Supreme Court Justice Barack Oblather? 72% say he's an unqualified dirtbag for anything.
Leroy N. Soetoro
803275.html
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/246361-
6K2XYUTHHTM6B0AYS2OABB9VXXW0GU&crt=4&rspid=67452317
He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too
willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not
enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.
These are some of the qualities for which the president, rightly or
wrongly, is criticized. They are also the qualities that make him well
suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama,
Supreme Court justice.
Think about it. Though Obama has struggled to find his footing in the
White House, his education, temperament and experience make him ideally
suited to lead the liberal wing of the court, especially at a time when
a narrow conservative majority seems increasingly intent on challenging
progressive economic reforms for the first time since the New Deal.
Obama is clearly eager to take on the four truly conservative justices
-- Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- as
his State of the Union smackdown suggests. But as president, he's
constrained by that pesky separation of powers. So what better way to
engage the fight than to join the bench?
It would be unusual, but not difficult, for Obama to get himself on the
Supreme Court. He could nominate himself to replace John Paul Stevens,
for example, or he could gamble and promise Hillary Rodham Clinton that
he won't run for reelection in 2012 in exchange for a pledge of
appointment to the next vacancy. And although as president, Obama has
seemed haunted by the example of his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, on
the Supreme Court he could take up the mantle of the greatest liberal
justice of the 20th century, Louis Brandeis, another community organizer
with a background in politics. In the end, Obama's legacy on the court
might surpass his legacy in the White House.
Obama's academic credentials for the court -- including serving as
president of the Harvard Law Review and teaching constitutional law at
the University of Chicago -- are obvious. But it's his even temperament
and low boiling point that seem tailor-made for the court at this
polarized moment. Obama's patient courtship of the vain and wavering
swing votes in the Senate (such as Joe Lieberman) during the health-care
debate, for example, is ideal preparation for courting the vain and
wavering swing vote on the court (Justice Anthony Kennedy). And Obama's
detached and judicious disposition would equip him to challenge the
conservative hothead, Scalia, without descending to his name-calling.
In terms of judicial philosophy, too, Obama is well suited to take on
the pro-corporate activism of the conservative justices -- on display in
the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision,
which gutted campaign finance laws and which, according to recent polls,
strong national majorities oppose.
In his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote that throughout
American history, constitutional values have generally been defined by
ground-up political activism rather than imposed from above by judges.
From the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, it was liberals in
the political arena, not conservatives, who defended judicial restraint
in the face of activist conservative justices who tried to strike down
progressive regulations, from the income tax to the minimum wage. But
Obama questioned whether, more recently, liberals had become too ready
to let courts fight their battles for them. "I wondered," he wrote, "if,
in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also
our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy."
Obama's commitment to judicial restraint is at odds with the activism
displayed by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision, which
called into question not only the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act
but also decades of other federal laws and Supreme Court precedents
restricting the free speech of corporations. In defending the ruling,
Chief Justice Roberts said: "We cannot embrace a narrow ground of
decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right." This
overconfidence in knowledge of the right answer is something Obama
didn't display while teaching in Chicago. His students have attested to
his mastery in neutrally presenting opposing points of view without
revealing his own.
When Roberts joined the court, he told me and other journalists that he
hoped to emulate his greatest predecessor, Chief Justice John Marshall,
encouraging his liberal and conservative colleagues to avoid polarizing
constitutional disputes by converging around narrow, unanimous opinions
decided on technical grounds. Now that Roberts appears to have abandoned
that vision in Citizens United, Obama could take on the role of Supreme
Court mediator, conciliator and master compromiser that Roberts promised
to play but has not yet delivered.
It's surprising but true that the least successful presidents are often
the most judicious, while the most successful justices are the most
pragmatic. Obama's willingness to compromise and listen to opposing
points of view, in other words, may hamper him in overhauling health
care -- public option, anyone? -- but would make him an unusually
effective leader on the Supreme Court. As Obama recognized on the
campaign trail when he cited former chief justice and three-time
California governor Earl Warren as his judicial hero, the most effective
judicial leaders have been former politicians.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was critical of Roberts's
self-description as an "umpire" and his likening of the court's role to
simply calling balls and strikes. "We need somebody who's got the heart,
the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom,"
Obama said. "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or
African American, or gay, or disabled, or old."
