|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Honestly too smart.... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1533225891 Message started by raydawg on 08/02/18 at 09:04:51 |
|
Title: Honestly too smart.... Post by raydawg on 08/02/18 at 09:04:51 Wonder if she just ruined her practice/career? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/02/im-a-liberal-feminist-heres-why-i-support-judge-kavanaugh-219081 |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by MnSpring on 08/02/18 at 09:12:52 I would say, most probably so. Because it is so clear, (as was also stated on this form by a Moderator), that a person, of one group, who shows, ANY, regard, respect, for a person of another group. That person is, eaten alive, by their OWN group ! |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 09:27:48 I don't think so. On it's surface, it's a well written op-ed. If anything, it might garner her more business. However, I think she's mistaken in saying that "He is the most qualified conservative for the job". There are far more qualified candidates than Kavanaugh. That's not just my opinion, but many others on the left and right. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by Serowbot on 08/02/18 at 09:28:19 Yes, we Liberals are terrible,... (especially the one that's a moderator) Trumpeteers would never do that... They never turn on their own for speaking truth... Jeff Flake, Steve Schmidt, Corker, Bush 1, Bush 2, Jeb, Graham, Kasich, McCain, Seriously?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by MnSpring on 08/02/18 at 09:50:19 7066716C74616C77030 wrote:
I believe their is a difference between: A group of people, saying about one who says they are a part of the same group, “That person is a bad person because of this and that, and they also have stated they do not believe in the fundamentals of the group they are in”. To a person, who says/practices, the fundamentals of the group they are in, yet are devoured by their own group, by stating a positive note about someone who is not a part of their group. (OH for the panty in a bunch people, that group is: ‘liberal Democrat and feminist’, as stated by the, liberal Democrat feminist herself, who I believe, is about to be devoured by other, liberal Democrat and feminists) “…They never turn on their own for speaking truth…” Wait, does this mean, you, believe that Kavanaugh is the best for the job ? You say: “…speaking truth…”. Or is this like, you believe JFK was boinking MM ? Wait, is it you don’t believe JFK was boinking MM ? Not sure, can you clarify, what you believe in? |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by Serowbot on 08/02/18 at 09:59:39 I don't care whether JFK liked M&M's or not,... I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy... If you want to disown people that don't believe in the fundamentals of your party,.. start with tRump... |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by MnSpring on 08/02/18 at 10:09:30 7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:
Didn’t ask you what kind of candy JFK likes, ;D ;D ;D ;D I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy… Really ?, read that post, again ! If you want to disown people that don’t believe in the fundamentals of your party,.. start with tRump... So that would be exactly how/what, you said/did, concerning H.R.C.? It that the exact way ‘it’ should be done ? The exact way, you did it ? |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by raydawg on 08/02/18 at 10:19:14 415F50515C415A47350 wrote:
I don’t recall her saying that.... I will look again. She talked about the litmus test of Row vs. Wade and how 41, I think the number was, republicans voted to affirm Ruth based on her overall qualifications.... That sureis missing in today’s environment. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 10:22:48 22312934312737500 wrote:
I don’t recall her saying that.... I will look again. She talked about the litmus test of Row vs. Wade and how 41, I think the number was, republicans voted to affirm Ruth based on her overall qualifications.... That sureis missing in today’s environment.[/quote] "He is the most qualified conservative for the job" is a direct quote from the article. She is of course entitled to her opinion, but I personally feel she misses the mark on his qualifications. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by raydawg on 08/02/18 at 11:21:39 607E71707D607B66140 wrote:
I don’t recall her saying that.... I will look again. She talked about the litmus test of Row vs. Wade and how 41, I think the number was, republicans voted to affirm Ruth based on her overall qualifications.... That sureis missing in today’s environment.[/quote] "He is the most qualified conservative for the job" is a direct quote from the article. She is of course entitled to her opinion, but I personally feel she misses the mark on his qualifications.[/quote] Interesting..... Yeah, I read right through that. Upon your observation/link, I don’tread it, and maybe that is why I didn’t assign it the same value (?) as you... But I see the remark more like this: “Being appointed by Republicans, he shares a lot of their political views/beliefs, and is amply qualified as such.” You want to explain your take? BTW, not sure, but it seems republican nominated judges have swung more votes than democrat nominated ones. I think however, that is changing a bit, and when Ruth is gone, even more so. Note: I wonder how much they do agree, on other matters that don’t bring the political and media fanfare? |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 11:30:53 62716974716777100 wrote:
I personally think it's a shame there has to be a partisan component at all on the Supreme Court. This Country should be run by laws, not a left wing or right wing ideology. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by raydawg on 08/02/18 at 11:52:12 Dude, can’t you back up your statement? Who is better, why? If not, or you decline, why make it in the first place, jeez... |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 12:33:33 3A29312C293F2F480 wrote:
You have to ask the right question ray. Not to open old wounds, but Merrick Garland was far more conservative than many dems would have liked... but I know he would never have been a choice. As to who would have been better? Amul Thapar for one. He may be conservative leaning, but in my opinion, seems to make his decisions base purely on the law. Joan Larsen for another. She would have the least experience per se, but she's been a law professor and clerked for Scalia. Federico Moreno as another. Appointed by HW Bush to Florida's Southern US District Court, he also seems to follow the law and precedent. Of course, these are just my opinions. I have little doubt that Kavanaugh will be on the bench. I just hope the hearings hold him to task. There are a couple of questionable rulings in his past. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by WebsterMark on 08/02/18 at 14:04:44 Let's face it, none of us are involved in the day to day workings of legal rulings and opinions. We don't know crap about any of these people other than what someone writes about them which confirms what we wanted to hear in the first place. As to who would have been better? Amul Thapar for one. He may be conservative leaning, but in my opinion, seems to make his decisions base purely on the law. Joan Larsen for another. She would have the least experience per se, but she's been a law professor and clerked for Scalia. Federico Moreno as another. Appointed by HW Bush to Florida's Southern US District Court, he also seems to follow the law and precedent. Of course, these are just my opinions. I have little doubt that Kavanaugh will be on the bench. I just hope the hearings hold him to task. There are a couple of questionable rulings in his past. Are you tying to tell us you've studied the legal rulings of those three judges, before Kavanagh was appointed, in such detail you can state opinions such as Moreno for example 'seems to follow the law and precedent'? Without looking up cases or opinions online, what rulings and opinions have these three made in the past that impressed you? It seems to me if I was going to say Moreno 'seems to follow the law and precedent' I would have to know many cases she was involved in and read them in great detail. Because I'm reminded when Senator Leahy was doing an interview and basically said he didn't think, from reading his previous opinions, that Clarence Thomas had the 'depth' to be on the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the reported asked for specific opinions that Thomas authored that Leahy found lacking. Of course he couldn't name anything, it was obvious he had never read a Thomas opinion in his life. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 14:23:59 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
Well mark, I'm not a senator, so I guess that's a good thing. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by MnSpring on 08/02/18 at 15:47:53 253B343538253E23510 wrote:
That would be a, REALLY good thing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/02/18 at 16:15:54 694A7754564D4A43240 wrote:
That would be a, REALLY good thing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] Glad you agree. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by WebsterMark on 08/02/18 at 17:59:07 Are you tying to tell us you've studied the legal rulings of those three judges, before Kavanagh was appointed, in such detail you can state opinions such as Moreno for example 'seems to follow the law and precedent'? Well mark, they were all posted when Kennedy decided to step down. Why is that so hard to believe? That's not really an answer. You basically stated you know all about those three judges and their decisions and they are far more qualified than Kavanagh. I know nothing about any of them as I'm fairly certain is true of 99% of the population. So, I asked you are you really in the 1% as your post indicated? |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/03/18 at 06:45:04 724047565140576844574E250 wrote:
Well mark - that was indeed an answer - I even posted a wiki link. I guess I am part of that 1%. Take it for what it's worth. It seems to me that you find it easier to label someone a liar than it is to take someone's word. That's on you, not me. (remember when you continuously called me a liar - with no proof?) |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by WebsterMark on 08/03/18 at 08:13:39 Okay fine. You’ve read legal opinions from obscure judges over the years to a degree necessary to express an opinion on their judicial philosophy. And we’re fortunate enough to have someone with your standing on our little motorcycle forum. Ain’t we the lucky ones. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/03/18 at 09:10:16 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
Yes, I guess you are. Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by faffi on 08/03/18 at 13:00:59 ;D |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by T And T Garage on 08/03/18 at 13:03:34 3F383F3F30590 wrote:
You're too kind Faffi! |
|
Title: Re: Honestly too smart.... Post by faffi on 08/03/18 at 13:35:34 I know. It's a personality disorder ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |