Obama to pick fat Jewish lesbian for Supreme Court!
brad herschel
If confirmed, the Supreme Court of the USA would have the following
aboard:
1. Three Jews, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan,
2. Two lesbians, Sotomayor, Kagan
3. One Jewish homosexual, Justice Breyer.
4. One gentile eunuch, Justice Souter (The Justice has never dated,
lived with mother for many years)
Many believe the Court is now in a "tilt" position.
Brad
Lady Veteran
<Claps Hands>
Maybe now we can get something done...I guess you are too young to
remember Earl Warren. Conservative People wanted him as a justice
because he had such conservative view of the law.
He turned around and helped overthrow Jim Crow in Brown vs the Board
of Education.
Morale? Don't judge a Justice by the past and by what you THINK you
know.
You only have some of the picture.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"Some people are only alive because it is
illegal to kill them."
---Anonymous
----------------------------------------------
How does your idiocy measure up?
My Blog http://ladyveteranslog.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
Are you being harassed on Usenet and want to fight
back instead of leaving the net? Are you willing to
stand up to Internet bullies and stalkers?
Join my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiCHU
----------------------------------------------
"I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!"
---Network
ca1houn
A Jew I can handle, Lesbian no problem she just don’t like dick but, A
fatty never. What does this have to do with qualifications?
bkn...@conramp.net
<bradhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Any that read your crap KNOW that you're in a "tilt" position.
BK
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Bammer he lub quotas.
Al
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), brad herschel
> <bradhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://chanceseales.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/elena-kagan1.jpg
> >
> > If confirmed, the Supreme Court of the USA would have the following
> > aboard:
> >
> > 1. Three Jews, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan,
> >
> > 2. Two lesbians, Sotomayor, Kagan
> >
> > 3. One Jewish homosexual, Justice Breyer.
> >
> > 4. One gentile eunuch, Justice Souter (The Justice has never
> > dated, lived with mother for many years)
> >
> > Many believe the Court is now in a "tilt" position.
> >
> > Brad
>
>
> <Claps Hands>
Complaints-To: www.powerusenet.com/docs/dmca.html
I figured you would applaud the lesbian part, bull dyke.
>
> Maybe now we can get something done...I guess you are too young to
> remember Earl Warren. Conservative People wanted him as a justice
> because he had such conservative view of the law.
>
> He turned around and helped overthrow Jim Crow in Brown vs the Board
> of Education.
>
> Morale? Don't judge a Justice by the past and by what you THINK you
> know.
Behold the Wordsmith!
>
> You only have some of the picture.
Who is this fugly bull dyke?
Joe Ballerd
How much would you pay to fuck her? Tell us about your fantasies man,
let it all out before your pent up fantasies are taken out on kids. I
can't guarantee I will listen but you'll still get the benefits of
venting.
Lady Veteran
>Lady Veteran wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), brad herschel
>> <bradhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > http://chanceseales.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/elena-kagan1.jpg
>>
>>
>> <Claps Hands>
>
>Complaints-To: www.powerusenet.com/docs/dmca.html
>
>I figured you would applaud the lesbian part, bull dyke.
It figures that an idiot is talking out of his butt. Stupidity at a
new level.
Come out of your cyber closet and face me COWARD.
You balless wonders are really hard up aren't you? I am not your
mother and I will thank you to not confuse me with the female that
should have left you in the toilet where you landed after birth.
>
>>
>> Maybe now we can get something done...I guess you are too young to
>> remember Earl Warren. Conservative People wanted him as a justice
>> because he had such conservative view of the law.
>>
>> He turned around and helped overthrow Jim Crow in Brown vs the Board
>> of Education.
>>
>> Morale? Don't judge a Justice by the past and by what you THINK you
>> know.
>
>Behold the Wordsmith!
Yes, the Wordsmith is human-You have to climb up a high hill just to
be on par with me COWARD.
Why do you keep running away from a 53 year old woman? Could it be
that your mouth is writing checks that your butt cannot cash.
I heard you were born but first and you have been talking that way
ever sense.
Come out into the light and take your medicine.
You just prove that life is wasted on idiots.
>
>
>
>> You only have some of the picture.
>
>Who is this fugly bull dyke?
That is a character that was created by the no-nads idiots of SSFA.