But Warren's success as chief justice came not so much from his ability
to empathize with the downtrodden as from his ability to empathize with
his colleagues. Because of his political skills, Warren achieved the
kind of success that has eluded Roberts: He persuaded a fractious court
to reach a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the
landmark case striking down school segregation, by visiting the wavering
justices one by one and persuading them to set aside their doubts. A
majority of the justices on the court that decided Brown had a
background in electoral politics; no justices on the Roberts court do.
In a group of former law professors, prosecutors and trial judges, Obama
would look like a political wizard.
There's another distinctive perspective that he would bring to the
bench: economic populism. After a long flirtation with the Tim Geithner,
pro-Wall Street, "too big to fail" wing of the Democratic Party, Obama
has at last thrown in his lot with the view, espoused first by Brandeis
and now by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, that huge
corporations should be broken up before they threaten another crash. And
this view badly needs a stalwart defender on a Supreme Court that seems
on the verge of confronting an economically progressive Congress.
On the Roberts court, the liberal and conservative justices share a
pro-business orientation, or at least a suspicion of regulation by
litigation: Business cases in recent years have made up 40 percent of
the court's docket, and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 79
percent of them are decided by a 7 to 2 majority or greater. None of the
current liberal justices, moreover, had a strong record as an economic
populist before joining the court. At a time when liberals need a
passionate voice to oppose conservative economic judicial activism,
Obama seems well prepared to transform the debate.
Louis Brandeis, who served on the high court from 1916 to 1939, offers a
good model for Obama. Known as "the people's lawyer," he was an economic
populist, criticizing the "curse of bigness" that led oligarchs such as
J.P. Morgan to threaten the entire financial system by taking reckless
risks with "other people's money" and then to demand government bailouts
after their bad bets. But Brandeis opposed bigness in government as well
as in the private sector, and during the New Deal he preferred
regulations that prevented companies from getting too large in the first
place -- such as the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial from
investment banking -- rather than the creation of huge federal
bureaucracies to regulate the economy.
On the high court, Brandeis generally stood for judicial restraint,
denouncing conservatives for striking down progressive state economic
regulations. But he also believed fiercely in the First Amendment and
freedom from unreasonable searches. Both a pragmatist and a civil
libertarian, he provides a judicial ideal for Obama, whose record
resembles his in many respects.
So, could it actually happen? David Gergen, the CNN commentator who
served as an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton,
recently reflected on Obama's State of the Union speech in an appearance
on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report." Although he praised Obama's
intellectual abilities and presidential campaign, he lamented his
"detached" and "professorial" attitude once in office. "There was some
sense last night when watching Barack Obama and the Supreme Court
sitting in front of him, [that] he'd be great on the Supreme Court,"
Gergen said.
But could Obama get confirmed? As a senator, he voted against the
confirmations of Roberts and Alito, and GOP lawmakers might hold that
against him in his own confirmation hearing. Yet, although it would be
hard for a Brandeis to be confirmed in today's polarized age, Obama
might get some deference as a former president, at least from senators
who would rather have him on the court than in the White House.
Whether Obama would be bored by the Supreme Court is another question.
Justices with presidential ambitions have often chafed at the isolation
of the marble palace. For example, William O. Douglas -- who wanted the
presidency, according to his friend Tommy Cochran, more than Don Quixote
wanted Dulcinea -- never stopped complaining that the court was too
removed from the political action. But having seen the frustrations of
the White House, perhaps Obama would instead come around to the view of
William Howard Taft, who became chief justice after serving as president
and decided that leading the court was a far better job than leading the
country. The summer vacations are longer, and nothing beats life tenure.
Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the
legal affairs editor of the New Republic and the author of "The Supreme
Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America." He will be
online to chat with readers on Monday, Feb. 22, at 11 a.m. ET. Submit
your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. On February 25, 2010, the House ethics
committee has concluded that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.
Rangel knowingly accepted Caribbean trips in violation of House rules that
forbid hidden financing by corporations. No mention of the million dollar
tax evasion by said committee.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Juan
wrote:
>
> He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too
> willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not
> enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.
And this spoken by a birdbrain nimrod that 70+% of the people say is
unqualified to reproduce, let alone lead the country to anything,
given the fact that she can't even get her own children to follow her
"rules" and keep their legs closed.
Oh, but of course, the #1 repukeblican rule is that all rules are
"negotiable," starting with the ones allegedly set down by their own
"god". :)
Al
<e228c0f2-f1fd-4343...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
With you and the rest of the radical foreign fringe wanks, truth is
"negotiable", secret website moron.
