because every single one of his opinions would drive conservatives mad forever mwahahaha
Obama has demonstrated that his grasp of the law is far more tenuous than we should expect from a SCOTUS judge. I know this sort of thing gets the thread's GOP-hate boner super hard, but seriously.
He's a mediocre jurist at best, with no credentials to speak of and no experience deciding case law at all. He's never argued a major issue before any court, never clerked for a judge of note anywhere, and never demonstrated while President that he has much of a grasp of the nuances of Constitutional law.
Dude would be a really bad justice. There are easily a dozen progressive federal judges who would be better suited.
spool32 on
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
because every single one of his opinions would drive conservatives mad forever mwahahaha
Obama has demonstrated that his grasp of the law is far more tenuous than we should expect from a SCOTUS judge. I know this sort of thing gets the thread's GOP-hate boner super hard, but seriously.
He's a mediocre jurist at best, with no credentials to speak of and no experience deciding case law at all. He's never argued a major issue before any court, never clerked for a judge of note anywhere, and never demonstrated while President that he has much of a grasp of the nuances of Constitutional law.
Dude would be a really bad justice. There are easily a dozen progressive federal judges who would be better suited.
...Constitutional Law is his specialty. What the fuck are you talking about?
because every single one of his opinions would drive conservatives mad forever mwahahaha
Obama has demonstrated that his grasp of the law is far more tenuous than we should expect from a SCOTUS judge. I know this sort of thing gets the thread's GOP-hate boner super hard, but seriously.
He's a mediocre jurist at best, with no credentials to speak of and no experience deciding case law at all. He's never argued a major issue before any court, never clerked for a judge of note anywhere, and never demonstrated while President that he has much of a grasp of the nuances of Constitutional law.
Dude would be a really bad justice. There are easily a dozen progressive federal judges who would be better suited.
...Constitutional Law is his specialty. What the fuck are you talking about?
The difference between people who teach Constitutional law for a little while and contribute nothing notable to the discipline before leaving for politics, and the people who drown themselves in it for 30 years and author authoritative decisions that guide national precedent. The difference between being a guy who teaches others about decisions as an associate professor, and a person who creates them as his life's work.
I think Obama would readily admit that any of his SCOTUS choices are more qualified to sit on the bench than he is, because Obama doesn't suffer from hubris and is generally a decent and intelligent person who understands where his abilities lay. Arguing that he'd be a great SCOTUS justice because of his comparatively minimal education and work history is silly.
Also it highlights the disconnect between people who think that college prepares you for doing something at the highest level, and people who do things at the highest level. :P
Obama would actually be the most highly qualified constitutional scholar that had been put on the court in a generation.
Supreme Court Justices traditionally haven't had any sort of requirement to actually sit on the bench before being nominated. That's a very recent thing.
Frankly, if any life path is going to prepare you to oversee our nation's laws, community organizer to constitutional law professor to senator to president is probably the best you can do.
I love how all Obama threads become 2016 threads and apparently the 2016 thread becomes an Obama thread within 7 pages.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+8
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Trying to keep any given thread about a particular political topic from devolving into a general US politics thread is, I think, one of the more Sisyphean tasks the moderation staff has ever taken on. It speaks volumes that they consider it preferable to just allowing a general US politics thread to exist.
So anyways, who are we liking for the republican primary?
Right now, I can't help but feel that Santorum will bubble up out of the crack if only because he got so damn far in 2012 and his opposition isn't likely to return (Newt nearly went bankrupt and Ron Paul seems pretty much done with politics) for a second go.
Palin and Bachman might nut up and have a go if the field is weak enough, and both of them have a lot of appeal with the Teapers.
There was a time when Christie had a lot of potential; he was no friend to the democrats but when his state was hurt during the storm he had no problem bitching congress out (and earning himself credibility with moderates). Too bad he pissed it away with a petty action involving a bridge.
Rand paul maybe? If his dad is done then it may just fall to him to carry the standard for libertarians.
Can anyone think of anyone else who is probably gonna represent the R's?
