Obama’s choices: Gird your loins
Conservatives in Washington are gearing up for the SCOTUS battle. My legal sources have compiled sketches of Obama’s top three likely picks and their records. Gird your loins:
Elena Kagan
“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.
-Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.
-It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.
-Dean Kagan has argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should undergo a searching inquiry into the nominee’s substantive views of the law, and should comment particular issues. If nominated, it will be interesting to see whether Dean Kagan remains faithful to this prescription in answering the Committee’s questions.”
Sonia Sotomayor
“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”
Diane Wood
-If nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Wood will have some substantial questions to answer regarding her judicial philosophy based on her work as a circuit court judge.
Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003).
-Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests. For example, Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 867 (7th Cir. 2006), she would have voted to allow a public university to revoke the student organization charter of the Christian Legal Society because it declined to extend membership to homosexuals.
She also authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).”
***
Ed Morrissey: “After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments.”
Indeed.
William Jacobson in the Green Room: “…ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
White House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 CommentsObamacare arguments, day 3 open thread: Fate of the mandate; Updated
March 28, 2012 12:12 PM by Doug Powers
236 CommentsObamacare arguments, day 2: ‘Train wreck for the Obama administration’
March 27, 2012 03:25 PM by Doug Powers
257 Comments
Pelosi Celebrates 2 Year Anniversary of Health Care Law That ‘Honored Vows of Our Founders’
March 22, 2012 04:46 PM by Doug Powers
61 Comments
SCOTUS: No Live TV for Obamacare Arguments
March 16, 2012 02:39 PM by Doug Powers
46 CommentsNYT: White House Organizing Prayer Vigil Outside Supreme Court During Hearing on Obamacare
March 9, 2012 04:20 PM by Doug Powers
105 CommentsSupreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
AmSpecBlog
» Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New PollTwitchy
» P. Diddy brags about spending millions on strippers; photographer replies: ‘pay what you owe me’American Thinker
» Fun & Games with Mainstream Media NumbersRedstate
» Bomber Turned Left Wing Activist, Brett Kimberlin, Tries to Silence Conservative OppositionTwitchy
» Lil Wayne: ‘fuk Pusha T’Twitchy
» Roseanne Barr: Defending S.E. Cupp is more disgusting than Photoshopping a penis in her mouthprotein wisdom
» Hey, Barry … who is this “we” you speak of? [Darleen Click]
Yes
No.
Bad manners/conduct…especially from those in a seat of power…
is pretty much universally deplored here.
It’s called breeding…or class.
It just amazes me that the liberal appointees see their purpose as creating law based on their cultural worldview rather than interpreting the law as written in the Constitution.
It is called progressive.
You answered your own question, LOL!
Why wouldn’t we expect affirmative action appointees from the affirmative action president?
KAGAN:
Not difficult at all. That would come from the same school of logic that Timmy cheating on his taxes qualified him to be SecTreas / Head of the IRS.
SOTOMAYOR:
Wasn’t that Rahmbo’s chief qualification in being appointed Chief of Staff? If Sotomayor gets the nod, she can be the temporary CofS when Rahm takes a vacation and keep the b!tch kitty factor intact.
WOOD:
Someone to the left of Ginsburg and Breyer? If only she were a minority, she’d be a shoo-in. Wait, maybe she could change her name to Madera.
That’s our job. Just like Obama to want to have a Federal empoyee taking our jobs…
As usual the village idiot has it wrong.
In order for a nominee to even get out of the judiciary committee for a floor vote, at least one member of the minority party has to vote for the nominee. As a Democrat now, Specter, the most likely (former) Republican to vote for an Obama nominee won’t count. If the other Republicans can hold fast, these nominees wouldn’t even come up for a vote.
Unfortunately, that’s a big if because Gramnesty is also a member of the Judiciary committee. I wouldn’t bet that he can’t be bought and sell the country out … again.
That’s why the GOP should BROOM the membership of Judiciary, and put in CONSTITUTIONISTS.
If there was a gonad-equipped GOP…
The vetting process should determine if any of these potential nominees have;
1) Paid all their taxes…before now!
2) Hired illegal immigrant workers.
3) Contributed to the Obama campaigns.
Their stands on abortion, torture, and illegal immigration will not matter, since the country has already accepted the president’s position on these matters…or should I say some of the more ill informed in the country.
Careful scrutiny should determine whether or not these people have violated the oath of their positions…have they “protected and defended” the Constitution, or have they skewed, manipulated, misinterpreted, or liberalized it’s meanings?
Let’s just pray that the conservatives (if there are any remaining) in congress don’t negotiate, or be bi-partisan in the selection process.
Do you have a cite for that? because it seems to contradict this:
Depends on the attorney. For Eric Holder, um, yeah, good choice.
For you, not so much. We need to keep you around for the “humor” factor of law.
I’m sure there is some overlap between the list of lawyers that Sotomayor believes should be abused and my list. But, while my list of lawyers that should be abused is much longer than hers, I’m sure she’d be much more abusive to the few lawyers that I believe shouldn’t be abused.
every one of these scholars has been reversed on their “let’s make the laws fair” judicial approach. since judges are now the law makers, can’t we just get rid of those 535 morons in congress? we’re becoming more and more like a banana republic, where el presidente for life gets his wishes codified by his hand picked judiciary, and enforced by his republican guard. first you have elections stolen, then rigged to keep them a one party rule, which leads inevitably to coups. 230 years of constitutional republic rule, with 1 civil war, shot to hell.
I know a lot of these comments are tongue-in-cheek.
But…and I think Chaps would agree…I don’t find a tyrant in black robes anything but a tyrant, regardless of their politics.
In my area, a lot of Rs that had had their butts on the bench for a LONNNNGGGG time were swept away in the last election cycle.
Some of them will be missed.
I celebrated the “retirement” of several others.
I find the smaller their fiefdom, the more inflated their sense of power.
It was difficult to see how being a community organizer makes a person qualified to be president of the United States too. How’d that turn out?
I might agree, had I never practiced before Federal District or state appellate courts. Experience teaches me otherwise.
I wish it were otherwise…
Good thing the Obama Appointees have yet to learn from their master. All they would have to do to get through the vetting process is make secret trips to places they have lived, seal all their information such as college transcripts and birth certificates and such, then spend over $800,000 dollars on lawyers and payoffs to make sure any attempt to have them unsealed and provided for the public to read and see that they are who they claim to be, they would have no problem what-so-ever.
I guess he is saving all that information for himself.
You forgot mobilizing rent-a-mobs to demonize and personally destroy respected scholars who were trying to obtain public information regarding his conduct in doling out huge amounts of money, and the results of that spending in the lives of the poor students about whom he pretends to care.
That was one of my personal favorites…
You can be sure that whoever Obama picks, they will be way left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and OBama himself. The disaster of Obama’s election continues.
I expect a nominee to look perplexed when you mention the Constitution and then beam broadly when you mention Karl Marx. Anyone else just wouldn’t fit in the “new world” that congress and the president envision.
I just listened to THE ONE outline his criteria for selecting his SCOTUS nominee…
He said lots of stuff that was simply unbelievable if you have read or heard his true views.
He also said he was looking for “…someone who shares my respect for Constitutional values…”. An inadvertent truth, which means…
We are ski–rood.
I’m getting a wiff of some emanations of penumbra.
Must have stepped in something.
Wow…he is looking for someone who is THAT bad? Considering the way he is shredding, mulching, defecating on, throwing out and generally making it as if it never existed, I would say anyone short of a died-in-the-wool Stalinist won’t do.
Yeah, he respects the Constitution, he’s not eligible and he knows it.
He means it when he says he’s going to remake America.
The GOP is helping him.
In any event, we’ve got a fight on our hands.
Not surprising that there are a couple on that list from the Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit…the most liberal and the most often reversed circuit court in the country. This is a list of morons, not U.S. Supereme Court material! Odumbo has to be completely insane to think these people would do what is right for the Country. He has no idea what he is doing and the damage will be irreversable.
From whom? I mean, who in the Republican party has the yarbles to oppose “this historic presidency?”
Well they certainly are an un-attractive lot—ideologically and physically.
MM: “Gird you loins.”
You forgot to say, “Think of England!”
(Personally, I don’t think of England, and I have no need to gird my loins. I think of America and of Western Civilization and I weep.)
…and another thing, this so-called “Perez Hilton”: It is difficult not to fantasize an action against this obnoxious little queer that would be the most profound violation of his civil rights. THAT is where I need to “think of England” and still my hand against this deviant worm who cries out for “a little correction.”
Thank you, MichelleMalkin.com commenters, for so consistently proving beyond a doubt what everyone else already suspected.
Look, you little jerk. We are as tolerant of gays as this obnoxious little queer is of those of us who have religious beliefs that don’t think marriage should be between two people of the same sex. Apparently, you think tolerance only goes one way…yours. Is it too much to ask that the gays leave the details of their sex lives in the bedroom where they belong? They flaunt their lifestyle as if everyone should just love it and embrace it. I’m sorry, but the MAJORITY in this country are not in favor of gay marriage. Get over it!! And calling this Perez Hilton creature what he/she is…isn’t bigotry. This little queer brought it on himself with his outragious, slanderous behaviour. Don’t criticize us for finding him an abomination. He is.
I will no longer bow down to the god of political correctness when it is so ridiculous and one-sided. That boat has sailed!! The likes of Perez Hilton do not deserve any kind of tolerance or respect on my part. He is a caricature. And he disgusts me, not because he is gay, but because he flaunts it and displays complete intolerance to anyone who disagrees with him. And where is the political correctness that says you should not be a bigot against people who have religious convictions? It is perfectly acceptable to slander and demean a Christian? But not a flaming queer? I don’t call my nephew who is gay…those names…because he doesn’t earn my scorn. But Perez Hilton does. Respect must be earned. There is the difference. So sue me.
What you said, happyscrapper!
There is just no need to hang our heads low while been called bigots by scum like “Perez Hilton.”
I missed the YouTube video where Perez described “the details” of his sex life. I’m guessing you pay to be a member of that online club. Enjoy.
And that fact that you spend so much time talking about Perez Hilton — a sad man who should focus on Jenny Craig above all — is just…pathetic.
How did the subject of queers make it into this thread? Obama nominating a queer for SCROTUS? Sorry, I’ve been at work all day, and it seems I’ve missed something…
Girding our loins. Hmmm… Is that like trussing our chickens?
That SCROTUS bit made me lol. Nicely played, sir.
If Sotomayor is appointed, that would put six Catholics on the Court. While I personally reject religious tests for such appointments (they are unconstitutional anyway), whatever happened to diversity, or the Court “looking like America?”
I think Granholm is a shoe-in. Michigan would be happy to be rid of her.
For far to long now we have picked Supreme Court Judges from lawyers and other judges….It is high time we look to the field of Community Activist for highly qualified candidates . It is a new day and a new America…no longer will highly qualified candidates be held back simply by a lack of knowledge and experience.….Stand by to watch the Republicans, artfully, stand by helplessly……
It’s about time we appoint someone whose adherents show up at protests wearing hoods (ACORN, LaRaza, ANSWER, etc..) and tossing bottles of frozen urine at police and anyone who opposes them.
We just had a May Day rally that was so packed with Communist flags and Che Guevara banners that the media couldn’t help but show them even as they misreported on the event.
Meanwhile, the GOP is staging a “listening” tour. I have a suggestion, anwer you phones, faxes and e-mails.
do liberals have any judges that are worth the time of day. everyone of these court jesters is unqualified. idiot judges making decisions that are based on the drama in their pitiful lives. more emotional wrecks, yeah that’s what this country needs.
no2pcbs1 said (#144):
Arrogant. The candidates may be wrong, but they’re not idiots. They’ve done something nobody on this thread (chappy possibly excepted) could have done, been accepted to a top law school and excelled in the hyper competitive legal profession at the highest level.
PP: This listening tour is DOA; Calling themselves the National Council for a New America does not bode well; What is wrong with the original America?; What is wrong with a Constitutional Republic in the 21st century?; Nothing!; They need to offer new ideas within the constitutional limits; People out in the real world can offer them untold amounts of advice in that regard; Will they listen?; I doubt it.
*And McCain is involved; How insane.
*My first bit of advice is still, “if you voted for the bailout, then it’s time to get the hell out”.
bjc: Why is McCain still speaking for Republicans anyway? Was Gore speaking for Democrats after 2000? Kerry after 2004? If there is one thing the Dems do right, it is they bury their dead. The GOP needs to bury its dead.
PP: Yeah, I don’t like to pile on, but they should have learned from 2008 election results; Romney on tour I can see, but the others simply muddy the waters.
*Cantor is an excellent example; He voted for the bailout, which is unconstitutional, then he voted to tax bonuses at 90%, also unconstitutional; They will be viewed as fragmented as ever with groups like these out on the stump.