Juan
> In article
> <e228c0f2-f1fd-4343-93cb-1de46588b...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
As opposed to what, your below-body-temp IQ and your tax problems?
LOL! :)
Mc-laughee
Fortunately, due to Obama, there will never be another Negro President
elected in the US.
Al
<9a26fe11-2383-4281...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:19�am, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e228c0f2-f1fd-4343-93cb-1de46588b...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 1:27 am, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too
> > > > willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not
> > > > enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.
> >
> > > And this spoken by a birdbrain nimrod that 70+% of the people say is
> > > unqualified to reproduce, let alone lead the country to anything,
> > > given the fact that she can't even get her own children to follow her
> > > "rules" and keep their legs closed.
> >
> > > Oh, but of course, the #1 repukeblican rule is that all rules are
> > > "negotiable," starting with the ones allegedly set down by their own
> > > "god". :)
> >
> > With you and the rest of the radical foreign fringe wanks, truth is
> > "negotiable", secret website moron.
>
> As opposed to what, your below-body-temp IQ and your tax problems?
> LOL! :)
I rest my case, secret website guy.
Curly Surmudgeon
When was the last one?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
Democrats: Party Without a Spine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frito Pendejo
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021
> 803275.html
>
> http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/246361-
> 6K2XYUTHHTM6B0AYS2OABB9VXXW0GU&crt=4&rspid=67452317
>
> He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too
> willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not
> enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.
>
> These are some of the qualities for which the president, rightly or
> wrongly, is criticized. They are also the qualities that make him well
> suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama,
> Supreme Court justice.
Barack Obama is even less qualified than Clarence Thomas, since even
with his lack of legal prowess Thomas has infinitely more substance than
Obama. Being an expert legal scholar is a less important quality than
just being a human being who can relate to the American people and their
lives.
Obama doesn't relate to anyone, and has as much substance and conviction
as soda pop. Since Obama lacks substance, he thinks everything else
lacks substance, including the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.
Barack Obama is a shallow politician, and would be an even shallower
Supreme Court justice. He is even a shallow lawyer, since like himself,
he thinks the law can be whatever he wants it to be.
The only job Barack Obama is truly qualified for is used car salesman or
comet cult leader.
Curly Surmudgeon
imaginarium
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> > How does that social spiral of debt, nationalism and demagogary compare
> > with the US's terminal spiral of debt, nationalism and demagogary? My
> > guess would be that Argintina has the better chance of survival.
>
> Argentina is paying it's remaining National Debt down with a fully
MBWHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
YOU LYING SHIT HEAD!!!!!
You're a fucking IDIOT, Curly, a delusional idiot living in a socialst spiral of debt, nationalism, and demagogery.
You're going to see discord the likes of which you are ill-equipped, as an expat, to survive.
What a fool!
"For (Mr. Kirchner) to even be remotely viable, they cannot cut spending and probably need to increase it," said Mark P. Jones, a Rice University political scientist. That has made the business community uneasy that Mrs. Kirchner might launch some new populist gambit to fill government coffers, as she did in 2008 by nationalizing private pension funds. The Kirchners' history suggests, "they will go as far as they need to go to get funds," Mr. Jones said. "There is no limit."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aWHEGQucHPwg
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Argentina may nationalize Telecom Argentina SA, the phone company controlled by Telecom Italia SpA and Telefonica SA, MF reported, without saying where it got the information.
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner may announce the decision in a televised speech “soon,” MF said.
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=3986
The governments of Venezuela and Argentina -- two of Latin America’s most populist -- have begun 2010 with measures that are sowing disorder among the local populations and foreign investors in the two countries.
On the one hand, Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner decided to sever her connections with Martin Redrado, president of the Argentine central bank (BCRA). Kirchner decreed that Redrado had been dismissed after unsuccessfully demanding that he resign his office. The reason: Redrado had refused to execute a presidential decree that obliged him to transfer US$6.56 billion of the bank’s reserves to the so-called Bicentennial Fund, which was to repay the country’s debts.
A few days later, a judge suspended the presidential decree and Redrado was reinstated because the central bank’s governing charter establishes that Congress must be consulted before any bank governor is dismissed. However, from that point on, the relationship between the government and Redrado became mixed up, leading to some unusual situations, such as the decision by the executive branch to block Redrado’s access to the bank shortly after his return. Finally, the Argentine “soap opera” came to a close, almost a month later, with Redrado’s resignation at a press conference, and the designation on February 3 of Mercedes Marco del Pont, a close ally of Kirchner and her husband, Nestor Kirchner, former President of Argentina, as president of the Bank.
