Activist liberal SC judge whines about criticism

[Tab]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What's so hard to understand? If Mississippi legislators have addressed abortion, then I imagine Mississippi judges probably aren't being accused by Republicans of "legislating from the bench."

On the federal side, legislators are too chicken sh!t to do anything about major issues, forcing the USSC to create law through precedent in the vaccuum of legislative inaction.

President Bush signs partial birth abortion ban.

On the federal level there isn't enough support, plus you have liberal judges overturning these laws.

You think it would be that difficult for conservatives to add something that would allow aboritions to mothers when the baby may threaten her llife?

That's the only reason why it didn't go through, until then some states will still have abortions beyond the 3rd trimester.

It was aleady in there.

Text

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

Partial-Birth Abortion? What's that? It's vauge term and doesn't really exist. There isn't any medical termed callled "partial-birth" abortion.

Something doesn't seem to appear correct to me... Was D&E ever disscussed before?

About.com Article

What many people do not realize is that the ban does not allow women to have an abortion after the first trimester. Unfortunately many birth defects cannot be detected until well into the second trimester, and often times women choose to have an abortion after their 18-20 week ultrasound, if a birth defect is found.

Something doesn't make sense here, the quote from About.com directly conflicts with the part from bill... Something doesn't add up...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DonVito
LOL - Zendari is PMing me to argue, then blocking my PMs. Something tells me the legacies of Clarence Darrow and Daniel Webster are safe.

Maybe you should challange him to a debate.

 

[Tab]

Why Bush's Partial Birth Abortion ban was struck down by 3 judges.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
People like Harvey simply jump in now and then to sling rotten vegetables at anybody who doesn't march to the liberal goosestep around here.

I don't know a lot of "people like me," but if you search for my posts, I usually spend a lot more time discussing issues. Sorry if it came off as a "drive by" post. I wasn't around much, today, but zendari's pathetic labeling did piss me off, just because it seems to be the only thing he knows how to say, and I posted what was on my mind. Then again, like you, maybe I'm looking at the wrong posts of his.

That said, I really don't appreciate the "liberal goosestep" comment. Throw that kind of crap at me again, and you may find my size 13 boot up your size 11 ass... in cyber forum way, of course. Physical isn't my style, either.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Like I've always said, those screaming "activist judges" the loudest, simply don't approve of the decisions the judge in question is making, not that the judge is actually an activist.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

Shall we believe you are going to go to Zendari for your brain tumor operation?

It depends. Who did you go to?

I want to avoid that person at all costs.

You needn't worry. So far you have nothing to operate on.

You seem to be making the absurd assertion that somebody who compares two people's professional expertise as a means to evaluate the relative strength of their judgment needs to have some equivalent expertise themselves whereas in your daily life, unless you truly are as brain-dead as you appear by this argument, you apply that same reasoning every day in your daily affairs. It is sort of what the concept of mastery of a subject is all about, acquiring judgmental authority.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

Shall we believe you are going to go to Zendari for your brain tumor operation?

It depends. Who did you go to?

I want to avoid that person at all costs.

You needn't worry. So far you have nothing to operate on.

You'd like to believe that. But it's really just your inner malfeasant machinations and municifent mortification of mediocrity that prevent you from interpolating the verisimilitude. Your inner hate forces you to inflict your nidorous nattering upon others as a means of ultimately unrequited remuneration in a form of reprehensibly reflexive retribution. As such, I would seem some reflection is in order for you.

You seem to be making the absurd assertion that somebody who compares two people's professional expertise as a means to evaluate the relative strength of their judgment needs to have some equivalent expertise themselves whereas in your daily life, unless you truly are as brain-dead as you appear by this argument, you apply that same reasoning every day in your daily affairs. It is sort of what the concept of mastery of a subject is all about, acquiring judgmental authority.

No, I'm addresing what qualifications are required to make a judgement in this forum. If we want to claim one person in here is unqualified to pass judgement on a subject or person, then let's do it to all. And in that case we may as well shut down the forum because there'd be too few people qualified in too few subjects to even get a discussion going.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

Bwahahaha! QFT. This describes most of Zendari's posts of late.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

Shall we believe you are going to go to Zendari for your brain tumor operation?

