• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate confirms lynch as attorney general. 10 "republicans" vote for her

Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.

that's a bit of an exaggeration and in a civil forfeiture-there is no involvement of a grand jury
 
Another red herring. The lawyer is on a roll tonight!



What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing? And my "understanding about this matter" is sufficient to recognize this as a BS argument:

1. She got every job over her entire "40 year" career "solely" due to her race.
2. We know that because she is black.

So far that's the entirety of your 'case' against Ms. Lynch. We have had several interesting but irrelevant diversions into affirmative action, your law school chums, made up stats, Michelle Obama, etc.

yeah she got those jobs because she was black

and since you spend so much time mentioning I am a lawyer, I am going to note your lack of a law degree and experience in the legal profession is probably the excuse for your inaccurate comments
 
Clearly? Based on what evidence except she's black, of course....

She, in my opinion, disqualified herself during the confirmation hearings when she said she supported Obama's unconstitutional actions on immigration. The top law enforcement position in this country is held by someone that is there to do Obama's bidding, not uphold the law. A sad day for all Americans.
 
that's a bit of an exaggeration and in a civil forfeiture-there is no involvement of a grand jury

Well there most certainly is in the federal grand jury in the eastern district of Oklahoma, I recently completed an 18 month duty in which we deliberated several.
 
Well there most certainly is in the federal grand jury in the eastern district of Oklahoma, I recently completed an 18 month duty in which we deliberated several.

that would be criminal forfeiture where property is listed on an indictment

Not civil forfeiture

I should note that sometimes an AUSA seeks a criminal forfeiture and when the GJ won't include that in a bill, the AUSA then pursues a civil forfeiture so you might have considered a matter which ended up a civil forfeiture
 
I don't think one can be a libertarian and support the federal war on drugs

Apparently you can be neither liberal, libertarian nor Tea Party republican.

When liberals, libertarians and Tea Party Republicans find themselves nodding in unison on drug law reform, it's fair to say that the issue's time has come. The drug policy ground is shifting in the US – and fast. Every month, more Americans favour taxing and regulating marijuana, new ballot initiatives are launched and the status quo appears more outdated.

Liberals and Republicans signal huge shift in attitude to US drug laws | Comment is free | The Guardian
 
that would be criminal forfeiture where property is listed on an indictment

Not civil forfeiture

I should note that sometimes an AUSA seeks a criminal forfeiture and when the GJ won't include that in a bill, the AUSA then pursues a civil forfeiture so you might have considered a matter which ended up a civil forfeiture

Two such in my recollection, out of more than a hundred cases heard in that time.
 
Two such in my recollection, out of more than a hundred cases heard in that time.

a grand jury is neither necessary nor a component in a civil forfeiture case. I know I tried 20 of them including my last trial as DOJ attorney. I never appeared before a grand jury as part of those cases.
 
I see none of the Obama fan boys on this thread want to deal with this question

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE that these two successive black appointees to the AG office were the best and the brightest attorneys Obama could find in the Department of Justice?

... probably because no one ever gave a satisfactory answer to the equivalent question about Gonzales and Clarence Thomas.

Seriously Turtle? Why are you boring us with this disingenuous question. You know that Presidential appointments are rarely about the best and the brightest, nor should they be. Any good administrator needs a competent manager and technician that believes in the mission and can work well with the boss. The Boss gets to pick his lieutenants.

The advice and consent role of the Senate is a veto on the nominee (do they fit the competency and fit for office standard). Obama's AG nominees clearly meet this standard.

As to competency, however, many of continue to ask that question about Clarence Thomas. Perhaps once you justify him do you have any basis to challenge Holder or Lynch.
 
... probably because no one ever gave a satisfactory answer to the equivalent question about Gonzales and Clarence Thomas.

Seriously Turtle? Why are you boring us with this disingenuous question. You know that Presidential appointments are rarely about the best and the brightest, nor should they be. Any good administrator needs a competent manager and technician that believes in the mission and can work well with the boss. The Boss gets to pick his lieutenants.