In the middle of this conflict, a judge in the U.S. decreed an embargo on the Argentine central bank’s funds in the U.S. Federal Reserve, in response to a petition by investment fund Elliot and Dart, which has been demanding repayment of unpaid Argentine government bonds since the default by the Argentine government in 2001. Redrado had already expressed his fears that something like this would happen now, because with the new “bicentennial” decree, the BCRA’s funds would now be considered governmental property. Nevertheless, after a meeting between the plaintiffs and the lawyers of the U.S. Fed – who claimed that this move was unnecessary and would interfere with legitimate banking operations – the embargo was officially lifted.
All this has had a negative impact on prices for Argentine bonds and on stock prices there. “[Argentina’s] Country Risk increased from 651 to 727 points, especially after the embargo. The stock exchange [index in Buenos Aires] fell 2.78 percent. Nevertheless, the [Argentine] monetary authority succeeded in keeping the [U.S.] dollar stable at about 3.83 [pesos to the dollar],” says the latest report published by the Torcuato Di Tella University’s Financial Research Center (CIF) for the Econolatin network. At the present time, Argentina’s courts have continued to block any effort by the country’s central bank to transfer reserves to the government. According to a court decision in March, following the summer recess, the Argentine parliament will have to debate whether to grant authorization for the central bank to transfer its reserves.
The institutional conflict has erupted at the very same time when Argentina is attempting to refinance US$20 billion of bonds that are in default and are in the hands of creditors who rejected the restructuring of the debt agreed upon in 2005. That agreement put an end to the condition of “default” into which the country had entered four years earlier, and from which it needed to emerge in order to access financing at a lower cost. In 2010, Argentina faces payments of $13 billion on public debt maturities amounting to $130 billion, which represents 40 percent of its GDP.
According to the government, the Argentine government grew by only 0.9 percent during 2009, but independent analysts say that it fell by 4% last year. This economic deceleration has hurt tax revenues and dried up budgetary savings. Since 2004, write the analysts at the CIF, “the tax surplus has been one of the fundamental pillars of government economic policy but it clearly deteriorated in 2009. The main result was that the GDP contracted by 1.3 percent that year.” In 2010 the outlook continues to show signs of deterioration. “Expectations are for improvement in tax collections because of a 20 percent inflation as well as economic growth, and spending is not expected to be moderated,” the CIF said.
This is due largely to new child support programs that “increase spending by about $7.4 billion (0.6 percent of the GDP).” In addition, “20 of Argentina’s [overall total of 23] provinces are in the red, and their collective deficit could reach 1.2 percent of the GDP,” says the report.
--
juanjo
coward, wrote:
more drivel in which he shows his obsession with President Obama.
The Fried Asshole which is what Frito Pendejo means in Spanish is
obsessed with Obama. He has been for some time now. He has compared
Obama to Jim Jones but of course without any facts to support his
comparison. He has posted various news articles about people
committing illegal activities and proclaimed they must be Obama
supporters, again without any supporting documentation whatsoever. So
his posting of a youtube segment which is akin to a "Jay Walking"
segment used by Jay Leno to entertain people is typical for him.
He also admits to being a heavy user of illegal drugs, so much so that
he has described himself as walking around a city where he did not
live in a state of complete stupification. The hypocrisy of his heavy
drug usage exemplified by his many statements as well as his use of
drug related jargon all while condemning others for drug use is lost
upon him.
He is also a notorious figure known for his condemnation of all or
virtually all gay men as HIV+, addicted to crystal meth and
responsible for the majority of STD's in the United States. When
confronted by evidence from the CDC showing his claims are complete
fabrications, his response is to dismiss the CDC and claim that his
personal observation is superior.
He has also posted completely false information on the web attempting
to link Harvey Milk and Jim Jones, claiming that Harvey Milk nominated
Jones for a city position and then voted to confirm him. Jones was
appointed to a city position in 1976 almost 2 years before Harvey was
elected to any government office.
The Frito Boy also decided to support the claims of another notorious
internet troll who posted claiming that Matthew Shepard got what he
deserved. Frito Boy supported this claim and not to be undone
announced that he had personal information that Matthew Shepard was
HIV
+, a claim denied by his mother and not supported by the coroner who
autopsied the body of Shepard after his murder.
Ted's Tumor
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Class struggle, dude.