It only exists between your ears where there is a mighty echo because
of all the empty space in there.
>
And NO you cannot chase me around asking for a date. I don't care how
many flowers are in your hair.
Lady Veteran
Nothing. it gives idiots a reason to be when they can reach out and
share their idiocy with someone. Makes them all warm and fuzzy to
hurt someone-the more pain the better.
Superdave
does doing a SCJ trophy rival W ?
Superdave
She would be the third Jewish justice along with six Catholics.
With Stevens' retirement, the court will have no Protestants, the most prevalent
denomination in the U.S.
Humm, no atheists ?
I guess God is in control afterall !
On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), brad herschel <bradhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>http://chanceseales.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/elena-kagan1.jpg
Trevor Smithson
Your post is ridiculous.
That said, it's odd that the current court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews, all of them
Harvard and Yale graduates. Such a uniform result is strange, even disconcerting in a nation of 300
million people of wildly diverse backgrounds. And there are some outstanding state schools here.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> That said, it's odd that the current court is made up of six Catholics and
> three Jews, all of them
> Harvard and Yale graduates. Such a uniform result is strange, even
> disconcerting in a nation of 300
> million people of wildly diverse backgrounds. And there are some
> outstanding state schools here.
Jobs after law school are very dependent upon what school a lawyer goes to.
Can't get nominated for the Supreme Court without getting the right
preparatory jobs.
Hor...@net.net
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
never even a lawyer.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the continuing nightmares.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
bkn...@conramp.net
>
>She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
>never even a lawyer.
Well, you're one for three, which is way above your normal average.
Idiot.
BK
Hor...@net.net
crap:
I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
she passed the bar or was a judge.
>Idiot.
Dumbass.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares.
bkn...@conramp.net
>On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:58:17 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:28:41 -0500, Hor...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
>>>never even a lawyer.
>>
>>Well, you're one for three, which is way above your normal average.
>
>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>
>>Idiot.
>
>Dumbass.
Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
D.C., law firm of Williams & .
Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
BK
F. Kurgan Gringioni
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:qn3ku556moomuhp1q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:58:17 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
>>On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:28:41 -0500, Hor...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
>>>never even a lawyer.
>>
>>Well, you're one for three, which is way above your normal average.
>
> I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
> she passed the bar or was a judge.
She's serving as Solicitor General right now. The Solicitor General
represents the federal government in cases heard before the Supreme Court.
A Solicitor General has to possess an extremely keen legal mind with regards
to constitutional law. It's not just a job that gets handed to anyone as a
political favor. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Hor...@net.net
crap:
>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>Dumbass.
>
>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>
>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
Is this the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?
BTW I already know your answer. Screw you. I'm going golfing,
dumbass.
Hor...@net.net
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>She's serving as Solicitor General right now. The Solicitor General
>represents the federal government in cases heard before the Supreme Court.
>
>A Solicitor General has to possess an extremely keen legal mind with regards
>to constitutional law. It's not just a job that gets handed to anyone as a
>political favor. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Squeak squeak squeak... That's the sound of a little violin playing
for you.
Real men don't even know what a solicitor general does. It's probably
someone found on a dark street corner.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:31gku5tbscc0m12m3...@4ax.com...
>
>>She's serving as Solicitor General right now. The Solicitor General
>>represents the federal government in cases heard before the Supreme Court.
>>
>>A Solicitor General has to possess an extremely keen legal mind with
>>regards
>>to constitutional law. It's not just a job that gets handed to anyone as a
>>political favor. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
>
>
> Squeak squeak squeak... That's the sound of a little violin playing
> for you.
>
> Real men don't even know what a solicitor general does. It's probably
> someone found on a dark street corner.
The solicitor general represents the federal government in cases where the
federal government is either a plaintiff or a defendent before the Supreme
Court. In other words:
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
capiche?
F. Kurgan Gringioni
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:gifku55pb80v3d138...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:40:13 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
>
>>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
>>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>>Dumbass.
>>
>>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
>>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
>>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
>>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>>
>>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
> I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
> actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
> judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
She is currently the Solicitor General.
The solicitor general represents the federal government in cases where the
federal government is either a plaintiff or a defendent before the Supreme
Court. In other words:
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. Kagan is the
lawyer presenting arguments for the Federal Government.
capiche?
