress after deserting his wife- using her money to get into Congress and living a life in D.C. :roll: ...

If I could make the choice- it would be Bob Barr-- a Constitutional scholar- who has argued many Constitutional issues in the courts and also has political experience out in the real world and that is a strong supporter of states rights...
But the rightwingernuts would go berzerko over him too- since he often joins in with the ACLU (GOD forbid) in researching for and arguing cases- both liberal and conservative if he believes they violate the constitution-- and because he believed enough evidence existed to impeach/indict Bush/Cheney and Administration members for violating the Constitution and throwing out rule of law....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
Nothing new...In fact used to be quite common practice....41 Supreme Court Justices, including several Chief Justices, never sat on the bench before they were nominated to be a Justice....
The most prominent I can think of off the top of my head was Warren- appointed by a Repub (Ike)- who had served as AG and Governor of California- but never as a sitting Judge as far as I know...

Personally I'd like to see a Constitutional scholar with real life experience....

Too bad you didnt' want those requirements in your presidential candidate a well.

Obama came the closest-- a Constitutional scholar that has taught constitutional law, that had worked in the real world with real people and arguing real arguments in court- rather than marrying a millionaire heiress after deserting his wife- using her money to get into Congress and living a life in D.C. :roll: ...

If I could make the choice- it would be Bob Barr-- a Constitutional scholar- who has argued many Constitutional issues in the courts and also has political experience out in the real world and that is a strong supporter of states rights...
But the rightwingernuts would go berzerko over him too- since he often joins in with the ACLU (GOD forbid) in researching for and arguing cases- both liberal and conservative if he believes they violate the constitution-- and because he believed enough evidence existed to impeach/indict Bush/Cheney and Administration members for violating the Constitution and throwing out rule of law....

What has Obama DONE that would suggest to you that he understands and/or respects the Constitution? I present his votes on gun control issues, his flaunting his eligibility requirements, his intrusion in private business.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
Too bad you didnt' want those requirements in your presidential candidate a well.

Obama came the closest-- a Constitutional scholar that has taught constitutional law, that had worked in the real world with real people and arguing real arguments in court- rather than marrying a millionaire heiress after deserting his wife- using her money to get into Congress and living a life in D.C. :roll: ...

If I could make the choice- it would be Bob Barr-- a Constitutional scholar- who has argued many Constitutional issues in the courts and also has political experience out in the real world and that is a strong supporter of states rights...
But the rightwingernuts would go berzerko over him too- since he often joins in with the ACLU (GOD forbid) in researching for and arguing cases- both liberal and conservative if he believes they violate the constitution-- and because he believed enough evidence existed to impeach/indict Bush/Cheney and Administration members for violating the Constitution and throwing out rule of law....

What has Obama DONE that would suggest to you that he understands and/or respects the Constitution? I present his votes on gun control issues, his flaunting his eligibility requirements, his intrusion in private business.....

Supreme Court just ruled that reasonable restrictions can be put on the right to own guns by government entities...
Show me in the Constitution WHO- besides the electors of the electoral college he has to prove his qualifications to....And they made their decision...
Much of the same type intrusions into private business were made both by Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and ruled constitutional...And many times since with bailouts of Chrysler, the Airlines , Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed, the Savings & Loans, Steel Industry, numerous Banks, etc. etc.....Historically, the Feds have not only taken stakes in banks, steel mills, and coal mines but have even seized control of everything from railways to savings and loans.
Remember- Obama inherited the fact that many of these companies were already essentially owned by the government/taxpayers thru bailout funds...
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Obama came the closest-- a Constitutional scholar that has taught constitutional law, that had worked in the real world with real people and arguing real arguments in court- rather than marrying a millionaire heiress after deserting his wife- using her money to get into Congress and living a life in D.C. :roll: ...

If I could make the choice- it would be Bob Barr-- a Constitutional scholar- who has argued many Constitutional issues in the courts and also has political experience out in the real world and that is a strong supporter of states rights...
But the rightwingernuts would go berzerko over him too- since he often joins in with the ACLU (GOD forbid) in researching for and arguing cases- both liberal and conservative if he believes they violate the constitution-- and because he believed enough evidence existed to impeach/indict Bush/Cheney and Administration members for violating the Constitution and throwing out rule of law....

