Obama Judicial Nominees "Not Qualified"

[PoliticalChic]

This is a savage, unconstitutional attack on our judicial branch and the entire US population should be appalled, and would be, if they knew and were aware of the unethical and treasoneuos acts Obama has done, such as this. He swore to upheld our Constitution, yet he himself has attacked it countless times.

Worse still, most Ameicans are clueless of it. The media tells them hes a saint, and they go along. The media tells us that his approval rate is high and we believe them. When in fact, it is lower than any US President is History.

What law gives the ABA legal authority over vetting judicial nominees?

That would be the White House....
...you were too busy to read the NYTimes link, huh?

"The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified,..."



Why so?
Because the ABA is traditionally a Left-wing rubber stamp.

"The American Bar Association, which was dogged for decades by criticism over a perceived liberal bent, is risking reigniting that debate by taking bold stands on a pair of hot-button social issues."
John Graham: Why is the American Bar Association swinging Left? « The Occidental Observer Blog


If there is any other area in which you require schooling, feel free to ask.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

when clarence thomas was evaluated, daddy bush said the ABA wasn't credible when they gave thomas the lowest possible level of rating for a supreme court nominee.

suddenly rightwingnuts like the ABA?

You'd actually have to be able to read and understand the law and the USA Constitution to appreciate Thomas, no wonder you find it funny.

two states said i'm just fine in my knowledge of the law.

who was your con law professor? just curious. because mine was telford taylor.

now don't hurt yourself too badly running for google.

You don't impress me in the least and I won't even bother Googling your Professor. I find you sophomoric, shallow, lacking any real understanding of the Constitution or the law. You're a typical Liberal attorney and as such are like a kid in LegoLand and all you know how to do is knock things down that people a million times better than you built.

I'm not a lawyer, never gave law school a passing thought; I use Tribe for toilet paper. My son is in law school now and he'll ask me to read and discuss a case with him. I just read the Slaughterhouse cases. I wonder if you did?

Any serious student of the law, and you're not, would at least understand that even if you don't like Thomas's conclusions, his logic and grasp of the Constitution is unassailable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd actually have to be able to read and understand the law and the USA Constitution to appreciate Thomas, no wonder you find it funny.

two states said i'm just fine in my knowledge of the law.

who was your con law professor? just curious. because mine was telford taylor.

now don't hurt yourself too badly running for google.

You don't impress me in the least and I won't even bother Googling your Professor. I find you sophomoric, shallow, lacking any real understanding of the Constitution or the law. You're a typical Liberal attorney and as such are like a kid in LegoLand and all you know how to do is knock things down that people a million times better than you built.

I'm not a lawyer, never gave law school a passing thought; I use Tribe for toilet paper. My son is in law school now and he'll ask me to read and discuss a case with him. I just read the Slaughterhouse cases. I wonder if you did?

Any serious student of the law, and you're not, would at least understand that even if you don't like Thomas's conclusions, his logic and grasp of the Constitution is unassailable.

"In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.

This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in The New Yorker for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas: Herbert Hoover as the First Keynesian? Henry Kissinger as the Great Humanitarian? Richard Nixon, the most liberal president ever (that one might even be true)?

If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work."
Read more: New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom | Via Meadia


The Thomases vs. Obama’s Health-Care Plan : The New Yorker

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's my challenge to Jilly: Post what you believe to be Thomas's funniest opinion. You know, the one that exposes the shallowness of his intellect and supposed lack of insight into the Constitution.

Add some commentary too, so we can get the joke.

 

[Trajan]

American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

1. WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified," slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships -- and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

2. "But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.

3. The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.

4. ...the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than those of any previous president.

5. The committee has been more likely to deliver a harsh verdict about Mr. Obama’s prospects than it was during either the Clinton or Bush administrations. It has rejected about 7.5 percent of his prospects, compared with about 2 percent of the potential judges under each of the two previous presidents."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/u...ps.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


You've heard of the three holes in the ground? Well, well, well.
So, the Left which often complained that Republicans were 'outside of the mainstream'...
seems the shoe is on the other foot...the Left foot.

Seems four times as many of this Leftist President's choices for the bench are 'unqualified' as compared to President Bush's nominees.

How could that be??
Could he be picking same based on...oh, I don't know....less than American values???

So....another area in which this blow-hard is a flop!
(hey...did you see that the two reports above were from those noted right-wing
smear machines, Huffington and NYTimes....wow!)

Well, well, well.

wow, from the holy of he holies no less....Pinch Jr. must be napping...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simple question for Jillian et al....

The left and your chosen savior Obama all have said repeatedly that the ABA was the be all of rating Judges for Federal office. So ignoring what you think is wrong by the right pointing out the ABA does not like a lot of Obama's choices, explain to us if the ABA is in your opinion the right place to get Judges rated?

