"The title is misleading if this is talking about some court inCanadaAmerica (I didn't read the story)."
What ignorant jackasses some people can be. :-\
LOL. Well we all can't have a 160 IQ like you Einstein.
And yes, the United States Supreme Court is relevant. The Canada "supreme court" is not. Nobody cares who sits on the Canada "supreme court."
If Obama had his way there would be one branch of govt.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO I'm sure that Jag was fooled into clicking on this thread because she thought that Prez Obama was going to have a brawl with the Canadian Supreme Court.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO I'm sure that Jag was fooled into clicking on this thread because she thought that Prez Obama was going to have a brawl with the Canadian Supreme Court.
We are probably going to get an asian lefty for the court.
Hillary Clinton won't be Supreme Court nominee, White House says
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The White House says President Obama won't be nominating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court.
The idea emerged today when Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that he'd heard Clinton's name mentioned in connection with the upcoming vacancy on the court. Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring this summer and Obama is reviewing candidates to succeed him.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today that Obama has no intention of changing Clinton's job title.
Said Gibbs: "The president is going to keep her as his secretary of state."
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100412/BREAKING/100412023/Hillary+Clinton+won+t+be+Supreme+Court+nominee++White+House+says
I think he nominates thune or Paul Ryan.
Remember how he neutralized the VERY strong 2012 threat in john huntsman by giving him a job?
You cant just make anyone who went to law school a Supreme Court justice. Hillary failed the bar 3 times before passing it and has zero experience as a judge. There is no shot she would pass confirmation.
obama to everyone else "I won"
Sounds like she is the frontrunner.
She looks like Rufus the Butcher down the street.
Doh! That's just wrong. lol . . . .
I have to say this about Obama-- when it comes to looking like your typical liberal he is a needle in the haystack. Every single prominent liberal in politics looks like something out of a horror movie. It's almost like the more repulsive they look, the further they are likely to progrress in terms of political clout.
David Waxman may be the worst of all time though.
What qualifications are needed to become a US Supreme Court justice?
Answer
The Constitution of the United States establishes no requirements to be appointed a Justice on the Supreme Court. However, Presidents usually appoint people who have been lawyers or judges or in some way trained in the law.
Practical Considerations
•To be nominated for the position by the current President, and to be accepted and approved by the US Senate. Educational achievements required are not specified. Prior service in the US Court system is not required. Acceptance by the American Bar Association is not required. Just appoint them and approve them, and their job is secure for life.
•While Article III of the Constitution does not specify the qualifications required of a Supreme Court Justice, or specify the size of the court, it does empower Congress to create legislation or make collective decisions that result in de facto requirements.
•Because members of the Supreme Court must be experts on the Constitution, Constitutional law, and federal law, all past and present members of the Supreme Court have been attorneys.
Those who were commissioned before the mid- to late-19th century learned the law by studying and apprenticing with more experienced attorneys; states didn't mandate licensing until the 20th-century.
•Of the 111 Supreme Court members, only 46 have held degrees from accredited law schools; 18 attended law school, but never attained a degree; and 47 were self-taught and/or went through an apprenticeship.
•The first Justice to graduate from law school was Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Harvard class of 1832, appointed to the bench in 1851.
•The last sitting Justice without a formal law degree was Stanley Forman Reed, who served from 1938-1957.
•Today, nominees are judged by the quality of the law school attended and the extent of their experience on the bench. Twenty-two of the 47 degreed candidates graduated from Harvard or Yale, while a number of the remainder graduated from other T14 (Top 14) schools.
•On the current Court, five Justices went to Harvard, two to Yale, one to Columbia and one to Northwestern.
•Credentials have become so important over the last 50 years that, when Richard Nixon named Mildred Lillie and Hershel Friday as potential nominees for the Court in 1971, the American Bar Association objected on the grounds that they were unqualified for the position, and their names were withdrawn from the pool. The ABA also objected to President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, his personal attorney and White House counsel, to the bench in 2005.
•Public service and political connections also factor heavily into the nomination process. For example, all but one appointee, George Shiras, Jr. (served 1892-1903), has held public office or been a judge prior to nomination, and three-fifths of the nominees have been personal acquaintances of the President who nominated them.
•While the Constitution stipulates no minimum or maximum age for judicial service, most nominees are under the age of 60, to help ensure a long tenure on the court. Most are in their 40s or 50s when appointed. The youngest Justice ever seated was Joseph Story, at the age of 32, in 1812; the oldest at time of appointment was Charles Evan Hughes, who was 67, in 1930.