*They need someone from outside of D.C. to step forward as the de facto voice/listener, such as Romney, Jindal, Sanford, Palin, Perry; And they should start with the Fair Tax, possibly the only antidote to P-BO’s socialist agenda.
*Out for now; Gonna hit the town.
bjc: Romney called for amnesty a few weeks ago so he is OUT on my list. His opinion and principles are depend on who is paying him. That is particularly offensive to me because he is independently wealthy and doesn’t have to pander to the money.
I want to like Jindal but his performance since hitting the national stage has been very lame. Perry is just Bush ’43 all over again. I’m still open to Palin and Sanford but they need to step up.
I am looking for House Republicans to start the ball rolling by calling for new leadership while bypassing Boehner to caucus with the Blue Dogs. Successful candidates usually impose themselves on the party and this would lay the groundwork for the GOP to reconnect to its base while putting the RNC and McCain/Kennedy liberal wing out to pasture where they belong. Reagan and Clinton both imposed themselves on their parties who fought them hammer and tong. That is what we need to do now. Otherwise, third party.
Umm…no.
You can volunteer to be an idiot, no matter your native intelligence.
And, ummm…
affirmative action products just don’t meet the other descriptions…
I think that was demonstrated to be a lie a while back.
If you keep posting it, guess what that makes you…?
these judges are idiots. that they were accepted to “a top law school” means nothing. ivy league schools are no longer what they used to be, check out some of the products of those schools currently in this administration. intellectually challenged and emotional disasters is the best way to describe them. being “given” an ivy league diploma because you fit certain criteria doesn’t make you smart.
Big effing deal. Fill a broken waterpot with good water and it still leaks.
Is the assumption that judges are appointed on their legal acumen? I thought they were appointed (in many states anyway) by politicians, much as we are seeing here.
If legal acumen were the deciding factor, I believe that Miguel Estrada would be on the court.
*See Obama
Rags…where exactly does Romney stand on immigration? I have always liked him, but I hear conflicting things about him and I don’t know what to believe any more. Has he been “Palined”? I know one thing, if he was President right now, we would not be in the financial mess we are in…guaranteed. He is a financial genius.
Scrappy;
I haven’t followed the Mittster for some time.
I just know that I followed up on PP’s story, and traced it back through Think Progress (!!!), The Hill, and to a Boston Glob columnist. I don’t consider those credible, especially after I also found and posted a quote from Romney saying the Boston Glob lady was lying.
IFFFFF PP has good info, I’ll be happy to apologize.
I agree as to Mitt’s financial sense. I think he has some integrity.
But my Golden could do a better job with the economy than THE ONE. He would do NOTHING, and that would be fine.
You are right. There is someone that blights this thread and Michelle’s blog that most certainly could not be trusted with any position of importance. Can you guess who that might be???
Rags: since you are going to call me a liar and lie about having exposed my claim on Romney’s recent call for getting amnesty out of the way before the 2010 elections begin, I will post the link again.
His position on immigration reform includes a “pathway to citizenship”. If you want more details, look up the various Townhall posts Hugh Hewitt, a key Romney operator, has dedicated to this subject calling for amnesty in the past few weeks.
It’s amazing how you and I can agree on almost everything yet your road always leads you to impractical options or in this case, lying in support of a RINO.
That’s it? My proof is not acceptable because YOU don’t consider the sources credible? What a larf! What kind of logic is that? Why even bother arguing with you? You are the all-knowing God!
Happyscrapper: it would not have mattered who was elected president last year, our economy would be in the same sorry shape. The past eight years under Bush were a catastrophe. That is why the Republicans were voted out of power. Where was the fiscal restraint? When Bush took office in 2001, the main economic question was whether the enormous budget surplus should be used to pay off the national debt. Although the Republican in Congress larded the budget with another $trillion of spending, it was still projected that the debt would be paid off by 2006-7.
Despite the frequent claims to the contrary here, Clinton was the most pro-business president in our lifetime. He was also a fiscal moderate and his first budget in 1993 (rejected by Congress on arrival) was the model for Gingrich’s Contract with America.
It is certain that Romney would have done the same thing as Obama which is to continue the bank bailouts that Bush started. There is nothing that Obama has done, other than the Chrysler negotiations, that is different.