 

[del]

7% is a lot

good to know

 

[geauxtohell]

This is a savage, unconstitutional attack on our judicial branch and the entire US population should be appalled, and would be, if they knew and were aware of the unethical and treasoneuos acts Obama has done, such as this. He swore to upheld our Constitution, yet he himself has attacked it countless times.

Worse still, most Ameicans are clueless of it. The media tells them hes a saint, and they go along. The media tells us that his approval rate is high and we believe them. When in fact, it is lower than any US President is History.

What law gives the ABA legal authority over vetting judicial nominees?

That would be the White House....
...you were too busy to read the NYTimes link, huh?

The White House has the power to make law on its own?

That would be a big negative, Ghostrider, and you know it.

The ABA is a professional group that can give advice that the White House can either take or ignore. It has absolutely zilch to do with the legalities of the nomination.

Which is obviously the case, as the Bush Administration choose to completely cut the ABA out, which you obviously know since it was in your article (though you selectively decided to omit it from your cut and paste job).

That outcome has added a new twist to a long-running friction in the politics of judicial nominations. During recent Republican administrations, conservatives have made political hay of accusing the A.B.A. of liberal bias against conservative potential judges. In 2001, Mr. Bush stopped sending the group names of prospects before he selected them, so the panel instead rated them after their nomination. In 2009, Mr. Obama restored the panel’s role in the prenomination selection process, which dates to the Eisenhower administration.

So for 7/8 of the years Bush was President, he didn't even give the ABA a chance to vet his nominees, but now you suddenly care about the opinion of the ABA.

Your hackery would be nothing if not humorous.

If there is any other area in which you require schooling, feel free to ask.

 

[geauxtohell]

You don't impress me in the least and I won't even bother Googling your Professor. I find you sophomoric, shallow, lacking any real understanding of the Constitution or the law. You're a typical Liberal attorney and as such are like a kid in LegoLand and all you know how to do is knock things down that people a million times better than you built.

I'm not a lawyer, never gave law school a passing thought; I use Tribe for toilet paper. My son is in law school now and he'll ask me to read and discuss a case with him. I just read the Slaughterhouse cases. I wonder if you did?

Any serious student of the law, and you're not, would at least understand that even if you don't like Thomas's conclusions, his logic and grasp of the Constitution is unassailable.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, Francis?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You don't impress me in the least and I won't even bother Googling your Professor. I find you sophomoric, shallow, lacking any real understanding of the Constitution or the law. You're a typical Liberal attorney and as such are like a kid in LegoLand and all you know how to do is knock things down that people a million times better than you built.

I'm not a lawyer, never gave law school a passing thought; I use Tribe for toilet paper. My son is in law school now and he'll ask me to read and discuss a case with him. I just read the Slaughterhouse cases. I wonder if you did?

Any serious student of the law, and you're not, would at least understand that even if you don't like Thomas's conclusions, his logic and grasp of the Constitution is unassailable.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, Francis?

I'm not letting anyone on the Left get away with anything anymore.

You say Thomas is stupid; bring it, fuckers!

Post it or STFU

 

[Trajan]

Out of curiosity, what legal standard defines qualification?

*shrugs* whatever the aba thinks it is apparently.

 

[jillian]

American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

1. WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified," slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships -- and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

2. "But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.

3. The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.

4. ...the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than those of any previous president.

5. The committee has been more likely to deliver a harsh verdict about Mr. Obama’s prospects than it was during either the Clinton or Bush administrations. It has rejected about 7.5 percent of his prospects, compared with about 2 percent of the potential judges under each of the two previous presidents."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/u...ps.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


You've heard of the three holes in the ground? Well, well, well.
So, the Left which often complained that Republicans were 'outside of the mainstream'...
seems the shoe is on the other foot...the Left foot.

Seems four times as many of this Leftist President's choices for the bench are 'unqualified' as compared to President Bush's nominees.

How could that be??
Could he be picking same based on...oh, I don't know....less than American values???

So....another area in which this blow-hard is a flop!
(hey...did you see that the two reports above were from those noted right-wing
smear machines, Huffington and NYTimes....wow!)

Well, well, well.

wow... they rejected a whole 7.5%????

do you even understand how they get their nominees for the bench? in the days before the teatards, NY had one repub and one dem senator. they used to alternate judicial picks... as a matter of course, those picks were given to the white house... and approved by a congress that wasn't dominated by a bunch of insane rightwingnut loons.

and what's a "leftist", dear? when you think anyone to the left of atilla the hun is a commie, your opinion (or should i say the rightwingnut blogosphere's opinion) doesn't really carry much weight.

 

[geauxtohell]

Out of curiosity, what legal standard defines qualification?

*shrugs* whatever the aba thinks it is apparently.

It's not a legal standard.

It's advice.

 

[geauxtohell]

You don't impress me in the least and I won't even bother Googling your Professor. I find you sophomoric, shallow, lacking any real understanding of the Constitution or the law. You're a typical Liberal attorney and as such are like a kid in LegoLand and all you know how to do is knock things down that people a million times better than you built.