•Most of the 111 Supreme Court members have been white, male, protestants. The first Jewish Justice was Louis Brandeis, commissioned in 1916; the first of only two African-Americans was Thurgood Marshall, commissioned in 1967 (the second being Clarence Thomas, who replaced Marshall); the first of three females was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, commissioned in 1981, and retired in 2006. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and new Justice Sonia Sotomayor are currently serving. In addition to being the only the third female member of the Court, Sonia Sotomayor is also the first Latina commissioned.
Another Bull Dyke who looks like Jaba the Hut. What is it with Liberals and their love of fat ugly nasty lesibians?
what does her looks have to do with her ability to do the job
it's comments like this that show how truly shallow you are as a human being
Funny considering the insults the left hurled at Meyers, Bork, Thomas, etc.
[T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.
________________________ ________________________ ______________
What cases did Obama argue before Appellate Courts?
Surely there must be a record of this.
I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
Thomas is a great SC Justice and a true example for people from poverty.
How stupid is that? He did what the White House told him to do. ::) Terrible logic.
it's terrible logic to judge him by his actions rather than his words?
what does her looks have to do with her ability to do the job
it's comments like this that show how truly shallow you are as a human being
btw - anyone notice how Stupak always has that glazed over, brain dead looks that many fundies also have?
Do you even understand what you posted?? The Soliciter General represents the White House, not himself. So whatever positions Roberts took were not his own. That's like criticizing a public defender for representing criminals. ::)
lol. ::)
::) ::)
GMAFB. That is one of the most presigious positions a lawyer can hold and no one turns that position down.
Straw - let me ask you this - I have a case next month where i represent a concrete contractor who is owed about 50k. I am suing a developer hard on his luck who cant pay. The guy is a minority who started the development company and is not probably going to go bankrupt because of my case.
Should the judge feel bad for the developer based on his situation and lot in life? Should the judge show "empathy" or simply apply the facts of the case to the common law breach of contract precedent?
::) ::)
GMAFB. That is one of the most presigious positions a lawyer can hold and no one turns that position down.
Straw - let me ask you this - I have a case next month where i represent a concrete contractor who is owed about 50k. I am suing a developer hard on his luck who cant pay. The guy is a minority who started the development company and is not probably going to go bankrupt because of my case.
Should the judge feel bad for the developer based on his situation and lot in life? Should the judge show "empathy" or simply apply the facts of the case to the common law breach of contract precedent?
So? How is that person going to kmnow every case that comes before the court before qwhen he/she accepts the position?
And? Every president does that? So far I like Roberts and Alito and think they are the only things Bush got right in general.
it would be more like criticizing a mafia lawyer for defending career criminals
no one becomes a Solicitor General unless they are in full agreement with the politics of the President who appoints them so they are representing not only the point of view of the president but their own point of view as well
therefore it makes perfect sense to judge him by those actions because they represent his point of view
fair enough but I never used it as a reason for qualification or disqualification for a job
you can find plenty more posts of me criticizing Stupak for his words and deeds
what does her looks have to do with her ability to do the job
it's comments like this that show how truly shallow you are as a human being
lol. Comical! lol. You talked about the physical appearance of "many" religious folks, not just Stupak. But to quote a paranoid anti-religious extremist: ::)
Went right over your head.
Obama voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts
Both Alito and Roberts share the neocon point of view of George Bush
Thats why Bush II nominated them and why Bush I appointed Roberts as Solicitor General
Only a disingenous or very ignorant person would think otherwise
bullshit
show me the quotes
and with Stupak it was only one statement and not used as a reason why he should have his job
btw - anyone notice how Stupak always has that glazed over, brain dead looks that many fundies also have?
This is funny. :) Read slowly:So what
Note the latter part of the sentence that mentions "many fundies." What a maroon. lol. . . .
So what
It's one quote and I don't make an issue of it in regards to job performance
Besides brains are counterproductive to maintaining a fundie belief system.
You're a perfect example of that but even if you share that brain dead look I'd never bring it up with regards to your job
Hysterical! lol. To recap:
1. You essentially called 33 a lousy person for criticizing a person's physical appearance.
2. You've done the same thing, as pointed out in this thread. Criticized Stupak’s physical appearance, which has nothing to do with his political views.
