John Adams

HahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahaha hahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahah ahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHaha hahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaH ahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahaha haHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahah ahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahaha hahahahaHahahahahahaha

So let me get this straight: You deleted her contact information from your computer and phone and thereby made it hard to contact her. Because you...now had to punch in her phone number or email or chat name manually? Let me guess: This relationship is based only in Second Life.

I don't ever vote for him but Arlen is a decent guy for a lifetime politician. He has the locker near mine at my gym and he's always upbeat and affable. He's got a guy who follows him around the gym with his phone--even in the lockerroom! Arlen's workout regimen as I see it is lots of squash. Rendell also works out at my gym. He's lost a ton of lbs. and his regimen is mostly treadmill, though that big bastard looks like he could bench a house.

Everyone someone doesn't like on the bench is labeled "activist." Inviting the biases and decay of electoral politics into the courts is a bad idea, as the founders thankfully recognized. It's bad enough the the process is as politicized as it is. And who cares that she's a she? Why do you keep bringing that up? If you have a problem with the federal judicial system, take it up with the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The electorate should bear the responsibility of voting people out if they are elected officials. And if you have a good person in office, they should be allowed to keep voting them in. That said, I go to great lengths to encourage everyone to vote for NO incumbents, especially at the federal level. Regarding judicial terms, I don't really care one way or the other. I like that at the highest levels, lack of term limits discourages judges from being politicized once in office. It's the beauty of the Constitutional design for the SC judges.

Why? He hasn't answered my question 5x. Thomas was a ****ty choice because for the land's highest judicial office, you should have the best legal minds. He wasn't one. But Thomas should still get the job because the president gets to pick, except if the pick is a total buttnugget. The politicizing of federal court nominations is screwing up the federal courts. Forget the Supremes--you all know about them. It's damn near impossible to get judges through to the federal benches because each party blocks the presidential appointments except all but a few middle-of-the-road people. And that leaves the federal benches understaffed and worse, under-qualifiedly understaffed. But asshats in Congress keep !@#$ing each other's nominees in a childish game while we as the citizens get weaker and weaker courts as a result.

Touche!

Sorry troll. I'm done dancing for you today.

No more so than Bush picking Roberts. It's how asshats like you have manipulated the process. You're so up even the most qualified person's ass just because they are the choice of the party you don't like that the only people who get through the process are those without record (Roberts, Kagan) or unqualified people like Clarence Thomas.

I make vindictive decisions all the time--as do judges. This wasn't her position as a judge. She was Dean of Harvard Law--and took a stand against a stupid military policy that conflicted with her School's code. Don't let this smokescreen issue let you (or any of us) think it gives us insight into her judicial character. On the issue, it appears we have only some insight into how she personally feels.

As per your usual MO, you dodge the question on the table. She's her own person. Miers proved herself unworthy of the position during the process--we will see if Kagan does the same but I suspect she won't because she has the academic pedigree Miers lacked. Moreover, Miers approached the process without studying and with no respect for the committee--that tanked her. At this early point, she's more like Justice Roberts. Roberts was a top brain with little written record and almost zero judicial experience.

Against. I am against term limits in general.

Elected judges are notoriously corrupt nationwide. You put the Union buddy in the seat with no judicial experience and get the corrupt results you expect, with little regard for the law. An elected judiciary is a disaster and there's a reason it doesn't extend to the highest courts. Here in PA, we have one of the most ridiculed state Supreme Courts in the entire country because it is elected (to 10 year terms). Rarely is the best and brightest candidate elected. Instead, you get the jackass lawyer who can campaign the best. Is that who you want as your supposedly impartial and blind justice--and how impartial do you think those justices are in the year leading to an election? Elected judiciary=bad news. Not that an appointed one doesn't have some of the same issues regarding politicking to get the position but at least there are no re-election issues.

She's an activist justice? You base this on...? What she's proven is that she's one of the brightest legal minds in the US--just like Roberts was when he was voted in. And frankly, there are activist judges on the right and left. We're still waiting for a second reason why you don't like her. So far, you're single reason for why she's "disgusting" is that she defends gay rights on a college campus! What a reason.

Judges running for election is a good idea? Are you serious? Gaaaah!

98. Better change my retirement calculator. Man I am looking forward to the 2 decades from 78-98.

I was pulling your chain just because WBF is in this thread. Enough women on the court already? WTF are you talking about?

By woman you probably mean Jew.

Yes, the right will embarrass itself yet again. The left has had its turn and will in future (just as I wrote). This time it's your folk's turn to be stupid.

Better now than after the wedding. Don't do anything stupid. Just kick her out and be done.

Her opposition to Don't ask Don't Tell is related to your first reason. She opposed military recruitment on campus at Harvard because of that stupid policy, which violated Harvard's campus rules it seems. (And no, I don't care to get into the specifics of Harvards rules but I am sure they have some uber-liberal statement about how you can't be discriminatory and have a campus organization.) That she has never been a judge is not a mark against her and maybe even you know it. So you're still stuck at 1 reason to oppose her. Keep trying. Your Klan bloggers aren't giving you enough ammo yet eh?

Good graphic showing the current Supreme Court nominees and the votes that passed/denied them. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ju...gle+Feedfetcher I forgot that asshattery about Obama rejecting Roberts because of his "overarching ideology." What a douche.

So that's 1 reason. For someone you say is disgusting, I assume you have a lot more.

Do you need a lesson in how to post? If you're going to be insulting, try to provide support. For example, when I first called you a racist, I linked to your many anti-black posts as support. Now, when you say she's warped and disgusting, you can provide examples, unless you believe that we find your opinion alone interesting.