It depends. Who did you go to?

I want to avoid that person at all costs.

You needn't worry. So far you have nothing to operate on.

You'd like to believe that. But it's really just your inner malfeasant machinations and municifent mortification of mediocrity that prevent you from interpolating the verisimilitude. Your inner hate forces you to inflict your nidorous nattering upon others as a means of ultimately unrequited remuneration in a form of reprehensibly reflexive retribution. As such, I would seem some reflection is in order for you.

You seem to be making the absurd assertion that somebody who compares two people's professional expertise as a means to evaluate the relative strength of their judgment needs to have some equivalent expertise themselves whereas in your daily life, unless you truly are as brain-dead as you appear by this argument, you apply that same reasoning every day in your daily affairs. It is sort of what the concept of mastery of a subject is all about, acquiring judgmental authority.

No, I'm addresing what qualifications are required to make a judgement in this forum. If we want to claim one person in here is unqualified to pass judgement on a subject or person, then let's do it to all. And in that case we may as well shut down the forum because there'd be too few people qualified in too few subjects to even get a discussion going.

1. The fact that nobody knows anything hasn't prevented this forum from being jammed full of posts.

2. Nobody was being prevented from posting as unqualified. The were being told their opinion was relatively valueless in the eyes of that poster.

3. According to the ordinary consciousness of ordinary people everywhere an expert opinion is valued over those of near children. That's the way of reality.

4. Out of some motivation that you are aware of or possibly not, you spun the intentions and meaning of DonVito's post into something that it was not.

5. The OP showed little in the way of personal humility that warranted much in his defense.

6. You gave no indication and haven't yet that expertise is valuable when it is real.

7. You implied that you might favor zendary as your brain surgeon over one I might have picked. I bet my ass that would not be the real world case.

As the Goblins say in WOW, "Keep it real!"

 

[1EZduzit]

I wonder if TLC would let Heartsurgeon operate on him also??

 

[piasabird]

So if people in Europe jump off a cliff, do we have to jump off a cliff also?

Does this remind you of your mama?

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if people in Europe jump off a cliff, do we have to jump off a cliff also?

Does this remind you of your mama?

Where do you come up with this stuff? I could have sworn that no one this lacking in intelligence could have access to and the ability to use the internet.

What the hell are you trying to say?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if people in Europe jump off a cliff, do we have to jump off a cliff also?

Does this remind you of your mama?

Where do you come up with this stuff? I could have sworn that no one this lacking in intelligence could have access to and the ability to use the internet.

What the hell are you trying to say?

The funny thing is that he/she edited it, so was it worse before? I really think some special school has the internets and they post here for fun.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
1. The fact that nobody knows anything hasn't prevented this forum from being jammed full of posts.

2. Nobody was being prevented from posting as unqualified. The were being told their opinion was relatively valueless in the eyes of that poster.

3. According to the ordinary consciousness of ordinary people everywhere an expert opinion is valued over those of near children. That's the way of reality.

4. Out of some motivation that you are aware of or possibly not, you spun the intentions and meaning of DonVito's post into something that it was not.

5. The OP showed little in the way of personal humility that warranted much in his defense.

6. You gave no indication and haven't yet that expertise is valuable when it is real.

7. You implied that you might favor zendary as your brain surgeon over one I might have picked. I bet my ass that would not be the real world case.

As the Goblins say in WOW, "Keep it real!"

1. Very true. It never prevented you from posting.

2. I'm not saying that anyone was prevented from posting for any reason. I spoke of the assumption that one must have some qualifications to make judgements in here in response to this by Don Vito:

His own complete lack of legal training is directly relevant, in that he's completely unqualified to judge an attorney's qualifications, particularly one with a career as estimable as Justice Breyer's.

3. Really? Well it would seem to me the consideration of value, at least in this forum, often depends on whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative source, regardless of expertise.

4. I did nothing of the sort. What is spun is your lack of comprehension and your problem inflationary disproportionalism.

5. So did your initial response to me. So what?

6. Expertise can be valuable, but Breyer is whining about criticism of the judiciary, something I wouldn't consider him to be any sort of expert on, particularly in the manner he is handling the criticism.

