Discussion: The Supreme Court II

ELENA KAGAN A FRONTRUNNER?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/elena-kagan-emerging-as-s_n_532319.html

 

Rather her than Pamela Karlan.

 

According to the AP, rumors are circulating that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on the short list for SCOTUS nominee.

This was also rumored in 2008 when she conceded the Democratic Primary. I would love to see her as a Supreme Court Justice!

 

I would much prefer to see the end of the political significance of one of the most corrupt and repulsive political families in modern American history. Bill and Hillary are putrid human beings.

 

I hope Obama nominates someone younger than Chief Justice so he/she can serve at least 60 years on the Court.

 

It statements like this that make me wonder how we can agree on anything, yet sometimes we do.

 

When you start agreeing with me on everything is when you will really be getting the hang of things.

You don't think a couple that has abused it's public office for personal gain isn't a couple worthy of loathing? I understand that it's common practice, but it's rarely done so blatantly, so arrogantly and to the level the Clinton's have done.

This is a family that SOLD PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS FOR PERSONAL CASH GAINS. A family that SOLD NIGHTS IN THE LINCOLN BEDROOM for personal game. A family that PARDONED CONVICTED TERRORISTS to help Hillary's election in New York. A family whose abuse of the Arkansas political system is infamous to anyone who worked politics on any significant level in the South during the 80's. A family who stays together for pure political points in spite of the obvious animosity between them.

These are not good people. These are some of the best examples of the WORST of American politics. Call a spade a spade.

 

In your opinion.

Besides, I read an article later today that said the White House shot down those rumors.

 

There comes a time where a person's actions makes it hard to have anything but a negative opinion.

How can you defend that family given the gigantic and flamboyant pyramid of corruption they have arrogantly flaunted?

 

While I concede that the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) are at best shrewd politicians who seek nothing more than political gain by whatever means necessary and are at worse *******s that certainly doesn't put them anywhere near some of the corruption displayed by politicians and political families in the past couple hundred years.

And even if it did calling anyone out on their political shortcomings without any more information behind your claim than some insults is really just... forgive me for saying so: useless. But make useless claims against one of your political heroes (who are, we'll be honest, *******s in their own right) and you get all up in arms about it. My point is that "being *******s" is par for the course in politics and you would be hard-pressed to find a politician who wasn't an *******.

 

I am no fan of Hilary. But I rather have her than Pamela Karlan. Karlan would be a nightmare scenario.

 

Your ability to completely mischaracterize me with indefensible accusations is quite impressive.

Just as your comparison to me and McCarthy was without a single iota of fact, your claim that I get up in arms about anyone insulting my "political heroes" is baffling considering I constantly point out the fact that my greatest political hero (and the one I assume you are referring to), Alexander Hamilton, in-enacted or directly inspired legislation that did more damage to the American Constitution than any other soul, living or dead.

Just as it is baffling and laughable to accuse me, a man that criticizes Lincoln for being a benevolent dictator that saved the landmass of America at the expense of it's Constitution and regularly makes the case that Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest and most vile offenders of hypocrisy this world has ever seen, of favoring a white-washing of American history.

And I don't understand the comment of "And even if it did calling anyone out on their political shortcomings without any more information behind your claim than some insults is really just... forgive me for saying so: useless." I gave several examples in my last post, none of which are remotely up for contention by even the most ardent Clinton admirer. It's common knowledge that Bill Clinton sold Marc Riches pardon - Eric Holder got heat for that very issue during his screening process. Hell, JIMMY ****ING CARTER even called the pardon "disgraceful". It's common knowledge that Bill Clinton pardoned FALN with the hope that it would enhance Hillary's standing with Puerto Ricans in New York (an action so vile that Congress even reprimanded the former President after the fact in bipartisan fashion).

Find me any President that used pardon's for personal game to any degree similar to Clinton: Any. Single. President. Find me any political family that has the skeletons in their closet.