In fairness, here is Romney’s response to Joan Venochi’s article. Not much of a rebuttal. Not only does it amount to little more than boiler plate campaign rhetoric, it is inconsistent to the other statements he has been making and hardly puts him in good stead with La Raza and MeCha who will never accept anything less than unconditional blanket amnesty.
He is again advocating COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform. We all know what comprehensive means. Sorry but we already bought that Trojan Horse twice. Never again. He should know better. Secure the border FIRST, then we can talk about immigration reform and what to do with the illegals already here.
I was a strong supporter of his at one time but I have come to see him as the slick flip-flopper he is often criticized of being.
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.
“We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters,” he said.
Speaking in his Ritz-Carlton room with a pair of blue jeans on the dresser, Romney declined to criticize immigration hard-liners like former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who backed Romney after he dropped his own presidential bid. Romney argued that all 2008 GOP candidates — including Tancredo — strongly favor legal immigration.
There’s a slightly less selective quote, PP.
Be VERY careful before you start calling me a liar, son.
I don’t know the particulars of what Romney proposes, and I think it clear you don’t, either.
I don’t consider Think Progress a reliable source, and I find it very curious that you do.
How about letting Romney speak for himself. I will join in condemning him if he’s wrong.
You have my word.
“The best stimulus with the highest multiplier effect is one which gives money back to people rather than having government spend more, and so I think they got it wrong. It’s too much weighted toward spending, too little weighted toward tax reductions,” Romney said.
I think what’s certain is you are off your meds again, PP.
Maybe you should stop spending time at sites like Think Progress and MoveOn.org.
That crap will rot your brain.
PP, baby boy, there are a LOT of us with memories that go past Billery.
I think that your statements in your last several posts tell us VOLUMES about you.
I seem to recall that Clinton locked up the NW US for years, prohibiting logging.
I seem to recall that Clinton stole millions of acres of land from the Western states, and put them into the Federal pocket.
I seem to recall that Reno, under Clinton, mau-maued banks and other lenders into making housing loans that fiscal common sense said no one in their right minds should make.
I COULD go on, but it’s just too damn depressing.
You have seriously undercut your own credibility here, boy.
PP, if you have issues with that statement…
support them.
Don’t just ignore them, or attack the man with bunch of name-calling.
And, forgive me, but I was absent the day they passed out the decoder rings.
Comprehensive isn’t a dirty word to me, though it can be in the context of its use by liberals.
Sometimes, it just means…I dunno…
comprehensive.
Kinda like “top to bottom”.
WASHINGTON – Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,” President Barack Obama says.
The changes in the role of Wall Street and the huge profits that came from that risk-taking could mean other adjustments as well, Obama said in an interview in this week’s New York Times Magazine.
“That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy,” he said. “I actually think that’s healthy. We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design.”
The Obama administration is trying to restore more regulations on the financial sector to avoid some of the risk-taking that helped cause the current economic problems.
“Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the ’70s and the ’80s,” he said. “It just won’t be half of our economy.”
This guy is a BOOB. A yutz. A babe-in-the-woods. An ignoramus. AND…
he doesn’t know ANYthing about what he’s saying…
Rags: we disagree alright? You look at the inkblot and see what you want to see. Fine. Since when do you take ANY politician at their word? Good luck with that.
Thanks. It has worked every time I’ve tried it, BTW.
See, if we listen to ALL they say (and I include what they do, because that speaks loudest), they WILL tell us who they are and what they intend.
That, I find, is both a more reliable and more fair approach than listening to what others have said they said.
I wish that every American had listened carefully to all that Obama said about his beliefs and intentions, and not what others said he said.
If they had, our nation would be in much less danger than it is now.
I rest my case! You are a RUBE! You take politicians at their word, you arbitrarily manipulate these discussions based on your set of “facts”, only sources that you approve of can be included, and when your arguments fall apart, you wait a day or do and go back to a thread to accuse me of lying.
You really are a pile.
Take a deep breath, PP.
Now, reading what Romney actually has said on immigration policy…(see above)…and not what somebody (especially a LEFTIST blog)…has said he said…
Please take a few minutes to rationally explain what Mitt said that you find wrong, dangerous, deplorable, etc.
Come on…give it a try.
Obama is the most dangerous man on the planet, and the most powerful. You don’t need a crystal ball to figure out what is ahead for this country. Unless he is ousted from office and tried for treason, we are on our way to becoming like Venezuela. You can take THAT to the government-owned bank.
