Steven Spielberg, ‘Animal Killer, Disgusting Inhumane Prick’

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Well it's going to happen. The only way the Republicans can win a national election is by getting on board with our new Hispanic overlords. But they continue to go HAM on illegal immigration and it's going to cost them swing states. Hilary is a lock in 2016. And heaven forbid if one of the block of 4 on the SCOTUS retires/dies, because then Obama is a lock to get put on the court, since Constitutional law is his background. He's still young, healthy, you'd get 30 more years of him, in an arguably more important position. But sure, wring you hands about Benghazi, chumps. Enjoy victories like Hobby Lobby while you can. Change is coming, one way or another.

[phlegm 6]

Well it's going to happen. The only way the Republicans can win a national election is by getting on board with our new Hispanic overlords. But they continue to go HAM on illegal immigration and it's going to cost them swing states. Hilary is a lock in 2016. And heaven forbid if one of the block of 4 on the SCOTUS retires/dies, because then Obama is a lock to get put on the court, since Constitutional law is his background. He's still young, healthy, you'd get 30 more years of him, in an arguably more important position. But sure, wring you hands about Benghazi, chumps. Enjoy victories like Hobby Lobby while you can. Change is coming, one way or another.

'NEW hispanic overlords" and this is not a level lol. IF YOU really think hillary will put obama on the court, lol and even if she wanted to, hed be replacing another wide eyed lib anyway so no change in balance.

 

Also, obama dont want to work that hard, no way he takes on the court.

[David_Sklansky 1,903]

I doubt Obama would want the job, personally, but he could certainly get it as soon as a democrat or moderate republican had a vacancy to fill. He taught the subject at Harvard and is the first black president. It's like a joke resume that someone would pretend to have just to seem ideal.

 

I'm with you on the immigration thing 100%, though. Well, almost. I agree that if they wanted to keep states like TX or AZ down the road, or to win another national election any time soon, they would have to change their positions. After Obama obliterated them I assumed they'd have no choice. But I was operating under the false premise that they saw value in holding the presidency. I think they learned a while ago that it's cheaper, easier and more effective to work on maintaining gerrymandered congressional positions and just make sure congress can't accomplish anything. Bush taught them that holding the big office is just bad press and makes you a scapegoat for the failings of the system. I like their swagger, honestly.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

'NEW hispanic overlords" and this is not a level lol. IF YOU really think hillary will put obama on the court, lol and even if she wanted to, hed be replacing another wide eyed lib anyway so no change in balance.

 

Also, obama dont want to work that hard, no way he takes on the court.

 

 

1) the overlords thing was a Simpsons reference

 

2)Yes, I do think Hilary would put him there. Their politics are aligned.

 

3) Not sure why you're so confident it would be a liberal spot opening up. Scalia is 78, Kennedy 77 and Thomas is 66 and could have a heart attack any moment.

 

4) not sure why you think Obama is work adverse, unless you're making a racial slur. I can't imagine a job with a greater workload than the Potus

 

 

 

Re: focus of conservative campaign spending. I agree to a point that you get more bang for your buck in the house however the Potus still makes judicial appointments, and that in and of itself makes the election important. And Koch's would agree, since ever presidential election breaks the spending record the previous one set

 

 

[David_Sklansky 1,903]

 

 

 

1) the overlords thing was a Simpsons reference

 

2)Yes, I do think Hilary would put him there. Their politics are aligned.

 

3) Not sure why you're so confident it would be a liberal spot opening up. Scalia is 78, Kennedy 77 and Thomas is 66 and could have a heart attack any moment.

 

4) not sure why you think Obama is work adverse, unless you're making a racial slur. I can't imagine a job with a greater workload than the Potus

 

 

 

Re: focus of conservative campaign spending. I agree to a point that you get more bang for your buck in the house however the Potus still makes judicial appointments, and that in and of itself makes the election important. And Koch's would agree, since ever presidential election breaks the spending record the previous one set

 

It's an interesting point, but particularly once the republicans retake the Senate, and especially once they get more openly comfortable with this outlook toward government, I fully expect them to start rejecting all non-conservative appointments, the same way they play these games with the budget, national debt and filibustering. It's really, really easy to sabotage the government with any kind of congressional support, and i doubt they even publicly deny that they have any kind of ethical issue doing this.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

It's an interesting point, but particularly once the republicans retake the Senate, and especially once they get more openly comfortable with this outlook toward government, I fully expect them to start rejecting all non-conservative appointments, the same way they play these games with the budget, national debt and filibustering. It's really, really easy to sabotage the government with any kind of congressional support, and i doubt they even publicly deny that they have any kind of ethical issue doing this.