The advice and consent role of the Senate is a veto on the nominee (do they fit the competency and fit for office standard). Obama's AG nominees clearly meet this standard.

As to competency, however, many of continue to ask that question about Clarence Thomas. Perhaps once you justify him do you have any basis to challenge Holder or Lynch.

Fair point. I never believed Bush searched the country over for the brightest when he was interviewing for the job. Matter of fact, I don't think he interviewed, just brought along his Texas buddy to Washington.
 
yeah she got those jobs because she was black

2. And you know that because she's black.

Yes, I know that's the extent of your 'case.' It's still a crap argument. The only way it makes sense is if we assume that a black woman cannot rise to those posts on her own merit. If you want to assert THAT, then you should do so. It won't improve the argument any, but at least we'll all know how you draw your conclusions.

and since you spend so much time mentioning I am a lawyer, I am going to note your lack of a law degree and experience in the legal profession is probably the excuse for your inaccurate comments

Yes, you made that disappointingly weak point in the previous post. So I'll ask again, "What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing?"

If readers need some inside knowledge about how it works in the legal world, where black women only rise to power based on AA, seems to me you should provide that background information for us. Tell us how it works. Can't wait!
 
2. And you know that because she's black.

Yes, I know that's the extent of your 'case.' It's still a crap argument. The only way it makes sense is if we assume that a black woman cannot rise to those posts on her own merit. If you want to assert THAT, then you should do so. It won't improve the argument any, but at least we'll all know how you draw your conclusions.



Yes, you made that disappointingly weak point in the previous post. So I'll ask again, "What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing?"

If readers need some inside knowledge about how it works in the legal world, where black women only rise to power based on AA, seems to me you should provide that background information for us. Tell us how it works. Can't wait!

isn't it just as lame to assume that she got those jobs on credentials? I remember dealing with a black female higher up in justice who was a complete idiot and when I mentioned that to a very well respected federal judge he noted

She acts that way because she thinks she got that appointment from Clinton (in reality the democrat senators) in spite of being black and female when in reality she got the job because she was black and female

you don't seem to get the point. She got into Harvard on affirmative action, she got into the law school on affirmative action and with those credentials she got the jobs
 
isn't it just as lame to assume that she got those jobs on credentials? I remember dealing with a black female higher up in justice who was a complete idiot and when I mentioned that to a very well respected federal judge he noted

She acts that way because she thinks she got that appointment from Clinton (in reality the democrat senators) in spite of being black and female when in reality she got the job because she was black and female

OK, so your assumption really is a black woman cannot succeed on her merits. At least we've finally arrived at your baseline viewpoint.

BTW, I can't believe you're willing to put such terrible arguments in writing - you once knew a black female who was a complete idiot, so that means Lynch is also a complete idiot because, you know, Lynch is also black and a woman, and they're all the same..... Seriously? You can't believe that's an argument anyone serious will accept do you?

And, no, it's not "lame" to assume that people with a long and accomplished career are competent and rose to those positions based on their merit.

you don't seem to get the point. She got into Harvard on affirmative action, she got into the law school on affirmative action and with those credentials she got the jobs

She graduated from law school in 1984. She has a 30 year career after that, TD. Unless you have some information you're not telling us, assuming that after a 10 year career in the U.S. Attorney's office, the last two as the U.S. Attorney, she (for example) was signed on as partner at a major law firm in D.C. and remained there for a decade as partner "solely" on the basis of her diploma hanging on the wall is, well, racist.
 
Last edited:
Lets put it this way... as soon as they actually pass a reform that actually reforms the process in all states.. then well it is nothing but hot air.

I gave you other examples too. States that have passed reform bills either led by republicans, or with strong bi-partisan support. And again Pete, this is representative of some republicans, the more libertarian Leaners and certainly not all.
 
I guess you cannot figure out that TOP means the ranking prosecutor not the BEST prosecutor

You pointed out that your friend was the "top" prosecuting attorney in her area, and so was Loretta Lynch.

