Author Topic: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee  (Read 1509 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« on: March 21, 2009, 01:01:03 PM »
I guess we really shouldn't be surprised that Obama is governing far left of center. 

Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee

Friday, March 20, 2009 1:44 PM

By: Jim Meyers 

A group of prominent conservatives, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, has issued a statement expressing their opposition to President Barack Obama’s nomination of David Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Obama's nomination of Hamilton to the 7th Circuit “represents a choice based on the merits of political ideology instead of competence and impartiality,” the statement begins.

“Hamilton, Obama's first judicial nominee, has none of the judicial expertise or experience required, but all of the ties to left-wing special interest groups and a record of activist rulings reflecting his personal views that only a liberal ideologue could hope for.”

In addition to Meese, the signatories are former Rep. David McIntosh of Indiana; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; T.K. Cribb, former counselor to the Attorney General; and Alfred Regnery, publisher of The American Spectator.

They accuse Hamilton — who is currently Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana — of having an “expressed (and demonstrated) commitment to an extreme political agenda,” and state:

“As a judge, Hamilton has shown himself to be soft on crime, radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion. With such a liberal activist record unmarked by significant experience, Judge Hamilton is clearly a bad and politically motivated appellate nominee.”

The signatories cite a number of points in calling for the Senate to reject his nomination:

# In 1994, when President Bill Clinton nominated Hamilton to the U.S. District Court, the American Bar Association rated him as “not qualified.”

# Hamilton ruled that prayers to Jesus Christ offered at the beginning of legislative sessions in the Indiana House of Representatives violated the Constitution, but that prayers to Allah did not.

# Hamilton, a former ACLU leader and fund-raiser for the liberal activist group ACORN, “for years used his judicial office to fight a popular Indiana law designed to reduce the number of abortions. That reasonable, common-sense law required information and a waiting period before an abortion and Judge Hamilton invalidated it despite Supreme Court precedent supporting it.”

# He also invalidated a law designed to protect children from sexual predators, and ruled that a drug-sniffing dog is comparable to using a thermal imaging device to look into houses.

The statement concludes: “Given Hamilton's lack of qualifications and clear record of liberal ideology, the Senate should reject his nomination. President Obama's choice of Hamilton flies in the face of the desire of the vast majority of Americans for credentialed and impartial judges, and the Senate should vote accordingly.”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/judge_hamilton_warning/2009/03/20/194328.html

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2009, 01:08:04 PM »
if they had the balls to oppose bush over those 8 years, they would have kept a congressional majority.

now all they can do it issue statements with no teeth.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2009, 01:10:11 PM »
if they had the balls to oppose bush over those 8 years, they would have kept a congressional majority.

now all they can do it issue statements with no teeth.

pretty much.

but all of this was to be expected right, both sides

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2009, 01:15:28 PM »
Hamilton, a former ACLU leader and fund-raiser for the liberal activist group ACORN, “for years used his judicial office to fight a popular Indiana law designed to reduce the number of abortions. That reasonable, common-sense law required information and a waiting period before an abortion and Judge Hamilton invalidated it despite Supreme Court precedent supporting it.”


Elections have consequences.

ZERO could care less about precedent, judicial prudence, and experience.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2009, 01:20:20 PM »
Hamilton, a former ACLU leader and fund-raiser for the liberal activist group ACORN, “for years used his judicial office to fight a popular Indiana law designed to reduce the number of abortions. That reasonable, common-sense law required information and a waiting period before an abortion and Judge Hamilton invalidated it despite Supreme Court precedent supporting it.”


Elections have consequences.

ZERO could care less about precedent, judicial prudence, and experience.


Yep.  Consequences.  We will probably see a plethora of liberal ideologues on the bench. 

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2009, 02:22:34 PM »
if they had the balls to oppose bush over those 8 years, they would have kept a congressional majority.

now all they can do it issue statements with no teeth.
LOL you should tell your buddy barry and his cronies or is it pelosi who runs the show? either way your friends are doing the same thing, and i really dont think with it going the way it is now barry will get re elected.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33746
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2009, 02:33:13 PM »
When Bush did it... you didn't complain.  When Obama does the same... whinnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeee!

 ::)

Sucks to be on the other side of the fence now doesn't it?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2009, 02:41:46 PM »
When Bush did it... you didn't complain.  When Obama does the same... whinnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeee!

 ::)

Sucks to be on the other side of the fence now doesn't it?
barry was ran on a campaign of governing from the center or dont you remember?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2009, 02:55:44 PM »
barry was ran on a campaign of governing from the center or dont you remember?

so did bush... remember that whole 'compassionate conservative' schtick?  haha that lasted about 5 minutes.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33746
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2009, 10:08:39 PM »
barry was ran on a campaign of governing from the center or dont you remember?

Bush ran on a campaign of being a "uniter".

So what's your point?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2009, 11:18:45 PM »
so did bush... remember that whole 'compassionate conservative' schtick?  haha that lasted about 5 minutes.
hahaha touche but remember fellas barry was supposed to represent change, how is this it?

lurker you justify obamas actions through bushes, who you have railed against, explain that to me?

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33746
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2009, 08:59:25 AM »


lurker you justify obamas actions through bushes, who you have railed against, explain that to me?

You condemn Barry for the exact same thing Bush did, yet you never complained about Bush.  Explain that to me.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2009, 09:07:21 AM »
You condemn Barry for the exact same thing Bush did, yet you never complained about Bush.  Explain that to me.

I am not defending Bush at all, however, it seemed like with regard to the bailout, it was only until the last year of the GWB Second term that things went crazy downhill.  The insanity that GQWB pushed through in September 2008 set forth a disaster in bailouts that Obama seems perfectly willing to continue forever with Paulsons' right hand man Geithner.

I have criticized Busf for years on Katrina, immigration, CFR, Prescription Drugs, Spending, Dubai Ports, Harriot Meyers.   

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2009, 09:17:51 AM »
You condemn Barry for the exact same thing Bush did, yet you never complained about Bush.  Explain that to me.
LOL find where i gave bush a pass on that for me...i wasnt even posting on ths board that i remember...Again lurker please explain to me how barry campaigned on being the exact opposite from bush but you defend his actions by saying bush did it too?


p.s. i think its safe to say you owe me that 10 dolllars now.

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2009, 07:09:29 PM »
I hate to point out the obvious, but when are you liberal nut huggers going to get off Bush's dick? If Bush was wrong and lied about what he promised during his campaign, is Barry now entitled to do the same thing and fuck the country up further?

Wonderful logic. It just goes to show how absolutely moronic you people are. Barry ran his campaign against Bush, not McCain. You dumbasses ate it up. Now, when Barry does exactly the same thing as Bush, you bitch like a second grader caught stealing one of your classmates crayons- "But Georgie got away with it, why do I have to explain myself?"

You people need to get with the program and realize GW isn't in office anymore. The democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for almost three years and things couldn't possibly be worse. Call Bush a warmonger and bitch about your civil liberties, but acknowledge the democrats in power right now are just as dishonest and so far twice as incompetent as Bush ever was.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2009, 07:51:50 PM »
I hate to point out the obvious, but when are you liberal nut huggers going to get off Bush's dick?

don't forget... from 2001 thru 2008, neocons on the forums blamed everything from 911 to the economy on Clinton.

Ya can't have it both ways... if the economy sucks in Jan 2009 because of Obama - did it also suck in Jan 2001 because of Dubya? (Of course not, they both inherited situations where everyone sold off stocks and 'got out' before the new guy got in)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2009, 08:28:34 PM »
don't forget... from 2001 thru 2008, neocons on the forums blamed everything from 911 to the economy on Clinton.

Ya can't have it both ways... if the economy sucks in Jan 2009 because of Obama - did it also suck in Jan 2001 because of Dubya? (Of course not, they both inherited situations where everyone sold off stocks and 'got out' before the new guy got in)
hahahah no genius ppl liberals such as yourself blamed bush and bush alone for everything when its obvious that others share the blame as well...

Way not to address the point though...if barry ran on being anti bush then why do you feel its ok to justify his actions through bush's actions?

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2009, 04:18:56 AM »
Hey dumbass- you didn't address my question. If Bush performed poorly and hurt the country as everyone claims, is Obama now free to do exactly the same and make the country even worse just because Bush did?

And btw if the "Neocons" were the only ones blaming Clinton as you claim- Did the entire media jump on board and blame clinton? How about more than half the country? Was the answer to every single problem the country face answered the way it is now-- CLINTON LIED PEOPLE DIED etc. etc. etc.

The immaturity of the liberal position is almost comical, if it wasn't so stupid and scary. Bush was a bad president, so now Obama can destroy whats left of the country for kicks.

Two wrongs make a right to you fucking idiots and to hell with the consequences on the country.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33746
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2009, 08:00:13 AM »

p.s. i think its safe to say you owe me that 10 dolllars now.

It seems I do.  PM me how to get it to you.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33746
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2009, 08:01:02 AM »
Hey dumbass- you didn't address my question. If Bush performed poorly and hurt the country as everyone claims, is Obama now free to do exactly the same and make the country even worse just because Bush did?

As Bay said the other week, after Bush ran the economy into the ditch, you can't complain about the size of the tow truck that has arrived to get it out.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2009, 08:03:41 AM »
As Bay said the other week, after Bush ran the economy into the ditch, you can't complain about the size of the tow truck that has arrived to get it out.

More cliche' and pap.  Additionally, it operates on a false premise that what Obama is doing is going to make things better, when more and more people are revolting against him, including many in his own party.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2009, 08:24:13 AM »
More cliche' and pap.  Additionally, it operates on a false premise that what Obama is doing is going to make things better, when more and more people are revolting against him, including many in his own party.


Every single other major country on the planet is bailing out failing industries.  Are they wrong as well?  Look it up.  Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Iran, japan etc.

Is every country doing it wrong?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2009, 08:29:34 AM »
Every single other major country on the planet is bailing out failing industries.  Are they wrong as well?  Look it up.  Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Iran, japan etc.

Is every country doing it wrong?

Op-Ed Columnist
Financial Policy Despair
comments (264)Sign In to E-Mail Print ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixx My SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 22, 2009
Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Skip to next paragraph
 
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (264) »This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

Let’s talk for a moment about the economics of the situation.

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails — as it almost surely will — it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2009, 09:43:49 AM »
Op-Ed Columnist
Financial Policy Despair
comments (264)Sign In to E-Mail Print ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixx My SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 22, 2009
Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Skip to next paragraph
 
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (264) »This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

Let’s talk for a moment about the economics of the situation.

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails — as it almost surely will — it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.


That's a good article which I do see as correct.  I'm not referring to the wall street bailout.  There are multiple bailouts.  I'm referring to the bailout of the auto workers and the billions Obama has devoted to creating new jobs to rebuild national infrastructure.  Next time I'll be more precise. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Conservatives Warn About Obama Judicial Nominee
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2009, 09:44:59 AM »
What I dont understand is why they devoted so little to infrastructure projects in the stimilus bill.