So anyways, who are we liking for the republican primary?
Right now, I can't help but feel that Santorum will bubble up out of the crack if only because he got so damn far in 2012 and his opposition isn't likely to return (Newt nearly went bankrupt and Ron Paul seems pretty much done with politics) for a second go.
Santorum will try his hardest, especially since he became the new "winner" to ascend to the general.
Palin and Bachman might nut up and have a go if the field is weak enough, and both of them have a lot of appeal with the Teapers.
Palin will be there strictly for the $$$, she'll get from the promotions and another opportunity to rip off her fans like the grifter she is. Bachman will show up to win the prize.
There was a time when Christie had a lot of potential; he was no friend to the democrats but when his state was hurt during the storm he had no problem bitching congress out (and earning himself credibility with moderates). Too bad he pissed it away with a petty action involving a bridge.
I wouldn't rule him out completely. The traffic scandal did open up an angle for his opponents to attack him from.
Rand paul maybe? If his dad is done then it may just fall to him to carry the standard for libertarians.
Agreed.
Can anyone think of anyone else who is probably gonna represent the R's?
Bobby Jindal might run if he is desperate to waste time and money.
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
The thing with scandals and republicans is that the base truly believes they're all smears and hit tactics by the moonbats, libtards, etc etc that only embolden that party to vote harder.
The thing with scandals and republicans is that the base truly believes they're all smears and hit tactics by the moonbats, libtards, etc etc that only embolden that party to vote harder.
The trouble with Christie's scandal is that there are federal prosecutors sniffing around. The party is going to be reluctant to back a candidate who may be indicted halfway through the election season. This is also going to make any run by Scott Walker a tough sell.
The other problem with Christie is that he's got the Guilliani issue in the South. One thing the Republican Party hasn't quite wrapped its head around is the massive antipathy any overtly "Yankee" politician is going to have in the region. The type of Southerners who embrace the Republican Party are also the type to still have real strong feelings about people from the Northeast.
The thing to remember is that the Republican Primary isn't necessarily determined by a rational group assessment of General Election electability.
This is a group of people that looked like they might pick Rick Santorum last time.
If Christie or Perry or Walker can turn their legal troubles into a positive ("liberal witch hunt"), then it will be a boon in the primary rather than a downside.
The money guys on that side of the aisle may be reluctant to step up and support someone with an indictment, but that isn't the only thing at play here.
because every single one of his opinions would drive conservatives mad forever mwahahaha
Obama has demonstrated that his grasp of the law is far more tenuous than we should expect from a SCOTUS judge. I know this sort of thing gets the thread's GOP-hate boner super hard, but seriously.
He's a mediocre jurist at best, with no credentials to speak of and no experience deciding case law at all. He's never argued a major issue before any court, never clerked for a judge of note anywhere, and never demonstrated while President that he has much of a grasp of the nuances of Constitutional law.
Dude would be a really bad justice. There are easily a dozen progressive federal judges who would be better suited.
I don't seriously think Obama would be a good justice choice compared to who's available. A "really bad justice"? I don't really see how, look at the current court
he'd be better than Thomas for sure but a magic 8 ball would have a more thoughtful and coherent record than Thomas. Actually I think he'd probably be better than Scalia, and Kennedy too, but that's only because I think many of their opinions are based on outdated personal ideals
but yes objectively Obama would be a bad serious pick for SCOTUS, it'd be an overly political pick, plus he probably wouldn't take it, he can do more good as an ex president
Thomas record is coherent in the strict definition of the word. It is also like a hundred and fifty years out of date. He is really quite consistent(ly wrong) in his arguments.
Christies "he bitched out Congress for aid" line kinda got soiled by him using that relief money to fucking with Democratic politicians
Which is another plus with the base. So far the bridge scandal have given Christie 2 things:
1) a plus for standing up and not folding when the "liberal hate media"/Obamachine plotted against him
2) a plus for using funds for the single reason to punish liberals for no reason
If he runs he will be a strong candidate in the republican primary.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
spool32 on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
It would be refreshing if both parties would nominate women for the top ticket so we didn't have to listen to either side saying, "look, we did it first, the other side is the sexists you shouldn't vote for!"