So far you haven't given a single reason as to why she was a bad pick other than that you personally think she was an affirmative action hire.
 
I see none of the Obama fan boys on this thread want to deal with this question

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE that these two successive black appointees to the AG office were the best and the brightest attorneys Obama could find in the Department of Justice?

If a white president appointed successive white appointees would you be crying racism?

They were completely qualified candidates. The majority of his cabinet and appointed positions are white. But he's had two black in a row in one position? Well that just doesn't sit well with TD.That spot should be given to a white person. Because that's whats right.

If anyone is curious as to why sometimes republicans get labeled racist, have a good read through of this thread.
 
If a white president appointed successive white appointees would you be crying racism?

They were completely qualified candidates. The majority of his cabinet and appointed positions are white. But he's had two black in a row in one position? Well that just doesn't sit well with TD.That spot should be given to a white person. Because that's whats right.

If anyone is curious as to why sometimes republicans get labeled racist, have a good read through of this thread.

You see, there are thousands and thousands of qualified people for the job in this country, of all skin colors. That's why we have hearings, so we can get a little more insight into the person.

She made it clear that she was not going to uphold the Constitution (small requirement), but that she would uphold Obama instead. She should not have gotten one vote. But, there's good ole' Congress, abdicating their responsibilities and passing her along.

So, we have an AG appointee that won't do the job for us, but, lucky for her, we also have a Congress rolling over and playing dead, soooo....she's in! Another great moment of this administration.
 
As usual your posts don't understand the difference. AA is based on race which violates title VII. programs that give jocks, chess masters, ballerinas or rich kids who fund the education of other kids breaks do not.

But you've lumped in programs that provide preferential admissions to students based on merit - jocks, chess masters - with those based on a rich daddy. They really aren't remotely comparable.
 
OK, so your assumption really is a black woman cannot succeed on her merits. At least we've finally arrived at your baseline viewpoint.

BTW, I can't believe you're willing to put such terrible arguments in writing - you once knew a black female who was a complete idiot, so that means Lynch is also a complete idiot because, you know, Lynch is also black and a woman, and they're all the same..... Seriously? You can't believe that's an argument anyone serious will accept do you?

And, no, it's not "lame" to assume that people with a long and accomplished career are competent and rose to those positions based on their merit.



She graduated from law school in 1984. She has a 30 year career after that, TD. Unless you have some information you're not telling us, assuming that after a 10 year career in the U.S. Attorney's office, the last two as the U.S. Attorney, she (for example) was signed on as partner at a major law firm in D.C. and remained there for a decade as partner "solely" on the basis of her diploma hanging on the wall is, well, racist.

why are you changing what the issue is. That is dishonest. I said she got the jobs because she was black. I doubt a similarly situated white would have been accepted into HLS or got her political positions
 
You pointed out that your friend was the "top" prosecuting attorney in her area, and so was Loretta Lynch.

So far you haven't given a single reason as to why she was a bad pick other than that you personally think she was an affirmative action hire.
she was, Lynch was not. read what I said
 
But you've lumped in programs that provide preferential admissions to students based on merit - jocks, chess masters - with those based on a rich daddy. They really aren't remotely comparable.

true one is based on race which violates Title VII
 
you don't seem to get the point. She got into Harvard on affirmative action, she got into the law school on affirmative action and with those credentials she got the jobs

If you're going to make this argument, and dismiss the entire career of a person because of how you assert they got into college, you really need to back off your support for AA for rich kids whose daddies graduated from the elite schools. To the extent legacy admissions got into college based in preferences and denied admissions to more qualified candidates, their entire careers are also illegitimate.

The difference is legacy admissions needed help despite (generally) a lifetime of advantages that money buys - the best schools and teachers, test prep services, no need to work so can concentrate on extra curricular activities to pad the application, etc.
 
THe jock and I were both legacies.

Which explains your position favoring that type of preferences while opposing those not for your crowd.

I would hope that rational and intelligent people judge policies by a bit more than is it good for their own selfish concerns.
 
Back
Top Bottom