BAR
kgrin...@hotmail.com says...
Exactly which cases did she stand before the supreme court and represent
the US? I think you will find that she sent other lawyer to argue the
cases before the supreme court. Kagan's only time in the SCOTUS was as a
clerk and maybe on a tour.
bkn...@conramp.net
>On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:40:13 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>
>>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
>>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>>Dumbass.
>>
>>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
>>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
>>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
>>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>>
>>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
>I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
>actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
>judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
Another absolute ignorant statement. Of course she's tried cases as a
lawyer, she's the Solicitor General of the United States.
>
>Is this the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?
That, I'm not sure of.
>
>BTW I already know your answer. Screw you. I'm going golfing,
>dumbass.
Right. Please regale us with more of your dreams.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
>On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:05:36 -0700, "F. Kurgan Gringioni"
><kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>She's serving as Solicitor General right now. The Solicitor General
>>represents the federal government in cases heard before the Supreme Court.
>>
>>A Solicitor General has to possess an extremely keen legal mind with regards
>>to constitutional law. It's not just a job that gets handed to anyone as a
>>political favor. They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
>
>
>Squeak squeak squeak... That's the sound of a little violin playing
>for you.
>
>Real men don't even know what a solicitor general does.
Great self-description.
BK
Moderate
"F. Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsdhs9$rdt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Has she ever won a case?
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26546711a...@news.giganews.com...
>> Court. In other words:
>>
>> THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. Kagan is the
>> lawyer presenting arguments for the Federal Government.
>>
>> capiche?
>
> Exactly which cases did she stand before the supreme court and represent
> the US? I think you will find that she sent other lawyer to argue the
> cases before the supreme court. Kagan's only time in the SCOTUS was as a
> clerk and maybe on a tour.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/10/who-is-elena-kagan/
Cases argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General of the United
States:
Citizens United v. FEC. September 9, 2009
Salazar v. Buono October 7, 2009
Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB December 7, 2009
United States v. Comstock January 12, 2010
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project February 23, 2010
Robertson v. United States March 31, 2010
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:jt4ku5puenlmgc1ek...@4ax.com...
Never a judge and a associate on a law firm. Wow, real SCOTUS material
there. Chicago cronyism at its finest.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>Never a judge and a associate on a law firm. Wow, real SCOTUS material
>there. Chicago cronyism at its finest.
>
Before you get your right-wing panties in a wad you might want to know
that she's considered too conservative for some liberals.
BK
Moderate
"F. Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsebeh$2h6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well I know she lost her first case against the FEC and she lost the second
case of Salazar v Buono. The Salzar v Buono involved the cross
memorializing WWI dead that was stolen this week.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
She should've lost those cases. Remember that the Solicitor General's
office has to represent the Federal Government when it has been wrong
in lower cases.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:0eglu5lqjrchh2rnq...@4ax.com...
LOL! That is what the liberal media is desperately trying to portray her as.
MNMikeW
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:hsefre$smk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:84vtl5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Never a judge and a associate on a law firm. Wow, real SCOTUS material
> there. Chicago cronyism at its finest.
Dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General.
Those positions are much harder to come by. There's only one of each. There
are thousands of judges.
Solicitor General, in particular, stands out. The SG argues cases ONLY
before the Supreme Court, therefore, the SG must be extremely well versed in
constitutional law. It's in a different galaxy than the garden variety
amublance chasing or home construction litigation that most legal litigators
find themselves practicing.
There is not an instance of a position in the private legal sector which
qualifies an individual for serving on the SCOTUS more than the position of
Solicitor General.
Another reason Solicitor General stands out is that the SG has to be
approved by the US Senate.
MNMikeW
"F. Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsekkt$udr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:84vtl5...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Never a judge and a associate on a law firm. Wow, real SCOTUS material
>> there. Chicago cronyism at its finest.
>
>
>
> Dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General.
>
his name, but I think he was a jr. senator in Chicago at one time.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
So? If you go back and check every appointment of every President
you'll find the same situations. they're going to appoint those with
whom they're closely acquainted if possible.
BK
John B.
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:58:17 -0500, bkni...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
> >On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:28:41 -0500, Horv...@net.net wrote:
>
> >>She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
> >>never even a lawyer.