What has Obama DONE that would suggest to you that he understands and/or respects the Constitution? I present his votes on gun control issues, his flaunting his eligibility requirements, his intrusion in private business.....

Supreme Court just ruled that reasonable restrictions can be put on the right to own guns by government entities...
Show me in the Constitution WHO- besides the electors of the electoral college he has to prove his qualifications to....And they made their decision...
Much of the same type intrusions into private business were made both by Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and ruled constitutional...And many times since with bailouts of Chrysler, the Airlines , Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed, the Savings & Loans, Steel Industry, numerous Banks, etc. etc.....Historically, the Feds have not only taken stakes in banks, steel mills, and coal mines but have even seized control of everything from railways to savings and loans.
Remember- Obama inherited the fact that many of these companies were already essentially owned by the government/taxpayers thru bailout funds...

:D The Supreme Court ruling on restrictions was Judicial. It came after. Not the other way around.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Much of the same type intrusions into private business were made both by Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and ruled constitutional...And many times since with bailouts of Chrysler, the Airlines , Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed, the Savings & Loans, Steel Industry, numerous Banks, etc. etc.....Historically, the Feds have not only taken stakes in banks, steel mills, and coal mines but have even seized control of everything from railways to savings and loans.
Remember- Obama inherited the fact that many of these companies were already essentially owned by the government/taxpayers thru bailout funds...

But never did the government take a stockholder interest in any of these. Resolution Trust working with FSLIC and FDIC took over savings and loans, assets were liquidated and depositers paid off. No investor lost a penny. The same with banks until "this year".....And at no time did the "Feds" even mention owning, managing or voting stock in any of them. Chrysler obtained a loan whcih they promptly paid back with interest.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
And is likely cheating on this wife as well, you forgot to add. How he treated his ex wife was amazing after what she went through for him. And how he left his millionaire wife alone in Arizona with the children to give birth to and raise alone...

McCain has praiseworthy qualities but his behavior with his current wife who he was publicly dating while married when she was 24 and he was 41 was outrageous.

You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?
 

MsSage

Well-known member
that had worked in the real world with real people and arguing real arguments in court-
Hmmmmm he argued?
A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career shows he played the "strong, silent type" in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking.

He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
MsSage, in your research did you find any information on his teaching career?

Then there is this!

Remember- Obama inherited the fact that many of these companies were already essentially owned by the government/taxpayers thru bailout funds...

OT, he inherited $350 billion in committments. Many of them are ready to pay them back, why are they not allowed to?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Supreme Court just ruled that reasonable restrictions can be put on the right to own guns by government entities...

Wasn't that in the same ruling where they determined the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, after your Constitutional Scholar and teacher said it WAS constitutional? Nice call there, wasn't it? Wonder if he'll put that on his resume. Why not take a look at all the things he voted on and ask yourself if they are all "reasonable"; http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Show me in the Constitution WHO- besides the electors of the electoral college he has to prove his qualifications to....And they made their decision...

Why would somebody who respects the Constitution knowingly flaunt it regardless of who is supposed to check in on him?

Much of the same type intrusions into private business were made both by Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and ruled constitutional...And many times since with bailouts of Chrysler, the Airlines , Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed, the Savings & Loans, Steel Industry, numerous Banks, etc. etc.....Historically, the Feds have not only taken stakes in banks, steel mills, and coal mines but have even seized control of everything from railways to savings and loans.

I think Texasbred handled this well.

Remember- Obama inherited the fact that many of these companies were already essentially owned by the government/taxpayers thru bailout funds...

Really? How was ownership transfered?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
TexasBred said:
reader (the Second) said:
And is likely cheating on this wife as well, you forgot to add. How he treated his ex wife was amazing after what she went through for him. And how he left his millionaire wife alone in Arizona with the children to give birth to and raise alone...

McCain has praiseworthy qualities but his behavior with his current wife who he was publicly dating while married when she was 24 and he was 41 was outrageous.

You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?

I'm aware that she forgave him and I admire her for that. To my mind however, it shows a character flaw to so quickly dump your wife for a young heiress when your wife has stood by you for the years of your being a prisoner of war.

