Loretta Lynch 'Most Likely Candidate' to Replace Scalia

[Gary]

(... Looks like our shoe-shine boy in charge wants to add a black
female to his previous picks of a Hispanic and Jewish woman for the
Court...)

SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'Most Likely Candidate' to Replace
Scalia

A leading Supreme Court analyst thinks Attorney General Loretta Lynch
is the "most likely candidate" to replace the late conservative
Justice Antonin Scalia.

Tom Goldstein, who runs the influential SCOTUSblog, had earlier
predicted Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would make the top of
President Obama's shortlist. But in a revised blog post, Goldstein
said he now believes Lynch is the leading contender.

Lynch is a "very serious possibility," Goldstein wrote. "The fact that
Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it
practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short
order."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scotus-analyst-tom-goldstein-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-n518916

[El Castor]

A Republican will be selecting Scalia's replacement.

[mg]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:23:42 -0500, Gary <j...@upn.don> wrote:

In taking a quick look at her biography, Loretta Lynch would be a
terrific Supreme Court Justice. Everything points to the fact that
she's been a no-nonsense lawyer who isn't influenced by ideology or
political pressure. In reading about her and her family, I can't
help but admire her.

However, I also can't help but wonder if Obama might look at having
such a straight-shooting, no-nonsense, Attorney general in his
administration as a big problem with the anticipated fight over the
prosecution of Hillary Clinton on the horizon. If Obama nominates
Lynch will that be an attempt to get rid of her and replace her with
someone who is more pliable and less resistant to intimidation?

[GLOBALIST]

A classic example about why Obama should not
be allowed to promote anyone. BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK

[John Q. Public]

It's his duty to nominate a successor, dumb ass. It's the duty of the
Senate to vote on the nomination. All else is partisan bullshit.

--
John Q. Public

[GLOBALIST]

Whatever works.....
Obama can nominate who he wants
and the Senate can vote for who they want

[Bolt Lits AG]

On 2/15/2016 3:07 PM, GLOBALIST wrote:

> A classic example about why Obama should not
> be allowed to promote anyone. BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK

A classic example of why you are known as the Village Idiot,
and an ignorant hate-filled one at that. You really hate the
U.S. Constitution, don't you, you filthy hate-monger? You know,
the foundational document that specifies that ONE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S DUTIES IS TO NOMINATE SUPREME COURT CANDIDATES, YOU
WORTHLESS IDIOT!

[Gary]

There is SOMETHING about Loretty ..... that I just don't care for.

[mg]

If you had said that about Eric Holder, I would certainly have
agreed.

[GLOBALIST]

Nothing to hate...she was or is a do-nothing AG
Her claim to fame is telling cops not to arrest
black criminals

[John Q. Public]

It's not "whatever works", dumb ass. It's what the Constitution requires.

--
John Q. Public

[John Q. Public]

You hate a lot of folks. I'm glad I'm not you.

--
John Q. Public

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

"Bolt Lits AG" wrote in message news:n9tnu3$4k6$1...@dont-email.me...

****** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

tsk, tsk, tsk.
"WORTHLESS IDIOT"?
Clearly, you, sir, have not had as much experience dealing with the Village
Idiot as others here have. He is definitely not...repeat, not...a
"WORTHLESS IDIOT" by any stretch of the imagination. The Village Idiot
EARNS his keep here...much as those court jesters and idiots of years past
did...by entertaining us with his multitude of diverse ploys that he
employs. Take his "Look here, not there" ploy - he pulls that one out as
much as possible, usually when one attacks with true observations of the
Catholic Church...particularly with regards to child abuse by the clergy and
the coverup thereto. Then there is his "apples vs. oranges" ploy that he
sneakily employs and with which he is usually successful unless you are
clever enough to catch him. He the Village Idiot hypocrite is simply lots
of fun to observe when on the one hand he insists that he is a devout
Catholic with all these Church assignments/duties and on the other hand
vehemently impugns/desecrates/disparages those he does not like. Above all,
the Village Idiot really is priceless in entertaining us with his
Intellectual Coward ploy which he employs as soon as he is confronted...as
you yourself will see with this post of yours.

My point...and hopefully I am successful in making it...is that the Village
Idiot is not a "WORTHLESS IDIOT" as you characterize him. Yes, the Village
Idiot indeed is the Village Idiot is the Village Idiot, even though he is a
college graduate, a medical school graduate (with "A"), a PhD, and almost
(if not already) 72 years old. Still, as explained, the Village
Idiot...being the Village Idiot...does have some (not much, admittedly...but
some) redeeming value entertainment wise. I mean...who else here performs
the Intellectual Coward ploy as frequently - and as well - as he does?