I’d settle for the ousting part.
Even that could lead to massive “civil disorder”.
I checked in with Drudge this a.m. and there was an article about how Simon Cowell and the producers of American Idol are trying to get Obama to make an appearance. It is interesting to read the (0ver 900 so far) comments…all that I have read are totally against that and really do not like Obama at all! There are even some posts by dems who express regret that they voted for him. I was encouraged by those posts. I even posted a couple comments under my happyscrapper name. The tide is turning. Now, if Obama hasn’t entrenched his goons in too deeply, we might have a chance without violence. Otherwise…I just don’t know what is going to happen, but it won’t be pretty.
By the way, if Obama appears on American Idol, that will be another show I will boycott. Sad, because I really enjoy that show. But, like Jay Leno, the liberals are continuing to shoot themselves in the foot by showing their bias on their TV shows. I used to watch Leno faithfully. But I don’t even find him remotely funny any more now that I have heard some of his disgusting “jokes” against conservatives. Having Obama on Idol would be a HUGE mistake for Cowell. His ratings would drop dramatically.
Rags: Let me clue you in on politics. Politicians will say ANYTHING to get elected. It’s what they DO that matters. You judge them by reconciling the two. Romney ran a very lame campaign last year and when people like me were in the trenches fighting the McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill, he was nowhere to be found. All of the GOP candidates except Tancredo and Hunter knuckled to McCain. Romney could have helped SHAPE the outcome and thus OWNED the issue by coming out and joining the fight. He didn’t. He cowered in the shadows during the battle and then when it was safe, he issued statements for the simple-minded and impressionable.
Successful candidates like Reagan, Clinton and Obama impose themselves on the party. They seize opportunities and change the course of events. There is a famous quote from Alexander Hamilton about that that I would look up if it mattered.
Keep looking at that inkblot kiddo. All the paths you try to lead us down end up at dead-end solutions that have zero chance of happening. You are in fact protecting the status quo by trying to derail all rational and sensible alternatives, even when they are working (Tea Party movement e.g.).
Let’s analyze your suggestions so far:
Taxpayer strike: The government will not be brought to its knees by a taxpayer strike because there will never be a taxpayer strike. (Check)
Summary executions for pirates. No prosecutions.: Neither the US nor the rest of the world will adopt a policy of summary executions of pirates because it is not warranted and we are striving for civilization, not a return to a barbaric “might makes right” world. (Check)
Judge Romney (all politicians) solely by what he says. The GOP is NOT going to be saved by a lame flip-flopper like Romney. Excellent business man, excellent manager, but a political coward. Politics is war without guns.(Check)
These are two comments on a site about Obama appearing on American Idol. 99% of the comments are anti-obama. But these two comments show very typical thinking of people on the left! They are both from the same person, who probably wrote them from a computer in his trailer or mom’s basement. Still, this kind of thinking is dangerous to the country!
Ragspierre, keep up the good work here. Da ObamaBots [with Soros as puppeteer] cannot be allowed to spread their lies and filth on this reputable site.
Danno;
Thank you. I’m honored, and grateful to our worthy host for the forum.
Let me try an analogy from physics and engineering.
Energy is a wonderful thing. It has great potential to do wondrous good or wondrous harm.
When energy is rationally understood, it can be used by the ingenuity of rational people to perform work.
The TEA Parties are like sunshine on an acre of land. They are wonderful, cheerful things to behold. There is considerable energy in them. But they, by themselves, can perform no work. They are dissipated, unfocused potential, and no more. The energy they represent will have to be converted to useful work by some means.
Contrary to what you say about me, you have shown yourself to be an utterly conventional thinker, and a rather contradictory one, at that.
Your solutions are Civics 101, without the pragmatism imposed by the last 4 DECADES of trying what you propose, and having it fail. I know. I was there. That is delusional, to my way of thinking. It may even be cowardly.
I asked you once if you would even have the patriotic guts to place a STARVE THE BEAST sticker on your car? You did not answer. Please do so now, yes or no?
I ask you now if you would have the guts and commitment to the nation to at least be part of a STARVE THE BEAST support group? Not a part of the boycott, but a support group. Yes or no, please.
Thank you for condescending to teach me about politics. I wonder what I would do without such instruction….
Debating with yourself must be enormously satisfactory.