3. You denied criticizing the physical appearance of many religious people.
4. When shown your owns words where you criticized the physical appearance of “many” religious people, you say it's only "one quote." LOL.
Is your little brain tied in knots? :D
O.K. I'm done slapping you around. :)
Another Bull Dyke who looks like Jaba the Hut. What is it with Liberals and their love of fat ugly nasty lesibians?Next comment by 33:
She looks like Rufus the Butcher down the street.Your response:
lol :DNext comment by you:
Is she married?Next comment by 333:
Yeah, to the refrigerator and Salvation Army clothing bin.Your response:
Doh! That's just wrong. lol . . . .Do you see the difference??
lol. What a dunce.
the facts speak for themself
I made a comment at the end of a 6 page thread where I criticized the words and deeds of a Stupak pointing out repeatedly that he was both ignorant and a hypocrite. There was nothing left to say except that he was a brain dead fundie (like you).
This thread brought up Kagan. Someone who has said and done nothing regarding her potential nomination and the first and only thing you and 333 do is ridicule her looks, weight, sexual orienation, etc... Neither of you made one comment of substance on her record, her writing, etc... It was first and only ridicule of her looks, etc...
The real irony is that you're the person who posted that NewsMax article pretending that the Left doesn't like Bachman or Palin because they are attractive women when people left, right and center criticize those two fundie dingbats for their words and deeds.
Straw Man, as I have repeatedly said on this board, I don't believe you're very bright. I really have nothing more to add. :)
believe whatever you want
I KNOW you're a moron
Straw - are you ok with her ROTC position?
333 - I'd have to look at this some more before I decided how I felt about it.
Hysterical! lol. To recap:
1. You essentially called 33 a lousy person for criticizing a person's physical appearance.
2. You've done the same thing, as pointed out in this thread. Criticized Stupak’s physical appearance, which has nothing to do with his political views.
3. You denied criticizing the physical appearance of many religious people.
4. When shown your owns words where you criticized the physical appearance of “many” religious people, you say it's only "one quote." LOL.
Is your little brain tied in knots? :D
O.K. I'm done slapping you around. :)
Hysterical! lol. To recap:careful beach he will tell you its not hypocritical if he is ok with them making fun of him... ;D
1. You essentially called 33 a lousy person for criticizing a person's physical appearance.
2. You've done the same thing, as pointed out in this thread. Criticized Stupak’s physical appearance, which has nothing to do with his political views.
3. You denied criticizing the physical appearance of many religious people.
4. When shown your owns words where you criticized the physical appearance of “many” religious people, you say it's only "one quote." LOL.
Is your little brain tied in knots? :D
O.K. I'm done slapping you around. :)
I'm OK with making fun of anyone but if it's the FIRST and ONLY thing you've got then face up to that factI have to say its funny that you dont understand the term hypocrite
I have to say it's weird that right wingers keep talking about how "hot" Palin and Bachmann are as if that has some significance and then pretending that people on the left (and right and center) don't take them seriously because they are hot.
People don't take them seriously and criticize them for their words and deeds...... period
Pretending it's because they are attractive is laughable and even more so because Repubs are the one's who make an issue out of looks.
I have to say its funny that you dont understand the term hypocrite
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
:D
let's see itYou think believing in God is silly b/c there is no evidence...
You think believing in God is silly b/c there is no evidence...
you dont believe in God even though there is no evidence to say he doesnt exist...
LMAO :D
oh brother - not that againLOL no thanks i had enough of showing your idiocy and you not getting it...
go back and find that thread and read it again
LOL no thanks i had enough of showing your idiocy and you not getting it...
mabye we should bump the thread so you can refresh your memory
If I recall it as about 15 pages of complete stupidity on your part but since you didn't get it then what are the odds you're any smarter today?
Straw with his typical nonsense.
I mentioned Kagans' position on ROTC as well as her looks.
As for Palin, Straw has never addressed her positions on issues, only his subjective hiew as to her intelligence, family life, etc.
mabye we should bump the thread so you can refresh your memorygo for it brain child...