 

I agree in a lot of ways, but again I think this strengthens my Obama point. Good luck trying to keep Obama from getting into the Scotus once Hilary puts him up. The backlash would sink the party.

[David_Sklansky 1,903]

 

 

I agree in a lot of ways, but again I think this strengthens my Obama point. Good luck trying to keep Obama from getting into the Scotus once Hilary puts him up. The backlash would sink the party.

 

I don't know. I would have agreed with you once upon a time. Obviously trying to justify how Obama is not qualified while Brown is would be a lot more public and hilarious than things like the budget which no one actually cares about, but I think the right has kind of settled into a Dog the Bounty Hunter situation. When Dog used the N-word and admitted to his racism, almost everyone thought he was a piece of shit for it. But no one who has a problem with that would watch Dog the Bounty Hunter anyway, so who cares. I think we are past the point where republican voters hold their representatives accountable for anything. The only way that happens is if they cooperate with an actual solution to a problem, in which case they run the risk of getting primaried by a racist dentist who has never held office, or something along those lines.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Sometimes who I root for in politics comes down to which party I want to hear complain less during the next election cycle.

[phlegm 6]

all joking aside, after having the power of the president, I Cant see him entertaining the idea of being 1 vote in nine. and if the reps take the senate thx to harry reid, they will be able to pack the court immune from dem filibusters. barry couldnt handle being an irelevant vote in a long term minority.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

i don't think phlegm understands what being on the supreme court means to a lawyer.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

No one is joking, Phlegm. And again, I have no idea why you're so convinced it would be an irrelevant vote, other than your wish thinking. You know Thomas's diet isn't what it should be, he could drop at any moment.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

i don't think phlegm understands what being on the supreme court means to a lawyer.

 

Not just a lawyer. A constitutional scholar.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Not just a lawyer. A constitutional scholar.

 

lets not distinguish between types of lawyer. we are all equally amazing.

[hank213 1,823]

is there any precedent of a previous president sitting the court?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Taft, duh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

[hank213 1,823]

yeah, but he was an actual judge. i think the case of having no background as an actual judge pretty much negates or even slightly outweighs the "constitutional scholar" honorific.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

but the whole, leader of the free world thing, makes up for it.

[hank213 1,823]

actually, i think in the modern era it works against him. it smacks of an addiction to power.

[David_Sklansky 1,903]

yeah, but he was an actual judge. i think the case of having no background as an actual judge pretty much negates or even slightly outweighs the "constitutional scholar" honorific.

 

Historically I don't think that's uncommon at all. There is currently at least one first-time justice, and I'm pretty sure she never taught the subject at Harvard and was never the first black president. I don't think Rehnquist was either.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

yeah, but he was an actual judge. i think the case of having no background as an actual judge pretty much negates or even slightly outweighs the "constitutional scholar" honorific.

 

There is plenty of precedent for non-judges to be appointed to the court. Something like 40 Justices didn't. Warren didn't. Rehnquist didn't. Being "constitutional scholar" wasn't an honorific, it was his job for over a decade. Being a professor of constitutional law is exactly the type of expertise you'd want in a SCOTUS. and he taught University of Chicago, for christ's sake, not a community college.. That, and his resume as, you know, the president, would make him more than qualified.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Obama graduated from harvard, he didn't teach there. Jesus christ, know the history of the president. This isn't some geek like Taft or Harding or something, this is the sitting president.

[David_Sklansky 1,903]

 

 

There is plenty of precedent for non-judges to be appointed to the court. Something like 40 Justices didn't. Warren didn't. Rehnquist didn't. Being "constitutional scholar" wasn't an honorific, it was his job for over a decade. Being a professor of constitutional law is exactly the type of expertise you'd want in a SCOTUS. and he taught University of Chicago, for christ's sake, not a community college.. That, and his resume as, you know, the president, would make him more than qualified.

 

Where he taught as a student teacher.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think the main reason that non-judges have lost fashion, over say, Constitutional Law Professors or lawyers that specialize in constitutional law, is the overt politicization of the nomination process. Judges have a clear record of the decisions they've made, that a president can look at, and be assured he is nominating a party hack. No one wants to nominate another Souter these days, thinking they have a conservative justice and then getting the hot dose once they are in office and no way of getting them out.

[chrozzo 19]

wait! Spielberg killed a dinosaur!? that *******!

[CobaltBlue 662]

lets not distinguish between types of lawyer. we are all equally amazing.

I'm pretty sure bird law doesn't count.