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
If it makes you feel any better I am sure many of us (and definitely me) are not looking forward to how that campaign will go on either side.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
It would be refreshing if both parties would nominate women for the top ticket so we didn't have to listen to either side saying, "look, we did it first, the other side is the sexists you shouldn't vote for!"
That's not why the Democrats think the GOP are sexists. They have had female candidates run for presidency and VP slot, unfortunately they gave such valuable positions to people like Palin.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
It would be refreshing if both parties would nominate women for the top ticket so we didn't have to listen to either side saying, "look, we did it first, the other side is the sexists you shouldn't vote for!"
Condi Rice 2016
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
It would be refreshing if both parties would nominate women for the top ticket so we didn't have to listen to either side saying, "look, we did it first, the other side is the sexists you shouldn't vote for!"
Condi Rice 2016
Ahhh, she's busy with sports stuff isn't she? Like seriously.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
We'll have 2 years of Rush calling Hilary a cow everyday then yelling WHY ARE YOU CALLING US SEXISTS from every corner of the GOP
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
Christie
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
We'll have 2 years of Rush calling Hilary a cow everyday then yelling WHY ARE YOU CALLING US SEXISTS from every corner of the GOP
yeah, we'll have that too.
It's going to be a shitshow all the way around. I would really love to be done being ashamed of my side of the aisle.
Posts
Obama has demonstrated that his grasp of the law is far more tenuous than we should expect from a SCOTUS judge. I know this sort of thing gets the thread's GOP-hate boner super hard, but seriously.
He's a mediocre jurist at best, with no credentials to speak of and no experience deciding case law at all. He's never argued a major issue before any court, never clerked for a judge of note anywhere, and never demonstrated while President that he has much of a grasp of the nuances of Constitutional law.
Dude would be a really bad justice. There are easily a dozen progressive federal judges who would be better suited.
...Constitutional Law is his specialty. What the fuck are you talking about?
Which specific current SCOTUS judges did you have in mind?
The difference between people who teach Constitutional law for a little while and contribute nothing notable to the discipline before leaving for politics, and the people who drown themselves in it for 30 years and author authoritative decisions that guide national precedent. The difference between being a guy who teaches others about decisions as an associate professor, and a person who creates them as his life's work.
I think Obama would readily admit that any of his SCOTUS choices are more qualified to sit on the bench than he is, because Obama doesn't suffer from hubris and is generally a decent and intelligent person who understands where his abilities lay. Arguing that he'd be a great SCOTUS justice because of his comparatively minimal education and work history is silly.
Also it highlights the disconnect between people who think that college prepares you for doing something at the highest level, and people who do things at the highest level. :P
Supreme Court Justices traditionally haven't had any sort of requirement to actually sit on the bench before being nominated. That's a very recent thing.
Frankly, if any life path is going to prepare you to oversee our nation's laws, community organizer to constitutional law professor to senator to president is probably the best you can do.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
All 9 of them. :P
I wonder if we could convince the Onion to sponsor a "Diamond" Joe Biden presidential run. I'd donate.
I've said about all on this silly tangent that I'm willing to.
And that book will be called "Seriously, Fuck Those Guys."
Right now, I can't help but feel that Santorum will bubble up out of the crack if only because he got so damn far in 2012 and his opposition isn't likely to return (Newt nearly went bankrupt and Ron Paul seems pretty much done with politics) for a second go.
Palin and Bachman might nut up and have a go if the field is weak enough, and both of them have a lot of appeal with the Teapers.
There was a time when Christie had a lot of potential; he was no friend to the democrats but when his state was hurt during the storm he had no problem bitching congress out (and earning himself credibility with moderates). Too bad he pissed it away with a petty action involving a bridge.
Rand paul maybe? If his dad is done then it may just fall to him to carry the standard for libertarians.
Can anyone think of anyone else who is probably gonna represent the R's?