I'm not a lawyer, never gave law school a passing thought; I use Tribe for toilet paper. My son is in law school now and he'll ask me to read and discuss a case with him. I just read the Slaughterhouse cases. I wonder if you did?

Any serious student of the law, and you're not, would at least understand that even if you don't like Thomas's conclusions, his logic and grasp of the Constitution is unassailable.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, Francis?

I'm not letting anyone on the Left get away with anything anymore.

You say Thomas is stupid; bring it, fuckers!

Post it or STFU

What are you not going to let me get away with and what do you require that I post?

I am laughing at your asinine post where you presume that to tell someone with formal training that you, a lay man, know more about the law then they do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What law gives the ABA legal authority over vetting judicial nominees?

That would be the White House....
...you were too busy to read the NYTimes link, huh?

The White House has the power to make law on its own?

That would be a big negative, Ghostrider, and you know it.

The ABA is a professional group that can give advice that the White House can either take or ignore. It has absolutely zilch to do with the legalities of the nomination.

Which is obviously the case, as the Bush Administration choose to completely cut the ABA out, which you obviously know since it was in your article (though you selectively decided to omit it from your cut and paste job).

That outcome has added a new twist to a long-running friction in the politics of judicial nominations. During recent Republican administrations, conservatives have made political hay of accusing the A.B.A. of liberal bias against conservative potential judges. In 2001, Mr. Bush stopped sending the group names of prospects before he selected them, so the panel instead rated them after their nomination. In 2009, Mr. Obama restored the panel’s role in the prenomination selection process, which dates to the Eisenhower administration.

So for 7/8 of the years Bush was President, he didn't even give the ABA a chance to vet his nominees, but now you suddenly care about the opinion of the ABA.

Your hackery would be nothing if not humorous.

If there is any other area in which you require schooling, feel free to ask.

Actually, Gauche, it is your ignorance that is the point...and far from humerous, it is.

There is no law of any kind involved...it is simply---and that is a word with which you should be familiar, if not associated---that the White House accedes to what it considers a more astute body in matters of qualifications.

The point of the OP is the chastisement of the Obama selections, not whether or not Bush accepted their direction.

Must everything be spoon fed to you???

The ABA is Left-leaning.
The Obamunists are way Left....too far for even the ABA.

Clear?

Wait...there is one area in which you might be helpful: exact meaning of 'hack' or 'hackery.'
As I try to avoid clichés, I would like to be clear as to what your attempt at a pejorative means.

I suspect that, if you have the nerve to offer a definition it will be a boomerang of sorts.

 

[Trajan]

American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

1. WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified," slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships -- and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
American Bar Association Deems Significant Number Of Obama Judicial Nominees 'Not Qualified'

2. "But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.

3. The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.

4. ...the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than those of any previous president.

5. The committee has been more likely to deliver a harsh verdict about Mr. Obama’s prospects than it was during either the Clinton or Bush administrations. It has rejected about 7.5 percent of his prospects, compared with about 2 percent of the potential judges under each of the two previous presidents."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/u...ps.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


You've heard of the three holes in the ground? Well, well, well.
So, the Left which often complained that Republicans were 'outside of the mainstream'...
seems the shoe is on the other foot...the Left foot.

Seems four times as many of this Leftist President's choices for the bench are 'unqualified' as compared to President Bush's nominees.

How could that be??
Could he be picking same based on...oh, I don't know....less than American values???

So....another area in which this blow-hard is a flop!
(hey...did you see that the two reports above were from those noted right-wing
smear machines, Huffington and NYTimes....wow!)

Well, well, well.

wow... they rejected a whole 7.5%????

do you even understand how they get their nominees for the bench? in the days before the teatards, NY had one repub and one dem senator. they used to alternate judicial picks... as a matter of course, those picks were given to the white house... and approved by a congress that wasn't dominated by a bunch of insane rightwingnut loons.

and what's a "leftist", dear? when you think anyone to the left of atilla the hun is a commie, your opinion (or should i say the rightwingnut blogosphere's opinion) doesn't really carry much weight.

Irony overload alert......

 

[Trajan]

Out of curiosity, what legal standard defines qualification?

*shrugs* whatever the aba thinks it is apparently.

It's not a legal standard.

It's advice.

oh yes, I am aware of that. the Q is inho, how much weight does that advice carry?

 

[daveman]

Of course they're qualified. They're good Democrats.

 

[rdean]

secretly?

 

[BDBoop]

This is a savage, unconstitutional attack on our judicial branch and the entire US population should be appalled, and would be, if they knew and were aware of the unethical and treasoneuos acts Obama has done, such as this. He swore to upheld our Constitution, yet he himself has attacked it countless times.

Worse still, most Ameicans are clueless of it. The media tells them hes a saint, and they go along. The media tells us that his approval rate is high and we believe them. When in fact, it is lower than any US President is History.

Hack.

/ignore