In general, there are many more affairs than we end up knowing about and in some instances they are due to very unhappy marriages. I can understand and forgive extra marital affairs. This one however was pretty egregious and could have been handled better, with more discretion.

There you and I disagree- especially on people in positions of trust....If a person can't be trusted to keep the most important/sacred oath, often made before God, to who should be the most important person in their life----than how do you trust them with any oath...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
TexasBred said:
You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?

I'm aware that she forgave him and I admire her for that. To my mind however, it shows a character flaw to so quickly dump your wife for a young heiress when your wife has stood by you for the years of your being a prisoner of war.

In general, there are many more affairs than we end up knowing about and in some instances they are due to very unhappy marriages. I can understand and forgive extra marital affairs. This one however was pretty egregious and could have been handled better, with more discretion.

There you and I disagree- especially on people in positions of trust....If a person can't be trusted to keep the most important/sacred oath, often made before God, to who should be the most important person in their life----than how do you trust them with any oath...

Easy if the do just like you do every day on the BENCH and earlier when you were sheriff and turned your head, And like you do here almost every day :liar:

EH oldtimer?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
TexasBred said:
reader (the Second) said:
And is likely cheating on this wife as well, you forgot to add. How he treated his ex wife was amazing after what she went through for him. And how he left his millionaire wife alone in Arizona with the children to give birth to and raise alone...

McCain has praiseworthy qualities but his behavior with his current wife who he was publicly dating while married when she was 24 and he was 41 was outrageous.

You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?

I'm aware that she forgave him and I admire her for that. To my mind however, it shows a character flaw to so quickly dump your wife for a young heiress when your wife has stood by you for the years of your being a prisoner of war.

In general, there are many more affairs than we end up knowing about and in some instances they are due to very unhappy marriages. I can understand and forgive extra marital affairs. This one however was pretty egregious and could have been handled better, with more discretion.

Actually we have no idea why he did what he did, we have no idea if his wife remained loyal to him while he was gone! We have no idea if she cheated on him or if he cheated on her. We have no idea about anything.

I find it interesting that his ex wife has nothing bad to say about him, most scorned women would not act this way. Makes me wonder if there is more to the story? But in reality I do not care, marriages fail all the time for different reasons. Only one that has earned the right to talk about it is McCain and his ex wife!

I also find it funny that McCain and his past divorce upsets you liberals so much, but a President cheating on his wife on the countries dime on Tax payers property does not seem to bother you in the least! Not only did it not bother you, you re-elected the man and you hold him up as a great President! :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
TexasBred said:
You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?

I'm aware that she forgave him and I admire her for that. To my mind however, it shows a character flaw to so quickly dump your wife for a young heiress when your wife has stood by you for the years of your being a prisoner of war.

In general, there are many more affairs than we end up knowing about and in some instances they are due to very unhappy marriages. I can understand and forgive extra marital affairs. This one however was pretty egregious and could have been handled better, with more discretion.

There you and I disagree- especially on people in positions of trust....If a person can't be trusted to keep the most important/sacred oath, often made before God, to who should be the most important person in their life----than how do you trust them with any oath...

Ok in your opinion if a guy cheats on his wife he is not to be trusted. So I ask if a person is loyal to his wife but knowningly cheats in other areas of his life should he trusted? :?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
TexasBred said:
reader (the Second) said:
And is likely cheating on this wife as well, you forgot to add. How he treated his ex wife was amazing after what she went through for him. And how he left his millionaire wife alone in Arizona with the children to give birth to and raise alone...

McCain has praiseworthy qualities but his behavior with his current wife who he was publicly dating while married when she was 24 and he was 41 was outrageous.

You'd think he was the first and only to do it. She forgave him....why can't you?

I'm aware that she forgave him and I admire her for that. To my mind however, it shows a character flaw to so quickly dump your wife for a young heiress when your wife has stood by you for the years of your being a prisoner of war.

In general, there are many more affairs than we end up knowing about and in some instances they are due to very unhappy marriages. I can understand and forgive extra marital affairs. This one however was pretty egregious and could have been handled better, with more discretion.

Dumping a wife is a character flaw but aborting a baby is a right ????
 
Top