So - please - don't be so critical of our one and only Village Idiot here
and appreciate...much as I do...the fact that we indeed do have the Village
Idiot around to entertain us as much as he does.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:08:32 +0100, "John Q. Public"

>GLOBALIST wrote:
>> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 6:08:07 PM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:00:13 -0700, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:23:42 -0500, Gary <j...@upn.don> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> In taking a quick look at her biography, Loretta Lynch would be a
>>>> terrific Supreme Court Justice. Everything points to the fact that
>>>> she's been a no-nonsense lawyer who isn't influenced by ideology or
>>>> political pressure. In reading about her and her family, I can't
>>>> help but admire her.
>>>>
>>>> However, I also can't help but wonder if Obama might look at having
>>>> such a straight-shooting, no-nonsense, Attorney general in his
>>>> administration as a big problem with the anticipated fight over the
>>>> prosecution of Hillary Clinton on the horizon. If Obama nominates
>>>> Lynch will that be an attempt to get rid of her and replace her with
>>>> someone who is more pliable and less resistant to intimidation?
>>>
>>> There is SOMETHING about Loretty ..... that I just don't care for.
>>
>> Nothing to hate...she was or is a do-nothing AG
>> Her claim to fame is telling cops not to arrest
>> black criminals
>>
>
>You hate a lot of folks. I'm glad I'm not you.

I'd guess that it doesn't matter whom Obama nominates,
because the Republicans are going to stonewall confirming
any nominee, in hope getting a Republican president to pick
somebody as pleasing to the extreme-right-wing as Scalia
was, if they win the presidency next year.

I hope maybe the American people are finally sick and
tired of politics-as-usual by now, but I've been wrong
about that so often in the past that I have no confidence
that the people any more ready for real change now than
they have been in the recent past.

[islander]

It does matter. There are a number of potential candidates who have
been approved for lower jobs with overwhelming approval in the Senate.
Nominating any one of them would make it abundantly clear that the
Republicans are playing politics and in the current political climate
that could be the deciding factor in a number of close races. It seems
to me that the public is pretty fed up with obstructionism.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:45:53 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 2/16/2016 8:25 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:

<snip>

>> I hope maybe the American people are finally sick and
>> tired of politics-as-usual by now, but I've been wrong
>> about that so often in the past that I have no confidence
>> that the people any more ready for real change now than
>> they have been in the recent past.
>>
>It does matter. There are a number of potential candidates who have
>been approved for lower jobs with overwhelming approval in the Senate.
>Nominating any one of them would make it abundantly clear that the
>Republicans are playing politics and in the current political climate
>that could be the deciding factor in a number of close races. It seems
>to me that the public is pretty fed up with obstructionism.

Maybe people need further proof of obstructionism,
but if they haven't seen it yet, maybe they're systemically
blocking themselves from the knowledge. Humans do
that: it's one of the reasons theistic religion persists.

[islander]

I find it frustrating that Republican obstructionism seems to be
evidence to voters that government isn't working and Democrats are being
painted with the same brush. Their plan is working!

[Bolt Lits AG]

On 2/15/2016 2:35 PM, El Castor wrote:

> A Republican will be selecting Scalia's replacement.

Right, and McCain/Palin won in 2008, and Romney/Ryan won in 2012, or
at least that's many on the conservative side were predicting in
those election years. Karl Rove's meltdown on Fox "News" is still a
classic.

And the Republican party is not showing all the symptoms of a
once-functional party in its death throes and succumbing to its own
factionalism.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/17/robert_reich_the_gop_died_in_2016_partner/

[GLOBALIST]

EONS ago I was told that someone with no real enemies,
probably has no real friends.

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message
news:050f07db-bde1-47f9...@googlegroups.com...

****** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Egads...OK, Village Idiot, I'll bite.
Now there - Village Idiot - is from you the Village Idiot one heck of a
superb response.
Now we here at soc.retirement well know that you the Village Idiot have a
number of "real enemies." Pray tell - who here in soc.retirement do you the
Village Idiot consider to be your very own "real friends"? Curious minds
do want to know!

And now we will certainly be entertained by performance #95 (!) of his most
favorite, number one Intellectual Coward ploy as the Village Idiot after
making sure that his tail is secure between his legs runs away yet again
back down into his hole under his rock.