If I recall it as about 15 pages of complete stupidity on your part but since you didn't get it then what are the odds you're any smarter today?
go for it brain child...remind me which one it even was or even better just go ahead and link it here
remind me which one it even was or even better just go ahead and link it hereim not going to dig it up, go through your post history
im not going to dig it up, go through your post history
When you consider that Straw thinks the post office is in great shape, condoms and studies of drunk girls in bare were good uses of the Stim Bill money, etc etc etc, does anything surprise you from him?LOL not anymore he actually used to be a really good poster back in the day
LOL not anymore he actually used to be a really good poster back in the day
When you consider that Straw thinks the post office is in great shape, condoms and studies of drunk girls in bare were good uses of the Stim Bill money, etc etc etc, does anything surprise you from him?
im not going to dig it up, go through your post history
smart movesmart move by you hoss...
When you consider that Straw thinks the post office is in great shape, condoms and studies of drunk girls in bare were good uses of the Stim Bill money, etc etc etc, does anything surprise you from him?
The libs at hp are pissed off about this.
If they are pissed off she can't be that bad.
Sounds like she supports partial birth abortion. What a surprise. ::)
Kagan Defends Revising Medical Group's Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion
Published June 30, 2010
FOXNews.com
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan gestures as she testifies at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill June 29. (Reuters Photo)
In a rare moment of drama in her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group's policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was an adviser in the Clinton White House.
As a Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s debated whether to ban the controversial procedure, Kagan wrote a memo in which she expressed concern about a statement that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist was going to release that revealed its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman.
"This, of course, would be a disaster," she wrote.
Kagan revised the language so the final statement in 1997 said that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Kagan on Wednesday "that's a very different spin and obviously a more politically useful spin."
"Your language played an enormous role in both legal and political fights over banning partial-birth abortion," he said. "The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry and that they had concluded."
Congress passed a ban on the procedure twice in the 1990s but President Clinton vetoed it both times. The procedure was finally banned in 2003 when President Bush signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban in 2007 in a 5-4 ruling.
On Wednesday, Kagan disputed Hatch's version of the events, but admitted that she did speak with ACOG to revise the statement.
She also refused to take ownership over the memos advocating the less restrictive language.
"What I did was to advance the policy of the president," she said.
Kagan also said ACOG couldn't identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.
"There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe," she said. "And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.
"And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things," she said. "We informed President Clinton of that fact."
Kagan said the "disaster" would have been a statement that didn't reflect the group's two beliefs.
Hatch wasn't satisfied with her explanation.
"Well, I'll tell you this bothers me a lot because I know that there are plenty of doctors in ACOG who did not believe that partial-birth abortion was an essential procedure and who believed that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a constant conflict there," he said.
"That's something that does bother me because it would be a disaster, you wrote, because ACOG opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. If anyone ever found out -- and you wrote that it could leak -- even if ACOG did not officially release its original statement, it could have negative political consequences," Hatch said.
Dr. Manny Alvarez, a Fox News contributor, said he was "disappointed" and "outraged" that Kagan would revise the group's statement, calling it "highly inappropriate."
"Here you have an operative at the White House influencing a society that should be independent," he said. "It's disappointing."
Alvarez said Kagan should have told the group to be balanced in its statement instead of allowing it to "plagiarize" her language.
"At the end of the day, they're not serving the American people correctly nor serving the medical community correctly."
Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion, expressed concern about Kagan's testimony.
"There are serious discrepancies between her statements to Sen. Hatch and the documented evidence of her actions in December 1996," Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life.
Yoest said senators need to ask Kagan why she thought it was appropriate to interfere in the positions of medical organizations.
"Further, does the lack of any evidence of harm to a woman's health because of the unavailability of partial-birth abortion for the past three years affect her perspective on the issue?" she said. "Does Kagan still believe that partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect a woman's health? If so, what is her factual basis to support this?"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/kagan-defends-revising-medical-groups-statement-partial-birth-abortion/
The public is underwhelmed.
since when does the public matter on SC nominations?
It mattered with Harriet Meyers and so far Kagan is barely better than she was.
Kagan is a joke and am embarassment.
No it did't
It was Bush's fellow Republicans that made it clear even they couldn't hold their nose and rumber stamp that decision by The Decider
now, if Clarence Thomas would just choke on a chicken bone or a large watermelon seed, and we can get one more on the jury the next two years....
Wow. What an original thought. ::)
“I hope his wife feeds him [Clarence Thomas, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court] lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. . . . He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
Julianne Malveaux
USA Today columnist, Pacifica Radio talk show host.
http://www.aim.org/wls/i-hope-clarence-thomas-dies/