Santorum will try his hardest, especially since he became the new "winner" to ascend to the general.
Palin will be there strictly for the $$$, she'll get from the promotions and another opportunity to rip off her fans like the grifter she is. Bachman will show up to win the prize.
I wouldn't rule him out completely. The traffic scandal did open up an angle for his opponents to attack him from.
Agreed.
What's Bobby Jindal been up to?
The trouble with Christie's scandal is that there are federal prosecutors sniffing around. The party is going to be reluctant to back a candidate who may be indicted halfway through the election season. This is also going to make any run by Scott Walker a tough sell.
The other problem with Christie is that he's got the Guilliani issue in the South. One thing the Republican Party hasn't quite wrapped its head around is the massive antipathy any overtly "Yankee" politician is going to have in the region. The type of Southerners who embrace the Republican Party are also the type to still have real strong feelings about people from the Northeast.
It's a thing.
This is a group of people that looked like they might pick Rick Santorum last time.
If Christie or Perry or Walker can turn their legal troubles into a positive ("liberal witch hunt"), then it will be a boon in the primary rather than a downside.
The money guys on that side of the aisle may be reluctant to step up and support someone with an indictment, but that isn't the only thing at play here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't seriously think Obama would be a good justice choice compared to who's available. A "really bad justice"? I don't really see how, look at the current court
he'd be better than Thomas for sure but a magic 8 ball would have a more thoughtful and coherent record than Thomas. Actually I think he'd probably be better than Scalia, and Kennedy too, but that's only because I think many of their opinions are based on outdated personal ideals
but yes objectively Obama would be a bad serious pick for SCOTUS, it'd be an overly political pick, plus he probably wouldn't take it, he can do more good as an ex president
I don't want Obama stuck in the cloister working on cases; I want him and michelle to be "boots on the ground" for the party for years to come.
Give me another Sotomayor over an Obama any day in that post. I want Obama stumping for Elizabeth Warren in 2024.
edit: check that. I just saw that Warren is only two years younger than Hillary Clinton. Why are so many people freaked about Hill's age but not hers?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Senators can be old as dirt and be fine. Their level of responsibility and day-to-day stress is orders of magnitude below the president's.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Which is another plus with the base. So far the bridge scandal have given Christie 2 things:
1) a plus for standing up and not folding when the "liberal hate media"/Obamachine plotted against him
2) a plus for using funds for the single reason to punish liberals for no reason
If he runs he will be a strong candidate in the republican primary.
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio maybe?
Jeb Bush will sit this one out.
Hillary running will be bullshit accusations of sexism for 2 years. Things will get more partisan, more vicious, more hateful, and more intolerable to listen to from the left.
I have a stomach ache thinking about it. Some of you guys are going to be truly unreadable.
I'm not referring to Warren as Senator.
I am referring to the many people in this thread and others who are wanting Warren to run instead of Hillary.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It would be refreshing if both parties would nominate women for the top ticket so we didn't have to listen to either side saying, "look, we did it first, the other side is the sexists you shouldn't vote for!"
If it makes you feel any better I am sure many of us (and definitely me) are not looking forward to how that campaign will go on either side.
Simply put most of us really like Warren and only accept Hillary has best situated to win.
That's not why the Democrats think the GOP are sexists. They have had female candidates run for presidency and VP slot, unfortunately they gave such valuable positions to people like Palin.
differentiating between the two will be labelled sexist
Condi Rice 2016
edit fuck it i'm not picking a fight.
but this is a goosey post
Wouldn't get through the primary. As much as I loathe her among the current crop she's a rational thinker.
Ahhh, she's busy with sports stuff isn't she? Like seriously.
Well she'll never get anywhere in politics by alienating a bunch of college football fans
We'll have 2 years of Rush calling Hilary a cow everyday then yelling WHY ARE YOU CALLING US SEXISTS from every corner of the GOP
super happy to oblige!
yeah, we'll have that too.
It's going to be a shitshow all the way around. I would really love to be done being ashamed of my side of the aisle.