>
> >Well, you're one for three, which is way above your normal average.
>
> I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
> she passed the bar or was a judge.
>
United States without passing the bar exam. But who knows? Maybe she's
a Muslim illegal alien like Obama.
BTW, you don't have to be a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court.
John B.
> In article <hsdhs9$rd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> kgringi...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Horv...@net.net> wrote in message
> >news:gifku55pb80v3d138...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:40:13 -0500, bkni...@conramp.net wrote this
> > > crap:
>
> > >>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
> > >>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>
> > >>>>Idiot.
>
> > >>>Dumbass.
>
> > >>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
> > >>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
> > >>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
> > >>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>
> > >>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
> > > I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
> > > actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
> > > judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
>
> > She is currently the Solicitor General.
>
> > The solicitor general represents the federal government in cases where the
> > federal government is either a plaintiff or a defendent before the Supreme
> > Court. In other words:
>
> > THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. Kagan is the
> > lawyer presenting arguments for the Federal Government.
>
> > capiche?
>
> Exactly which cases did she stand before the supreme court and represent
> the US? I think you will find that she sent other lawyer to argue the
> cases before the supreme court. Kagan's only time in the SCOTUS was as a
> clerk and maybe on a tour.
Sure, Bert. I'm sure you have mounds of evidence for this.
John B.
> <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jt4ku5puenlmgc1ek...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:16:25 -0500, Horv...@net.net wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:58:17 -0500, bkni...@conramp.net wrote this
> >>crap:
>
> >>>On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:28:41 -0500, Horv...@net.net wrote:
>
> >>>>She never went to law school. She was never a judge, and she was
> >>>>never even a lawyer.
>
> >>>Well, you're one for three, which is way above your normal average.
>
> >>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
> >>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>
> >>>Idiot.
>
> >>Dumbass.
>
> > Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
> > never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
> > a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
> > D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>
> > Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
> > BK
>
> Never a judge and a associate on a law firm. Wow, real SCOTUS material
> there. Chicago cronyism at its finest.
Dean of the Harvard Law School and U.S. Solicitor General. There have
been lots of justices who were never judges.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:b6plu5tvnb4otv6sa...@4ax.com...
I believe last time it was tried was Bush and Harriet Miers. That worked out
well.
MNMikeW
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a76c4743-cae1-4a30...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
==================
Name a few.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>Dean of the Harvard Law School and U.S. Solicitor General. There have
>been lots of justices who were never judges.
>
>==================
>Name a few.
>
John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William
O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter,
Joseph Story and Roger Taney.
That enough?
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:hotlu5tdpr6ide3la...@4ax.com...
That works. But only 2 since 1969. All 2010 members have judicial
experience.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
Which means very little since it isn't a requirement. Forty of the
111 men and women to serve on the high court since 1789 had no
judicial experience. That's 36%. In fact, it isn't even required
that a justice possess a law degree.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:c20mu5hj1o48mtnqm...@4ax.com...
Yes but of those 40, only 2 since 1969. So it does seem to have become more
important in recent years.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
Not necessarily. It may just be a happenstance according to who made
those appointments. There's no empirical proof of either.
BK
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>BTW, you don't have to be a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court.
Of course now you don't have to be a US citizen to be the resident.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
gray asphalt
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:gifku55pb80v3d138...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:40:13 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
>
>>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
>>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>>Dumbass.
>>
>>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
>>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
>>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
>>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>>
>>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
> I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
> actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
> judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
>
> Is this the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?
>
> BTW I already know your answer. Screw you. I'm going golfing,
> dumbass.
>
gray asphalt
If Obama had nominated Jesus, the Republicans
would have said that he was born in a foreign country, that
he is out of touch with the business world and that
he has extreme religious writings attibuted to him
and that he is anti-free market, eg chasing the money
changers out of the temple.
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8501l9...@mid.individual.net...
Carbon
> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:b6plu5tvnb4otv6sa...@4ax.com...
>
>> you'll find the same situations. they're going to appoint those with
>> whom they're closely acquainted if possible.
>
> worked out well.
