I ain’t gonna talk about my poop, but I will share an anecdote that may amuse only me.
As difficult as it may for some posters to imagine, given my generally sunny disposition full of sweetness and light, sometimes I argue with other lawyers. Sometimes, those arguments get heated. Had a case with an amazing abrasive big city lawyer. She and I just clashed at a Karmic level. We got into it on some discovery issue…I demanded she produce financial records she really didn’t want to produce. Tempers flared. Finally, she screams at me, right outside the judges chambers:
You won’t get away with this, Mr. Oakminster, because I’m a bigger bitch than you are an asshole.
I calmly offered to stipulate to the latter half of that statement.
But that was the sum total of the “content” of your post. You said he did something bad and therefore deserved his fate. But then you said you don’t know what his fate is exactly. But he sure deserves it, dammit!!!
Sure sounds like the lefty douche thinks righties are bad for being righties. In other words, just more dumbass non-thinking dumbassery from a non-thinking dumbass.
This ain’t my fight, but I will observe that Sam tends to ride with the Jedi more often than not. He’s wrong when he disagrees with me, of course, but otherwise I’d drink with him.
If you think I’m a lefty douche, then you have a right to your opinion. I’m a lefty. I’ll stipulate that, per Oakminster. Whether I’m a douche is always gonna be open to your point of view. Just like assholes.
Righties aren’t bad inherently, just because they’re righties. They come in all different shades and all different suits. Branding someone a “rightie” or a “leftie” is pretty unfair. All people are either right-leaning or left-leaning or somewhere on a sliding scale. No one is a “conservative” or a “liberal” or even a “libertarian” except that their particuar view on a single issue may track with the generally accepted view of where that view falls on the spectrum.
The precise meaning of “advice and consent” is a long-settled political question. The Senate chooses whether to consent to a nomination, and they can do so, or not, for any reason, or none at all. That’s what the “consent” part means.
It doesn’t say “determine if the nominee is qualified and then give consent if she is.” It says “consent.”
If you want to change that, convince a majority of Senators that it’s in their interest to do so. Otherwise, the Senate will continue to interrogate judicial nominees about their philosophies, just as they’ve been doing since Olden Tymes.
Now see, that’s what got my drinking buddy, Oakminster in trouble.:eek:
It’s not about right vs left. Not about Democrat vs. Republican. I can’t deny that I’m a lifelong Democrat, and Orrin is a Republican. His more conservative views on life don’t square with mine. But he ain’t an asshole like many Republicans that get elected to Congress. He’s not a bad guy.
I simply, unbiasedly thought he was caving in to the current Tea-Party/ultraconservative movement that seems to be sweeping the Nation, and was looking to save his ass. Five years ago, he, IMHO, would have nothing but good things to say about Ms. Kagan. IMHO>
As if Orrin Hatch has never pushed legislation based on his personal views, not to mention personal advantage. This is the guy who more than any other lawmaker has been responsible for giving the supplement industry the power to sell us ineffective crap falsely claimed to prevent or treat disease.
*"Since DSHEA (the act hamstringing the FDA that Hatch is responsible for) became law, substances as varied as paint stripper, bat shit, toad venom, and lamb placenta have all been imported from overseas, bottled up—often by people with no scientific or health backgrounds—and marketed as dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers. Many supplements have been tainted with salmonella, arsenic, lead, pesticides, unapproved foreign prescription drugs, as well as garden-variety carcinogens…
Not surprisingly, (Hatch) has very close ties to the industry. His former chief of staff, Thomas Parry, is now a lobbyist for Utah’s supplement industry, and even hired one of Hatch’s sons in 1992 as a research assistant. Hatch’s 2000 reelection campaign was managed by another former chief of staff, Kevin McGuiness, now a dietary-supplements lobbyist. Hatch also owns a small amount of stock in a small Utah vitamin company.
Close ties between members of Congress and the industries they oversee are pretty common. But the supplement industry’s relationship with the squeaky-clean Hatch seems unlikely at first glance, given that a sizeable portion of the industry has a well-documented history of fraud that goes beyond the usual corporate shenanigans."*
Hatch’s son has been a lobbyist for a supplement industry trade association. It didn’t hurt that Daddy is a Big Daddy to the supplement pushers.
This is the guy outraged and offended that Kagan is influenced by her personal views.
So you have no freaking idea about anything in politics. You are just scared the Tea Partiers may have started something, and the party is over for your kind. I hope you’re right.
Asking about philosophies is fine. Withholding consent because you disagree on something where rational minds can clearly differ is not ok in the Book of Oak. Obama is not going to nominate another Scalia. He doesn’t have to. Choosing a judicial philosophy he’s comfortable with is one of the spoils of war.
From a purely strategic point of view, throwing a hissy fit over this SCOTUS slot is unwise. She isn’t going to change the balance of the Court. Kagan batting for Ginsburg probably doesn’t change the outcome of many cases, if any. Better to make nice on this one, and for religious types to pray for the health of Scalia. If he kicks the bucket while Obama is in the White House, there’s the point to make a stand if you’re gonna. A Kagan-clone batting for Scalia would radically change the balance, and the outcome of many future cases.
Okay. But, actually, I wasn’t an asshole here either. The president’s nominee by no means is entitled to an automatic approval by the Senate if the nominee meets the minimum requirements. The whole purpose of the Senate approval is for the Senate to determine if the candidate is fit for the office, not just minimally qualified. If it were an automatic approval, we’d have the situation they have up in North Korea.
Hmm…I really don’t recall seeing before that Oakminster is a lawyer.
Rational minds cannot differ on whether a liberal douche judicial philosophy is a good thing or not–it’s absolute hogwash through and through. Kagan and her ilk have the most addled legal minds imaginable. It’s all result-oriented bullshit–the law be damned, they are seekers of such nebulous and bullshit concepts as “social justice” and whatnot. There’s nothing rational about that.
Soooo…what does fit mean, beyond minimally qualified? And how do we determine whether she is fit, once we know what it means? The woman apparently shows up for work reasonably sober most of the time, she has a ticket to practice, she has practiced, she’s got academic cred, she appears to bathe regularly, she holds some positions that I don’t, but so what…what more do you want?
I’m not afraid, in any possible conceit, that the Tea Party people may have started something that will alter the balance of power in this country. My “kind” is in no danger. More in trouble, IMHO, are many middle-of=the=road “conservatives” who aren’t bad people, they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Linda Brown, by and through her daddy, Rev. Oliver, beg to differ. She just wanted to go to a school within walking distance of her house, instead of riding a bus to another school further away. She had a damn fine lawyer on the case, who went on to fairly be considered a Lion of the Court in his own right.