I didn't even begin to touch issues such as the Gregory pardons. The Gregory's, who were convicted of fraud in the 80's, were long past their jail time (they both served it) but were barred from being able to conduct business in the states. Then they hired the younger brother of Hillary. PARDON! A judicial watchdog group claims Rodham was paid over a $100,000+ dollars for his advocacy. Or Travelgate. Or Whitewater. Or any of the "less-than-blatantly obvious" examples of corruption or the simply tacky incidents like STEALING WHITE HOUSE FURNITURE, and then being forced to return them.

I have no problem identifying respectable character amongst those I disagree with politically - I have tremendous respect for Jon Stewart. I have tremendous respect for Dennis Kucinich. I have tremendous respect for Bernie Sanders. I have white hot burning disdain for Sean Hannity. I consider Mike Huckabee to be a scary individual. In spite of initially supporting her run, I have come to realize that Sarah Palin is a flaming idiot.

Stop trying to paint me as some partisan hack with an axe to grind - it's impossible to do so without misrepresenting myself and my opinion.

 

Thanks. That bolded part was as far as I got though.

 

You insult a man's integrity and mock an opinion he spends a great time in forming and places tremendous pride in and then refuse to respond when he calls you out for, either intentionally and mistakenly, being factually incorrect and intellectually deceiving in doing so.

It's understandable. You would either have to admit that you were talking out of your ass, or only further the crime. Ignoring is the best way to save face. See, there just may be hope for you yet.

 

Really? Your best come back is that I insulted you without giving a fair chance for a reasonable debate?

Tell me how it's okay for you to insult and mock someone with out any basis for a discussion about them, but be so offended when someone mocks you without giving you the chance to defend yourself.

I'm not saying that your opinion was ill-formed or uneducated, I'm pointing out that being insulting and rude is sort of a dick move.

 

Where is there no basis for the discussion? Marx commented that he liked the idea of Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice, I said her and her husband aren't worth dog****, you rolled your eyes, I explained my reasons.

Again, I call a spade a spade. Bill and Hillary Clinton are political parasites and a cartoon characture of the typical evil political family.

 

So whose hoping for Harriet Miers...come on. Yeah? Yeah? Yeah.

 

I just find it incredibly useless to chime into a conversation with "I really don't like those people!" as though you're being a productive member of the discussion. It would have been productive if you'd said, "I really don't want Hillary in the supreme court. I think she and Bill aren't worth dog**** because of......" or "she wouldn't be a good justice because........." instead of just spouting out meaningless insults.

I mean, I expect a certain level of intelligence out of your posts even if I don't agree with them. I found it offensive that you had nothing more eloquent to say than the gibberish you spouted out. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with what you did, I just expected more out of you.

 

I actually like that I idea. Back in '05 it seems like both parties threw her under the bus for the crime of having a mind of her own.

At any rate, it doesn't much matter. This one one change the balance of the Court. We could send a chimp who is trained to vote with the liberal sect and it'll be just as good as anyone Obama nominates. Now when Kennedy retires, that will be the one to watch.

 

Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS

 

Typically I would agree with you - dealing with political actors that are so prominent in the last ten years though, whose scandals have been so very public, I didn't think I needed to describe why I found Hillary to be a classless, deceitful, sea snake any more than I would Bernie Madoff or Sarah Palin.

 

Normally I would disagree with Norm here. Who gives a **** how abhorrent a person is if they can do their job well? But in regards to SCOTUS, it is meant to be the silent branch of our government. It is reserved and held back. We don't need one of the so called "rock star," politicians in it who is looking to exploit the post for media attention to furtherhis his or her own ambitions.

 

Exactly. The Supreme Court is the only position that delivers life long tenure. It a position for the very best of American law - not people who have subverted American law for personal gain.

There is no way one could ever view Hillary as one above corruption given the Clinton's track record. If she has no problem being apart of selling Presidential Pardons for personal cash (Rich's pardon netted Hillary campaign cash on top of Bill library cash), how can we ever entrust that she would not sell Supreme Court votes for personal cash?

While I am not sure that even a slug like Hillary would render such a blatant slap in the face of honor and decency, it is impossible to ignore her past.

 

...now you're going into the ridiculous Norm.