The obvious difference being that Kagan is much more qualified for the
job. She's going to get the nomination anyway, so you may as well give up
on the smear campaign.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
It's always been this way.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/yale-and-harvard-at-the-suprem.html
Yale and Harvard at the Supreme Court
Assuming President Obama wins confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan
to the Supreme Court, that august body will be exclusively filled with
judges who earned their law degrees at Harvard or Yale.
<snip><end>
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The obvious difference being that Kagan is much more qualified for the
>job. She's going to get the nomination anyway, so you may as well give up
>on the smear campaign.
The smear campaign isn't about her, it's about the future.
It's funny that none of the last 5 Republican presidents would be able
to be nominated today - not even Reagan. Good news for the
Democrats, but bad news for the country.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4beb5b6e$0$19048$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/12/ken-starr-defends-elena-kagan-as-very-qualified/
Ken Starr Defends Elena Kagan as 'Very Qualified'
As Senate Republicans intensified their criticism Wednesday of Elena Kagan's
qualifications to join the U.S. Supreme Court, the nominee got a vote of
confidence from an unlikely source -- former independent counsel Ken Starr.
Starr led the investigation into then-President Bill Clinton's Whitewater
real estate deals and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He previously served as
solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, the same post that Kagan
currently holds in the Obama administration.
In an interview Wednesday on MSNBC, Starr called Kagan "so smart and so
able" and defended her lack of judicial experience by noting that a majority
of the members of Supreme Court never served as a judge before joining the
court.
Starr, who is the outgoing dean of Pepperdine University's law school,
called Kagan "an outstanding teacher, a wonderful academic, a very
successful dean at the Harvard Law School . . . so she's going to bring a
lot of skills to bear."
He also praised her as intellectually honest and added, "She's so bright,
everyone knows that. She's the smartest-kid-on-the-block kind of person."
As for the criticism that Kagan has received from Senate Republicans in the
days after her nomination, Starr laughed off accusations that she is an
activist or a radical. "That's politics, and unfortunately confirmation
politics have been very ugly, with a few happy interludes, every since the
nomination of Judge Robert Bork."
Starr did encourage senators to vigorously probe what he called "legitimate"
issues, like Kagan's defense of Harvard's policy banning military recruiters
from its career services process because of the ban on gays in the armed
forces.
But overall, Starr said, "President Obama has chosen someone who is very
qualified."
Hor...@net.net
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>Just curious ... what does solicitor general do?
Pretty obvious. She goes to a military base and stands on a street
corner soliciting generals.
gray asphalt
A fat guy yes, but a fat woman? I'm a great American.
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ksglu5118gkjrrb1b...@4ax.com...
John B.
> <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hotlu5tdpr6ide3la...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:22:21 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>Dean of the Harvard Law School and U.S. Solicitor General. There have
> >>been lots of justices who were never judges.
>
> >>==================
> >>Name a few.
>
> > John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William
> > O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter,
> > Joseph Story and Roger Taney.
>
> > That enough?
>
> > BK
>
> That works. But only 2 since 1969. All 2010 members have judicial
> experience.
So?
John B.
> Just curious ... what does solicitor general do?
>
>
> news:gifku55pb80v3d138...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:40:13 -0500, bkni...@conramp.net wrote this
> > crap:
>
> >>>I rechecked. She did attend Harvard Law School. I don't see where
> >>>she passed the bar or was a judge.
>
> >>>>Idiot.
>
> >>>Dumbass.
>
> >>Check again. Its real easy for anyone that isn't stupid. She was
> >>never a judge, but besides being dean of the Harvard Law School, took
> >>a position in private practice as an associate at the Washington,
> >>D.C., law firm of Williams & .
>
> >>Do some simple research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
>
> > I did, dumbass. She graduated from Harvard law school, but never
> > actually practiced law. By which I mean she never went in front of a
> > judge. She was a, "Judaical Assistant," whatever that is.
>
> > Is this the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?
>
> > BTW I already know your answer. Screw you. I'm going golfing,
> > dumbass.
>
> > Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares.
>
>
> > My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> > ultimate power in the universe."
Argues for the government in the Supreme Court.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
>
> That works. But only 2 since 1969. All 2010 members have judicial
> experience.