7. Your bet your ass, eh? Sounds like a large bet. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
1. The fact that nobody knows anything hasn't prevented this forum from being jammed full of posts.

2. Nobody was being prevented from posting as unqualified. The were being told their opinion was relatively valueless in the eyes of that poster.

3. According to the ordinary consciousness of ordinary people everywhere an expert opinion is valued over those of near children. That's the way of reality.

4. Out of some motivation that you are aware of or possibly not, you spun the intentions and meaning of DonVito's post into something that it was not.

5. The OP showed little in the way of personal humility that warranted much in his defense.

6. You gave no indication and haven't yet that expertise is valuable when it is real.

7. You implied that you might favor zendary as your brain surgeon over one I might have picked. I bet my ass that would not be the real world case.

As the Goblins say in WOW, "Keep it real!"

1. Very true. It never prevented you from posting.

2. I'm not saying that anyone was prevented from posting for any reason. I spoke of the assumption that one must have some qualifications to make judgements in here in response to this by Don Vito:

His own complete lack of legal training is directly relevant, in that he's completely unqualified to judge an attorney's qualifications, particularly one with a career as estimable as Justice Breyer's.

3. Really? Well it would seem to me the consideration of value, at least in this forum, often depends on whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative source, regardless of expertise.

4. I did nothing of the sort. What is spun is your lack of comprehension and your problem inflationary disproportionalism.

5. So did your initial response to me. So what?

6. Expertise can be valuable, but Breyer is whining about criticism of the judiciary, something I wouldn't consider him to be any sort of expert on, particularly in the manner he is handling the criticism.

7. Your bet your ass, eh? Sounds like a large bet. :roll:

1. Exactly, or you.

2. You do so all the time. And you make that exact assumption every day. You are assuming that Don Vito's qualifications don't qualify him to make the judgment he did. And you are assuming your opinion in the matter holds some weight. You are as stuffed full of yourself as anybody else.

And additionally the quote you quote from DonVito was made after you irrationally attacked him, not before. And unqualified to judge is an opinion like all the rest. There IS a real difference, however, in spewing crap and being informed. It is what discernment is for.

3. An irrelevant fact having nothing to do with the natural and sensible tendency of thinking people to value expertise.

4. No what you did is jack yourself up over nothing and flew in the face of common sense doing it. You are not going to be able to successfully argue that knowledge, experience and expertise don't count when determining value. The value of the gem is known to the jeweler. Everybody else is full of bull sh!t.

5. I pointed out the fact that your comment was absurd and that you continue along in that vein.

6. You should have made that case in the first place. You should expand on why he would be no better qualified than others and what it is EXACTLY about his manner of handling the criticism that tells you this. We will want some evidence of whether you arrive at this conclusion via projection of your own feelings and assumptions and bias or whether it is an outgrowth of some form of expertise. As to: "Expertise can be valuable...", thanks. I sort of think you and me and DonVito can agree here.

7. Not large in size but priceless in value and of course I was right> For a brain surgeon you would choose a brain surgeon over zendari every time as would I.

 

[conjur]

Now that's a dressing down, moonbeam-style.


:thumbsup:

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread

IIRC, the "world opinion" statement that first stirred the flames was made in a USSC case involving the constitutionality of executing retarted people. The opinion was based on US law (cruel and unusual..) but the comment was made that the practice was also very unfavorable in overlall world opinion, as only a handful of countries allowed such as practice (eg China; but I'm not sure even Saudi Arabia made this elite list.)
Appearantly Zentardi is angry about not longer being part of such a respectable crowd.

I agree with the previous posters who said this "controversy" is a part by the Legislature/GOP to reign total control over govt (essentually usurping checks and balances.) Also the comment about legislative inaction punting the issues to the courts, only to use the decisions to rile thier bases.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BoberFett

What's so hard to understand? If Mississippi legislators have addressed abortion, then I imagine Mississippi judges probably aren't being accused by Republicans of "legislating from the bench."

On the federal side, legislators are too chicken sh!t to do anything about major issues, forcing the USSC to create law through precedent in the vaccuum of legislative inaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



President Bush signs partial birth abortion ban.

