Obama Judicial Nominees "Not Qualified"

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Being trained to spew talking points and never backing it up ain't much training now is it?

I'm still waiting for someone to post any opinion by Thomas so we can all get a laugh at what an idiot he is

 

[jillian]

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.

frankie baby... you are one of the least knowledgeable people on the board about either politics or law.

so you're pretty funny.

and your opinion on this is worth pretty much what your opinion is worth on any other subject ... which is zero.

and your refusal to google the man is just typical of you not wanting to know anything that doesn't come from rightwingnut freak sites.

 

[geauxtohell]

*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?

Apparently as much weight as the President (and congress if they are being confirmed) wants to give it.

As I pointed out, Bush simply cut the ABA out.

So to act like there is some sort of illegal or improper act going on here (as some have) is a little silly.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

There is no law of any kind involved

Thank you for answering my simple question. Shall we even proceed? Of course we should.........

...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.

I agree to an extent. The ABA is not an elected body. Therefore, their opinion deserves credence. However, they should not have the final say. There are minimal legal standards for being a judge. Therefore, if these people have met those standards, it is a little silly for certain posters on this thread to act like the constitution has been violated or some sort of intentional impropriety has occurred.

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

Of course it is. Because if we referenced Bush's actions in 2001 (which you, the ardent and astute reader, decided to omit from both of your articles) it makes Obama look like less of an asshole (which is the real point of the OP).

The fact is, he is being criticized by a private group after he choose to re-insert their opinion into the decision making process after Bush omitted them.

Of course, we know Bush had an excellent tract record of selecting well qualified nominees:

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination - CNN

Must everything be spoon fed to you???

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

Oh, so they are too partisan to be fair? Then why are we even having this conversation?

Clear?

Wait...there is one area in which you might be helpful: exact meaning of 'hack' or 'hackery.'
As I try to avoid clichés,

LMAO!

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.

I like this one:

2.
a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hack

Though I suppose you aren't a "professional", "it is understood".

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

frankie baby... you are one of the least knowledgeable people on the board about either politics or law.

so you're pretty funny.

and your opinion on this is worth pretty much what your opinion is worth on any other subject ... which is zero.

and your refusal to google the man is just typical of you not wanting to know anything that doesn't come from rightwingnut freak sites.

You'd better check yourself.

Francis read a legal opinion last night!

 

[jillian]

Being trained to spew talking points and never backing it up ain't much training now is it?

no. so you should stop doing it.

 

[Ropey]

Thread once again descends into, "I know you are, but what am I".

 

[William Joyce]

telford taylor.

Ah, the Jane Fonda of WASPy privileged elite ivory-towerdom. It's idiots like him who basically engineered the death of America.

Of course, they felt really virtuous about themselves while they did it, so I guess it's OK.

 

[Jroc]

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?

Actually you have lost any crediblity you might have had when you said "Clarence Thomas was a traitor to his race. You have no crediblity to even comment on Thomas after such a comment...Just saying

 

[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?

Perhaps THIS time someone on the left will answer the question? Before this came out you all insisted that the ABA was the right organization to advice the President on Judges, has that changed?