The Solicitor General has been nicknamed the "10th Justice". It's easy to
see why. The SG *only* deals in cases which are going to be heard by the
SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the
Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United
States. Currently, the Solicitor General is Elena Kagan, who was confirmed
by the United States Senate on March 19, 2009.
The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States
will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting
cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General's office
also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has
a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General's office
argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the
United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the
government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the
Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United
States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme
Court. The Solicitor General's office also reviews cases decided against the
United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in
which the government files an appeal.
<snip><end>
Moderate
So far Kagan is 0-2 in her job as SG.
John B.
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just continue
with the petty sniping?
Moderate
*****************************************************
I simply stated a fact. You evidently prefer opinion.
BAR
@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> > Argues for the government in the Supreme Court.
> >
> > So far Kagan is 0-2 in her job as SG.
>
> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just continue
> with the petty sniping?
Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't ever
won a case?
John B.
>
> > > Argues for the government in the Supreme Court.
>
> > > So far Kagan is 0-2 in her job as SG.
>
> > What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> > SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> > with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just continue
> > with the petty sniping?
>
> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't ever
> won a case?
Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
BAR
@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
You can't answer a direct question can you?
Carbon
> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
>>>
>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
>>> ever won a case?
>>
>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
>
> You can't answer a direct question can you?
Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> > @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> >>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> >>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> >>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> >>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> >>>> continue with the petty sniping?
> >>>
> >>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> >>> ever won a case?
> >>
> >> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> >> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> >> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
> >
> > You can't answer a direct question can you?
>
> Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
What do you know about her?
Carbon
Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
ranting that she's unqualified.
John B.
> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 5:08 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> > > @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > > Argues for the government in the Supreme Court.
>
> > > > > So far Kagan is 0-2 in her job as SG.
>
> > > > What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> > > > SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> > > > with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just continue
> > > > with the petty sniping?
>
> > > Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't ever
> > > won a case?
>
> > Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> > argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> > nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
>
> You can't answer a direct question can you?
You asked if I would hire one of the most brilliant legal minds in the
country to represent me. I would if I could afford her.
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> >> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> >>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> >>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> >>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> >>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> >>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> >>>> ever won a case?
> >>>
> >>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> >>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> >>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
> >>
> >> You can't answer a direct question can you?
> >
> > Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
>
> Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
> ranting that she's unqualified.
I never said she was unqualified. Nobody knows enough about her yet to
make that distinction. But, based upon what informaiton is available she
is on the unqualified side of the fence.
Carbon
You certainly don't.
> But, based upon what informaiton is available she is on the
> unqualified side of the fence.
First you claim it isn't possible to know if she's qualified, then you
immediately claim she's unqualified. What a load.
John B.
> In article <4bede734$0$4831$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> > >>> On May 14, 5:08 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> > >>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> > >>>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> > >>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> > >>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> > >>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
>
> > >>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> > >>>> ever won a case?
>
> > >>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> > >>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> > >>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
>
> > >> You can't answer a direct question can you?
>
> > > Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
>
> > Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
> > ranting that she's unqualified.
>
> I never said she was unqualified. Nobody knows enough about her yet to
> make that distinction. But, based upon what informaiton is available she
> is on the unqualified side of the fence.
She is exceptionally well-qualified according to Ken Starr.
BAR
@p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On May 15, 11:57ï¿œam, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <4bede734$0$4831$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > >> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> > > >> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> > > >>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> > > >>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > >>>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> > > >>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> > > >>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> > > >>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
> >
> > > >>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> > > >>>> ever won a case?
> >
> > > >>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> > > >>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> > > >>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
> >
> > > >> You can't answer a direct question can you?
> >
> > > > Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
> >
> > > Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
> > > ranting that she's unqualified.
> >
> > I never said she was unqualified. Nobody knows enough about her yet to
> > make that distinction. But, based upon what informaiton is available she
> > is on the unqualified side of the fence.
>
> She is exceptionally well-qualified according to Ken Starr.
Now Ken Starr's opinion matters?
John B.
> In article <c3bb808e-e860-45d4-98ec-5ac5acc960b5
> @p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:57 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4bede734$0$4831$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > >> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> > > > >> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> > > > >>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> > > > >>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > >>>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> > > > >>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> > > > >>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> > > > >>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
>
> > > > >>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> > > > >>>> ever won a case?