On the federal level there isn't enough support, plus you have liberal judges overturning these laws.

IE, they are a bunch of pussies. I'll even write the bill. Delay can print it and vote, and Bush can sign it.

HR-3467 Abortion Bill:
No abortions are allowed. None.
Signed: __________

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
1. Exactly, or you.

Well I'm not the one who so often goes into spurious psychobabble drivel about how everyone knows nothing and hates themselves. The only person I do it to is you to demonstrate the idiocy of that type of reply.

2. You do so all the time. And you make that exact assumption every day. You are assuming that Don Vito's qualifications don't qualify him to make the judgment he did. And you are assuming your opinion in the matter holds some weight. You are as stuffed full of yourself as anybody else.

I'm not assuming anything. It's you who makes the assumptions and does so constantly by claiming to know what people think and believe.

And additionally the quote you quote from DonVito was made after you irrationally attacked him, not before.
Read the timeline again, and the context, and then try to figure it out. It's really not that tough and I hope I don't have to break it down for you.

And unqualified to judge is an opinion like all the rest. There IS a real difference, however, in spewing crap and being informed. It is what discernment is for.

Yet you seem to only discern crap when it comes from the right. Does crap from the left smell sweeter to you or do you miss it?.

3. An irrelevant fact having nothing to do with the natural and sensible tendency of thinking people to value expertise.

Nice way of decribing appeals to authority.

4. No what you did is jack yourself up over nothing and flew in the face of common sense doing it. You are not going to be able to successfully argue that knowledge, experience and expertise don't count when determining value. The value of the gem is known to the jeweler. Everybody else is full of bull sh!t.

Once again, that's not what I'm arguing and your insistance that I am arguing that does not make it so.

5. I pointed out the fact that your comment was absurd and that you continue along in that vein.

Don't point fingers about humility at anyone. You have none and many of your airy, ridiculously prosed replies are evidence of that.

6. You should have made that case in the first place. You should expand on why he would be no better qualified than others and what it is EXACTLY about his manner of handling the criticism that tells you this. We will want some evidence of whether you arrive at this conclusion via projection of your own feelings and assumptions and bias or whether it is an outgrowth of some form of expertise. As to: "Expertise can be valuable...", thanks. I sort of think you and me and DonVito can agree here.

I already did "make that case." It's not my problem if you breezed over it in your hurry to take cheapshots at TLC.

7. Not large in size but priceless in value and of course I was right> For a brain surgeon you would choose a brain surgeon over zendari every time as would I.

Wow. An absolute genius you are. We all bow to your mighty intellect for figuring that out. Good for you. :roll:

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Zendari is the worst kind of poster here. No insght, just name calling. His/her politcal buzzword to word ratio is like 1:1 and it's mostly just attacks without merit. He/she fits in well with the rest of the Rush/Hannity zombies.

What are you, a parrot of Republican talking points? Can you think for yourself?

You should have seen enough posts by zendari to know that, yes, he is a mindless parrot of the stale trash spewed by Rush and Co. To paraphrase Black Adder, to zendari civilization is something that just happened to other people.

On a lighter note, Todd33's post reminded me about this scene in Black Adder (I think it was the Head episode), where Black Adder tells Baldrick:

"No, that's what I think. Look, do try and have an original thought of your own, Baldrick. Thinking is so important. Now, what do you think?"

to which Baldrick replies:

"I think thinking is so important, my lord."

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: Well I'm not the one who so often goes into spurious psychobabble drivel about how everyone knows nothing and hates themselves. The only person I do it to is you to demonstrate the idiocy of that type of reply.

M: OK, I will try to keep that in mind. I have no objection to you being an idiot like me.

TLC: I'm not assuming anything. It's you who makes the assumptions and does so constantly by claiming to know what people think and believe.

M: You are assuming I don't know, right. I don't know what you think and I don't know what you believe, but I know what you feel. Because you don't you may not like that. That however changes nothing.

TLC: Read the timeline again, and the context, and then try to figure it out. It's really not that tough and I hope I don't have to break it down for you.

M: I broke it down for you.

TLC: Yet you seem to only discern crap when it comes from the right. Does crap from the left smell sweeter to you or do you miss it?.