As between you and I, I’m willing to bet that I am the only one who has read the treaty that describes the “law” to which you refer (not “centuries” old, BTW…just 1/2 a century).
A couple of things stand out:
1) there is no bar on a maritime policy by the US military to fire on pirate vessels if they do anything other than immediately submit when ordered to stop and be boarded. If I were SEC NAV, I would establish a policy of firing on them for maximum effect
2) there is no bar on private vessels engaging pirates from taking whatever steps they choose, excepting an act of piracy themselves. There needs to be a Blackwater Maritime Branch. I’d be happy to submit my resume.
The hot topic among legal scholars (who tend strongly to be doctrinaire leftists) is how to shoe-horn pirates into one of the Geneva Conventions, and extend them full protection under our founding legal documents.
You compared pirates to teenage street gangs. They are dealt with exactly as you propose to deal with pirates. How is that working out in the cities and towns of America? Are they deterred?
You are a great deal more civilized than am I. People as civilized as yourself get innocent others hurt and killed. I rather advocate hurting and killing predatory people. Call me Conan. I am not nearly as “nice”.
After I said about politicians: See, if we listen to ALL they say (and I include what they do, because that speaks loudest), they WILL tell us who they are and what they intend.
PP said my position was: Judge Romney (all politicians) solely by what he says.
and condescended to teach me this useful lesson: Let me clue you in on politics. Politicians will say ANYTHING to get elected. It’s what they DO that matters. You judge them by reconciling the two.
This is an argument for–
1) breathing between posts, and
2) actually reading what people say before touching a keyboard.
Otherwise, it CAN make you appear either foolish or dishonest…maybe both…
PP has put himself firmly in that very large camp of people who will, without any particular reason, always say NO to any innovation.
“Nope, nope…can’t be done…foolish to try…”
It is just one of those bumps in the road you know will be there when you set out on any great endeavor.
. Those who have come here illegally should be able to apply for residency, but their application should be given no advantage relative to those who have remained in their home countries.
No, they should not.
Deportation, a fine or 6 months in jail are what the law says.
Unless we change it to benefit the law breakers.
That’s what Comprehensive means to the open borders types, like McCain, Grahamnesty, and Romney (with the Guatemalan gardeners).
That’s amnesty and the 1986 amnesty got us 10 times the number of illegals. Why do something over again and expect a different result? Isn’t that insanity?
I think it also says that, unless an illegal immigrant returns home prior to being caught, they are not eligible to apply as a legal immigrant. That SHOULD be a big disincentive to coming here illegally. It clearly isn’t working to that effect, though. Should we simply continue to do what doesn’t work? Or should we recalibrate our laws and other responses?
This is one reason that a really comprehensive reform HAS to make the process of compliance (legal immigration) MUCH less bureaucratic and difficult.
If that is not done, we are looking at an impossible gradient in terms of incentives.
We DO, I think, want people who will come here according to our laws. I don’t advocate removing law as a hurdle…only making it far less an impossible, impassible obstacle.
Amnesty was an experiment that proved counter-productive. It would be foolish to repeat it. To my mind, that is off the table. But I do not think like a politician…for which I nightly give thanks!
That does not dictate that there are not other initiatives that can…should…be tried. This is not rocket science, and any model can be tested using what we know about economics, human behavior, law, and politics.
As a people, Americans are rightly revered for our innovative nature. I see no organic reason why we cannot innovate an effective response to this set of problems.
It isn’t a disincentive precisely because we have shown our weakness in being unwilling to uphold our own laws. No one will take them seriously if we do not. Enforcement will work as an incentive to self deport especially if we make it clear that deportation will mean being barred entry legally.
We already take in over a million a year through the legal channels. That is more than plenty. Accomodating those who have chosen to ignore the laws with ANY form of amnesty is surrender of the rule of law and our country. Both parties are complicit, neither will stand up for the citizens.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-calls-obamas-court-views-pragmatic
This is a must read on this thread’s topic.
V Pat;
We share a lot of fundamental agreement.
Trouble is, we have to fight this…
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/schumer_immigration_refor/2009/05/03/210199.html?s=al&promo_code=7F0D-1
So, we need to support something that heads this off, works, and can win popular support.
Otherwise, we’re wind wiffen’, if you take my meaning.