>
> > > > >>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> > > > >>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> > > > >>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
>
> > > > >> You can't answer a direct question can you?
>
> > > > > Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
>
> > > > Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
> > > > ranting that she's unqualified.
>
> > > I never said she was unqualified. Nobody knows enough about her yet to
> > > make that distinction. But, based upon what informaiton is available she
> > > is on the unqualified side of the fence.
>
> > She is exceptionally well-qualified according to Ken Starr.
>
> Now Ken Starr's opinion matters?
It does to you, doesn't it? Are you not interested in the views of
people who share your ideology?
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <c3bb808e-e860-45d4-98ec-5ac5acc960b5
> @p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > On May 15, 11:57�am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4bede734$0$4831$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > >> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> > > > >> @v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
It always did to you.
Until now, that is.
Howard Brazee
degrees from Harvard or Yale.
Is elitism our biggest problem here?
John B.
> This fall, the Supreme Court and the last 4 presidents have all gotten
> degrees from Harvard or Yale.
>
> Is elitism our biggest problem here?
>
no places for mediocrity (although the voters and some presidents seem
to think otherwise from time to time). SC justices should be the best
and brightest legal minds in the country.
Howard Brazee
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This fall, the Supreme Court and the last 4 presidents have all gotten
>> degrees from Harvard or Yale.
>>
>> Is elitism our biggest problem here?
>>
>What's wrong with elitism? The Supreme Court and the White House are
>no places for mediocrity (although the voters and some presidents seem
>to think otherwise from time to time). SC justices should be the best
>and brightest legal minds in the country.
There are plenty of colleges that provide as good of an education.
When there is only a limited set of paths towards a goal, we can miss
a lot of important stuff.
MNMikeW
"Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since her
experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her
views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country
today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much information and forthright
testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S. Senate can make an
educated and informed decision on her nomination to the Supreme Court."
Barack Obama - 2005.
John B.
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4bede734$0$4831$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:57:41 +0000, Carbon wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:47:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>> In article <91d17f65-d2a0-421b-98d8-45adb30a59e3
> >>>> On May 14, 5:08 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <d8f82294-476a-4d15-b15a-8b2cb0fc4764
> >>>>> @n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> >>>>>> What do you expect? She works for a Democratic administration and
> >>>>>> SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. Are you guys going to come up
> >>>>>> with an intelligent argument against her nomination, or just
> >>>>>> continue with the petty sniping?
>
> >>>>> Would you hire her to represent you in a civil action if she hasn't
> >>>>> ever won a case?
>
> >>>> Obama didn't nominate her to be a trial lawyer. The fact that she has
> >>>> argued two cases before the court and lost them both says absolutely
> >>>> nothing about her fitness to be a justice.
>
> >>> You can't answer a direct question can you?
>
> >> Give it up. You don't know the first damned thing about her.
>
> > Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the one
> > ranting that she's unqualified.
>
> "Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since her
> experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her
> views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country
> today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much information and forthright
> testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S. Senate can make an
> educated and informed decision on her nomination to the Supreme Court."
>
> Barack Obama - 2005.
He was being diplomatic. Miers was completely unfit for the court and
everyone knew it - including Republicans.
MNMikeW
MNMikeW
==================================
Kagan could be the next Miers.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4bede734$0$4831$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> ranting that she's unqualified.
>
> "Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since
> her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to
> know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing
> our country today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much information
> and forthright testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S.
> Senate can make an educated and informed decision on her nomination to
> the Supreme Court."
>
> Barack Obama - 2005.
Mike, did you read this quote?
Carbon
> e1918e...@y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On May 18, 11:09 am,
You are wrong. Hell, the Republicans jumped on Miers almost as hard as
the Democrats did. You don't remember any of that? It wasn't that long
ago...
John B.
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> Kagan could be the next Miers.
>
>Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
Really? What are those qualifications?
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares.
Hor...@Horvath.net
John B.
>
> >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
>
> >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
>
> Really? What are those qualifications?
>
MNMikeW
No Carbs, I just blindly cut and pasted something and this is what appeared.
MNMikeW
I do. And there are some Dems already jumping on Kagan as well.