M: The right and the left are resolved in higher understanding in my opinion.

TLC: Nice way of decribing appeals to authority.

M: As you should know, I have little use for the so called authorities. There is, however, a difference between real world expertise and imputed idol worship gained by notoriety, wealth, repetition, etc. The whole point of the discussion here was to get you to admit that DonVito was doing something completely normal and rational in describing the fact that he would take the judgment of a Supreme Court justice over a 19 year old with a ax to grind. I thought you tried to spin that out into some big scenario where people couldn't express an idea if they didn't have an equivalent professional standing to whatever it was they criticized and I tried to point out that regardless of what your opinion might be people will always look to people with real experience in matters of judgment. That is about the only point I wanted to make. I thought what you were doing was pedantic and diversionary and frankly a bit absurd. I am all for not dismissing out of hand the opinion of people who have no visible reputation or credibility such as psychobabblers like myself. There is even a chance I might occasionally stumble onto something of a gem.

TLC: Once again, that's not what I'm arguing and your insistance that I am arguing that does not make it so.

M: I thought what you were arguing flew in the face of common sense and missed the substance of DonVito's remark. I think you tried to make of it something it was not to make a point important to you that was a sore spot. You can have a valid point of view on something but express it where it doesn't apply which is what I think you did.

TLC: Don't point fingers about humility at anyone. You have none and many of your airy, ridiculously prosed replies are evidence of that.

M: You will have to get used to the fact that I value my own expertise more than I value yours when it comes to what I think is important. You may call that whatever you like. The truth is the truth and won't be changed by fools like you or me as the case may be.

TLC: I already did "make that case." It's not my problem if you breezed over it in your hurry to take cheapshots at TLC.

M: Feel free to clarify, by all means. It is entirely possible I missed something in my rush to make you feel like the worst in the world.

TLC: Wow. An absolute genius you are. We all bow to your mighty intellect for figuring that out. Good for you. :roll:

M: Thank you. I always felt so stupid.

But just for the sake of of my personal edification would you mind making your original point again maybe with some fresh words so I can this time maybe get it?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

ouch...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

ouch...

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials looking at a 19 year old flame artist who compares the legal knowledge of a Supreme Court Justice to a Twinkie is making useless, unknowledgeable posts and that anybody who discounts such opinions is probably on solid ground or are you saying that you want to ruin the forums and shut all non experts up? In short, are we dealing here with the ravings of a young flake or the dynamic, insightful, and deeply intuitive insights of a perspicacious and holistic generalists. I raise this issue because it seems so difficult to tell.

 

[BoberFett]

Get a room.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if people in Europe jump off a cliff, do we have to jump off a cliff also?

Does this remind you of your mama?

While we're spouting irrelevant maxims...if everyone in Europe refused to jump off a cliff...does that mean we SHOULD jump?

Edit: To make this slightly more relevant, I'm suggesting that the issue some people are having with taking into account world opinion is not that they think we are going to always follow it, it's that they don't want us to ever follow it, even if it's a good idea. Which, to me, is just as stupid of a stance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if people in Europe jump off a cliff, do we have to jump off a cliff also?

Does this remind you of your mama?

While we're spouting irrelevant maxims...if everyone in Europe refused to jump off a cliff...does that mean we SHOULD jump?

Edit: To make this slightly more relevant, I'm suggesting that the issue some people are having with taking into account world opinion is not that they think we are going to always follow it, it's that they don't want us to ever follow it, even if it's a good idea. Which, to me, is just as stupid of a stance.

What is stupid to you makes perfect sense to me. Look, I feel like the worst in the world but don't let that into consciousness. I keep that feeling out of consciousness by identifying with being American. Surely you know that America is the greatest and therefore so am I. So in my egotism at being this great thing called American, I am naturally going to feel threatened by anything foreign and in particular the notion that foreign is better. If foreign is better then it's back to being in danger of knowing I feel the worst in the world. That ain't gonna happen. I would rather kill foreigners than see how bad I feel. And hating anything foreign is just natural. No great and perfect American like me has any need for the foreign. It's foreign that's sh!t, not me. No way I'm gonna see it's me. Sorry, but my whole ego structure's at stake. Don't mess around.