The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court

I would prefer an independent minded Justice as opposed to a Liberal but Obama is STILL President for 11 more months despite anybody's opinion of his leadership.

I think that is the consensus no matter how much BS is said.
 
I would prefer an independent minded Justice as opposed to a Liberal but Obama is STILL President for 11 more months despite anybody's opinion of his leadership.

So what? He's already had two bites at the apple and gave us a couple lesbian hags....that's enough.
 
I would prefer an independent minded Justice as opposed to a Liberal but Obama is STILL President for 11 more months despite anybody's opinion of his leadership.

So what? He's already had two bites at the apple and gave us a couple lesbian hags....that's enough.

Is that how things work?
McDonald's closes everyday after selling how many burgers?
 
Is that how things work?
McDonald's closes everyday after selling how many burgers?

The way things work is the next Justice will turn the Court one way or the other until Ginsburg kicks the bucket or Kennedy goes soft. What part of this is confusing you?
 
I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

Can you prove he isn't? :eusa_eh:

The quick and dirty:
After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan started working as a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges. The first was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. Although Wilkinson was considered Republican, he expressed bipartisanship in his personal views, most notably in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. After that, Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Many viewed O'Connor as a moderate Conservative, but in her latter years she often had the swing vote, which made her more bipartisan. That means Srinivasan's early exposure to a legal career was largely nonpartisan, despite working with two judges who had fairly conservative beliefs.

For five years, Srinivasan worked under the George W. Bush Justice Department. Bush stayed true to conservatism throughout his eight-year term, which proved to be a partisan experience for Srinivasan during his time under his Justice Department. However, many of the connections Srinivasan made while working for Bush helped get him appointed to the D.C. Circuit. According to the New York Times, Paul D. Clement and Theodore B. Olson, both solicitors general under Bush, sent a letter of support when Srinivasan was nominated for the D.C. Circuit.

When Srinivasan worked for O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit they faced for human rights violations abroad. During this private-sector work, Srinivasan argued that Exxon Mobil shouldn't be held accountable for these violations when they took place outside of the U.S. However, Liberals were not happy with Srinivasan's decision because of the severity of this lawsuit; an Indonesian village accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people. Similarly, Srinivasan successfully represented a newspaper publisher that fired its employees for unionizing against the publisher's biased interference in its reporting. He also defended Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, who was later convicted in a significant financial fraud. After these defense cases, Liberals weren't sure if Srinivasan shared their views, especially with regards to human rights.
Bustle

Your turn.
 
What the hell convoluted logic is this? Is it alleged that republican "moderates" care more about nominating a conservative to the supreme court than conservatives? The left is going crazy.
 
"The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong – the president is not 'stacking' the Court.

Indeed, if Senate republicans were smart they'd quickly confirm Obama's nominee, as the long-term ideological makeup of the Court will not be determined by such an appointment, that will be determined by the next president, who will make at least four appointments to the Court during his or her time in office.
 
I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

Can you prove he isn't? :eusa_eh:

The quick and dirty:
After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan started working as a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges. The first was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. Although Wilkinson was considered Republican, he expressed bipartisanship in his personal views, most notably in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. After that, Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Many viewed O'Connor as a moderate Conservative, but in her latter years she often had the swing vote, which made her more bipartisan. That means Srinivasan's early exposure to a legal career was largely nonpartisan, despite working with two judges who had fairly conservative beliefs.

For five years, Srinivasan worked under the George W. Bush Justice Department. Bush stayed true to conservatism throughout his eight-year term, which proved to be a partisan experience for Srinivasan during his time under his Justice Department. However, many of the connections Srinivasan made while working for Bush helped get him appointed to the D.C. Circuit. According to the New York Times, Paul D. Clement and Theodore B. Olson, both solicitors general under Bush, sent a letter of support when Srinivasan was nominated for the D.C. Circuit.

When Srinivasan worked for O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit they faced for human rights violations abroad. During this private-sector work, Srinivasan argued that Exxon Mobil shouldn't be held accountable for these violations when they took place outside of the U.S. However, Liberals were not happy with Srinivasan's decision because of the severity of this lawsuit; an Indonesian village accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people. Similarly, Srinivasan successfully represented a newspaper publisher that fired its employees for unionizing against the publisher's biased interference in its reporting. He also defended Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, who was later convicted in a significant financial fraud. After these defense cases, Liberals weren't sure if Srinivasan shared their views, especially with regards to human rights.
Bustle

Your turn.

Will all due respect to Dubya, the Bush family has SUCKED picking Supremes....from Sutter to Roberts, anybody connected to them is suspicious. Truthfully, I had no idea who this guy was until you mentioned him....I figured he was a Hussein appointee so you win on a technicality. :lol:
 
How is filling a vacancy and allowing it to function "stacking"?

What do we call forcing the court to run short handed until you get to call the shots?
 
"The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong – the president is not 'stacking' the Court.

Indeed, if Senate republicans were smart they'd quickly confirm Obama's nominee, as the long-term ideological makeup of the Court will not be determined by such an appointment, that will be determined by the next president, who will make at least four appointments to the Court during his or her time in office.

Why on earth would we give that lame-duck fool another pick? We'll still be able to replace retiring or dead Justices in the coming years without doing that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top