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>On May 18, 11:02�pm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
Humor me. Pretend I don't read the newspapers. What are those
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
Perhaps some, though I haven't heard much. It's still nothing like the
Miers firestorm. It's barely in the news.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4bf322c6$0$22471$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:09:21 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4bede734$0$4831$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>>> Probably almost as little as you. On the other hand, I'm not the
>>>> one ranting that she's unqualified.
>>>
>>> "Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since
>>> her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to
>>> know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing
>>> our country today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much
>>> information and forthright testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so
>>> that the U.S. Senate can make an educated and informed decision on
>>> her nomination to the Supreme Court."
>>>
>>> Barack Obama - 2005.
>>
>> Mike, did you read this quote?
>
> No Carbs, I just blindly cut and pasted something and this is what
> appeared.
That's what I thought :-).
Obama is saying that he doesn't know anything about Miers and that they
can't make a decision about her until until they have more information.
First, he absolutely did not say Miers was unqualified. Second, it's a
completely reasonable position.
BAR
40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On May 18, 11:02ï¿œpm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:17:48 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> > >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
> >
> > >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
> >
> >
> They've been in all the papers. Have you not been paying attention?
List them.
William Clark
Hor...@net.net wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:04:32 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> >On May 18, 11:02�pm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:17:48 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >>
> >> >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
> >>
> >> >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
> >>
> >> Really? �What are those qualifications?
> >>
> >They've been in all the papers. Have you not been paying attention?
>
> Humor me. Pretend I don't read the newspapers. What are those
> qualifications?
"Pretend" you don't read the newspapers? You are joking, surely.
John B.
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 11:02 pm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:17:48 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > > >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
>
> > > >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
>
>
> > They've been in all the papers. Have you not been paying attention?
>
> List them.
Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton,
Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals
and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at
the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate
White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton.
After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit which expired without action, she became a professor at
Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.
She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on
January 26, 2009.
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton,
>Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals
>and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at
>the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate
>White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton.
>After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
>Circuit which expired without action, she became a professor at
>Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.
>
>She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on
>January 26, 2009.
I don't see anything that qualifies her to be a judge. I see school
learning, and teaching. No real experience.
Howard Brazee
>
>I don't see anything that qualifies her to be a judge. I see school
>learning, and teaching. No real experience.
What are the qualifications that are needed for someone to be a judge?
William Clark
<c7156656-2f4b-4458...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
But these are nothing compared to Bert's distinguished track record.
William Clark
Hor...@net.net wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 19:38:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> >
> >Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton,
> >Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals
> >and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at
> >the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate
> >White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton.
> >After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
> >Circuit which expired without action, she became a professor at
> >Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.
> >
> >She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on
> >January 26, 2009.
>
> I don't see anything that qualifies her to be a judge. I see school
> learning, and teaching. No real experience.
>
You don't see anything, period. Your too damn stupid.
BAR
@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On May 19, 6:13ï¿œpm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <30c639e4-f2ad-4852-8d0f-fce8befec670@
> > 40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 18, 11:02ï¿œpm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:17:48 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > > > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> > > > >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
> >
> > > > >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
> >
> >
> > > They've been in all the papers. Have you not been paying attention?
> >
> > List them.
>
> Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton,
> Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals
> and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at
> the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate
> White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton.
> After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
> Circuit which expired without action, she became a professor at
> Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.
>
> She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on
> January 26, 2009.
Doesn't appear to have much experience in trial law. In fact her
qualificaitons as you list them are missing experience as a sitting
judge. Even a magistrate has more experience to sit in judgement of
others.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> In article
> <c7156656-2f4b-4458...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <30c639e4-f2ad-4852-8d0f-fce8befec670@
> > > 40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On May 18, 11:02ï¿œpm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:17:48 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > > > > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> > >
> > > > > >> Kagan could be the next Miers.
> > >
> > > > > >Miers had nowhere near the qualifications that Kagan has.
> > >
> > >
> > > > They've been in all the papers. Have you not been paying attention?
> > >
> > > List them.
> >
> > Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton,
> > Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals
> > and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at
> > the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate
> > White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Clinton.
> > After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
> > Circuit which expired without action, she became a professor at
> > Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.
> >
> > She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on
> > January 26, 2009.
>
> But these are nothing compared to Bert's distinguished track record.
I have accomplished many things in my life. Too many to list here.