In 2005, H.R. 4437, an enforcement bill, had popular support, it is what touched off the counter-attack by the amnesty crowd first with the May Day marches and then with a ful court press of “poor immigrant” sob stories. The GOP simply folded rather than stand up, as usual. None of the propaganda is working, Americans do not want to give up the rule of law or their country, even if both parties have agreed to do so.
WAY OT but interesting. My drill weekend is ending and I got 2 bits of news.
1/ Last month they revoked my 11B mos. That pised me off. No idea why.
2/ This month they mobilized anyone with a primary, secondary or additional MOS of 11B. Why is this interesting? My unit is an 88M unit. They are mobilizing ANYONE with ANY infantry experience. WTF???
I have no idea what this means but the unit administrator said that this call up is wide spread. Anyone else hear about this???
Ragspierre said (#187):
I did a spot check. The thing I checked was wrong. Presumable the rest as well. It says:
You follow the link to see how they support this charge. The support is:
In other words, the blog writer didn’t like Obama’s work, so the Harvard Law School class mustn’t have liked it either. Maybe Obama was elected to Law Review the same way Bush was elected to cheer leading, by being popular.
This is a misunderstanding of the word “edit” in this context. The head of a professional journal, such as the Harvard Law Review” oversees the submission approval process. The people who handle individual submissions are called “editors”, though they do little editing, and none of it on the public record. What Obama was doing as head “editor” was reading submissions and deciding which were important enough to be published.
Whoa, color me surprised!
lgm has posted a thoughtful, non-bomb-thrower post here.
Excellent!
I don’t subscribe to everything said, but neither do I subscribe to everything in the blog whose link I posted.
I think the information is good and informative, while not recommending or condemning the analysis, which is clearly the opinion of the author of that blog.
My experience with law review was that selection of the editors was very largely a popularity contest.
I know that Carol Platt Liebau (sigh), one of those RINOs (according to PP) on Townhall was a law school classmate of THE ONE, and I think was on law review with him. You can look up her opinion of him, I think.
As a trial attorney, one of the things I’ve learned in practice has been that its good to have a law review type as opposing counsel. They tend not to be very good in the trenches.
Law review is, however, an absolute mandate if you have aspirations to be a legal academic (law school professor). Most law schools will just snuff at you without that ticket being punched.
One of the huge problems with affirmative action is that you never know it someone in one of the discriminated FOR groups really has the chops, or if they just got in on some extraneous BS like their color, gender, or last name. One of the many, many reasons I admire Dr. Sowell and Dr. Williams, who did the deal solely on their merit.
“outside mainstream legal thought”
Stick it to ‘em!
I’ve always considered that Obama was thoroughly radicalized from his early life on.
That really is unquestioned, if you know anything about the man and his influences.
From a legal philosophy perspective, he will use any path to get to where he wants to go, and the rule of law be damned.
I think it likely he will appoint someone like Thurgood Marshall when he gets a chance.
I recall Marshall saying near the end of his career that a black man had no interest in the Constitution, or words to that effect. I wondered why he did not have the integrity to leave the Court.
Going along with what you said…I just heard on Fox & Friends that some very reliable and influencial lawyer for Chrysler or GM or one of those companies is accusing someone in the WH of using strong-arm tactics to get him to do what they want. I didn’t hear the whole story, but I wonder if it has to do with the unions. The lawyer said he was told that if he didn’t do what they wanted him to do, they would ruin him. Or something to that effect. Don’t quote me on this because I only heard pieces of it! But it sounded very much like this lawyer was a reliable, upstanding person (if you can use lawyer and those other words in the same sentence!!) and apparently the WH is using mafia-style thug tactics on him. If this is true, it is a big story. More details will probably follow our MM. I just thought this needed a mention. Of course, we know that the WH is currently being run by the “mafia” and thinks it has so much power no one can touch it. We will see.
There is no doubt that Obama will choose someone who will have a radical left-wing “agenda” and will not follow the constitution if they don’t think it is necessary in certain cases. That is just the kind of thinking Obama does. I loathe that man more every time I see him. He is smarmy, condescending and egotistic…and he lies constantly. Still, people are fooled by him. Talk about mass brainwashing!
Note that your own points of contention are only conjecture and opinion and are without sources to support them, which is the exact charge you are making against the writer.
For example:
Unless you were there, how do you know this to be his contribution as editor?
Because that is what EICs do. It is not conjecture or opinion to say, for example, that firefighters fight fires.