[John Q. Public]

The only enemies you have are those floating around your brain. I wasn't
talking about that. I was talking about your HATE. Try to keep up and
stop demonstrating to everyone why you can't pass the GED.

--
John Q. Public

[El Castor]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:53:18 -0800, Bolt Lits AG <in...@nation.al>
wrote:

Thanks. Always good to get advice from the socialist Left on the fate
of the Republican party. (-8

[rumpelstiltskin]

One might argue that the Republicans are the obstructionists
and the Democrats don't have enough power to avoid being
just patsies. That may be true, but the net ineffectiveness of
government to serve "the people" comes to the same thing.

[islander]

The thing that is not "the same thing" is any hope that the Republicans
will change. Democrats can change themselves, but I've given up hope
that there will ever be a change in the Republicans. We can only work
to keep the Republicans from bringing down the whole republic.

[Jim_Higgins]

Change from Harry Truman Democrats to Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders
"Democrats" (which my father would regard with absolute loathing.

--
Hussein Obama working hard to destroy America

[El Castor]

Oh please! There is probably at least as great, if not greater,
variation among Republicans as there is among Democrats. There are two
distinct wings of conservatism in the US -- fiscal and social. On the
other hand, Democrats as a whole are tilting toward the European brand
of socialism -- even as that form of welfare state socialism is in the
process of destroying Europe.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I've given up hope there will ever be effective change among
the Democrats either. They'll always be better at least than
the Republicans, but that's seeming less and less to me to be
"good enough". If we really want change, we need new blood.
The Democrats can't avoid being drawn into the pigsty because
the pigsty process is how both parties win, though most people
who support the Democratic party at least don't wallow in the
pigsty and feel it's the best possible thing in the world as the
majority of people who support the Republican party do.

I'm reminded of the title of one of Ariana Huffington's
books about American Politics: "Pigs at the Trough".

[islander]

The current political campaign seems to be defying the belief that money
always wins. If Sanders proves nothing else, I hope that he proves that
an appeal to the electorate can win without big money sponsorship. That
won't solve all the problems with the influence of money on politics,
but it may be a good start.

[Emily]

I have to believe that some Republicans are at least moderately sane.
After all, I'm married to one. I believe there's a good chance that
the Republican party will end up breaking up.

I don't think the Democrats feel the same way about each other but
there is definitely a split between the most right leaning who are
mostly just like Republicans but saner on the social issues, and the
Bernie supporters who're more to the left. I think if Hillary wins
the nomination with super delegates when Bernie would have prevailed
otherwise, it could cause a big rift in the party. It's certainly
going to piss me off if it happens.

What would be so bad about having more parties? It couldn't gum up
the works any worse than they're gummed up now.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that socialism is ruining
Europe. What's destroying Europe is the influx of Muslims who have no
intention of assimilating, and possibly the whole idea of a European
Union.

[El Castor]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:26:34 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:32:07 -0800, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:43:35 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>>>The thing that is not "the same thing" is any hope that the Republicans
>>>will change. Democrats can change themselves, but I've given up hope
>>>that there will ever be a change in the Republicans. We can only work
>>>to keep the Republicans from bringing down the whole republic.
>>
>>Oh please! There is probably at least as great, if not greater,
>>variation among Republicans as there is among Democrats. There are two
>>distinct wings of conservatism in the US -- fiscal and social. On the
>>other hand, Democrats as a whole are tilting toward the European brand
>>of socialism -- even as that form of welfare state socialism is in the
>>process of destroying Europe.
>
>I have to believe that some Republicans are at least moderately sane.
>After all, I'm married to one. I believe there's a good chance that
>the Republican party will end up breaking up.

Probably not. Like it or not, our form of government rewards a two
party system.

>I don't think the Democrats feel the same way about each other but
>there is definitely a split between the most right leaning who are
>mostly just like Republicans but saner on the social issues, and the
>Bernie supporters who're more to the left. I think if Hillary wins
>the nomination with super delegates when Bernie would have prevailed
>otherwise, it could cause a big rift in the party. It's certainly
>going to piss me off if it happens.

You would have a right to be pissed off. Those super delegates are a
terrible idea.

>What would be so bad about having more parties? It couldn't gum up
>the works any worse than they're gummed up now.
>
>I haven't seen any convincing evidence that socialism is ruining
>Europe. What's destroying Europe is the influx of Muslims who have no
>intention of assimilating, and possibly the whole idea of a European
>Union.
>

Just another face of European socialism. Left wing multiculturalism is
welcoming those immigrants (really civilian invaders) into Europe.