• 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!

Hillary Clinton On The Supreme Court?

TurtleDude said:
actually Palin's qualifications to be president-given what we have had of late are far stronger than Hillary's to be a justice

Hillary only got into Yale Law because she was female. She didn't even make Cum Laude in college. She didn't make the law review didn't clerk for an appellate judge (let alone a justice) wasn't order of the coif and she flunked the DC Bar.

Lets look at recent USSC picks


Scalia-#1 in his colllege class, #1 at Harvard law. Souter-Rhodes Scholar, Thomas-the weakest but still top half of his class at yale Law and was an appellate judge, Sotomayor Phi Beta Kappa, Top of her law school Class.
Roberts-#1 at Harvard law, seen as the top supreme court advocate in the USA. Alito-PBK at Princeton top of his class at yale law. RB Ginsburg. made the law review at Harvard and Columbia (transferred due to her husband's illness), Breyer top of his class at both college and law school, Kennedy, Phi beta Kappa, Order of the Coif, law review at Harvard, etc

Hillary isn't evan as qualified as Thomas. She isn't anywhere near her husband's two picks and like it or not W's two picks were the strongest of any president in the last 100 years
Click to expand...

If I had it my way, both Hillery and Palin would run off and get married and spend the rest of their lives on a secluded island. :rofl
 
disneydude said:
That's the fallacy of the "strict constructionist" mentality. Why would you rely on the minds of people from the 1700's when the world is a completely different place, with different technology today.

The other problem with the so-called "strict constructionists" is that they love to talk about "strict constructionism" until it doesn't fit their agenda....at which time, they engage in right-wing activism...e.g.....Corporations are "people" under the Constitution.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a "person" if you are a "strict" constructionist. :doh:doh:doh
Click to expand...

right next to the clause that says the government has the power to create social security, regulate small arms or tell an innkeeper whom he has to accommodate.
 
disneydude said:
What.....that she can see Russia from her house?
Click to expand...

another one confusing Tina Fey with Palin

how does that even matter-didn't your magic Masai claim there were 57 states

WTF is a CORP se Man
 
So, TD, are you saying that the prez didn't actually misspeak, but rather he actually BELIEVES there are 57 states in the US? Is that what you're saying?
 
Captain America said:
So, TD, are you saying that the prez didn't actually misspeak, but rather he actually BELIEVES there are 57 states in the US? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

I find it funny that the lib press has such a double standard. Yeah he mis=spoke just as Bush did. I worry about what people do rather than how they way it. I also find it funny that people call VP candidate Palin "stupid" yet give Biden a pass when that guy is dumber than a post as is Pelosi
 
TurtleDude said:
I find it funny that the lib press has such a double standard. Yeah he mis=spoke just as Bush did. I worry about what people do rather than how they way it. I also find it funny that people call VP candidate Palin "stupid" yet give Biden a pass when that guy is dumber than a post as is Pelosi
Click to expand...


Make no mistake, I feel that Biden is a joke. How or why he is sitting where he is sitting just boggles my mind. But, Palin is even a bigger joke, if that is at all possible. How anyone could ever take either of them seriously is beyond me.

The only thing scarier than Biden sitting behind the red phone is Palin not picking it up because her nails haven't dried.

How do we get such idiots in the political arena? I could see it if it were local. School board, alderman, dog-catcher. But Washington? It's just simply amazing.
 
disneydude said:
Where in the US Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a "person" if you are a "strict" constructionist. :doh:doh:doh
Click to expand...
Well hey, the world is a completely different place now, right? Why worry about what some old, dead guys said 200 years ago? It's a living document! :2wave:
 
Corporations aren't people. People have to pay taxes.
 
Coronado said:
Well hey, the world is a completely different place now, right? Why worry about what some old, dead guys said 200 years ago? It's a living document! :2wave:
Click to expand...

I agree. THAT was my exact point - the fallacy and the hypocrisy from the so-called "strict" constructionists. I'm glad to see that you agree.:2wave:
 
Don't they usually appoint established judges to the High Court?
 
disneydude said:
I agree. THAT was my exact point - the fallacy and the hypocrisy from the so-called "strict" constructionists. I'm glad to see that you agree.:2wave:
Click to expand...
So they're using the "living document" method. What's the issue, that they are reaching conclusions with which you don't agree? This is the very reason we should be sticking to the letter of the document to begin with!
 
Coronado said:
So they're using the "living document" method. What's the issue, that they are reaching conclusions with which you don't agree? This is the very reason we should be sticking to the letter of the document to begin with!
Click to expand...

The point is: "Strict" Constructionists love to claim that they stick to the letter of the document, however, in decision after decision, they only do so when it is convenient to their agenda. If a decision doesn't fit their agenda, they have no problem interpreting the Constitutition or overturning precedent.

They cling to the label, but are dishonest in their application.
 
disneydude said:
The point is: "Strict" Constructionists love to claim that they stick to the letter of the document, however, in decision after decision, they only do so when it is convenient to their agenda. If a decision doesn't fit their agenda, they have no problem interpreting the Constitutition or overturning precedent.

They cling to the label, but are dishonest in their application.
Click to expand...

overturning precedent does not have anything to do with being a strict constructionist. Poorly reasoned precedent that conflicts with original intent should be overturned.
 
TurtleDude said:
overturning precedent does not have anything to do with being a strict constructionist. Poorly reasoned precedent that conflicts with original intent should be overturned.
Click to expand...

And how do you decide what is poorly reasoned? Who makes the call? Why is some one elses opinion on reasoning more valid than anothers?
 
digsbe said:
:shock: Well, actually this may be a good thing. She's old and will probably die when we have a Republican in office. We don't need liberal judges, we need lawful judges.
Click to expand...

pretty severe double standards figuring this activist McCain-Feingold repeal shenanigan done by the conservative ruling on corporate finance
 
Z3n said:
pretty severe double standards figuring this activist McCain-Feingold repeal shenanigan done by the conservative ruling on corporate finance
Click to expand...

so what part of the constitution empowered the federal government to restrict such spending?
 
Redress said:
And how do you decide what is poorly reasoned? Who makes the call? Why is some one elses opinion on reasoning more valid than anothers?
Click to expand...

you missed the point--overturning a past decision does not necessarily conflict with strict construction
 
TurtleDude said:
you missed the point--overturning a past decision does not necessarily conflict with strict construction
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you missed mine, but I expect that.
 
Redress said:
Actually, I think you missed mine, but I expect that.
Click to expand...

Nope, wrong again. now explain why being a strict constructionist means respecting all precedent including precedent that ignores strict construction
 
TurtleDude said:
Nope, wrong again. now explain why being a strict constructionist means respecting all precedent including precedent that ignores strict construction
Click to expand...

You did miss my point. Completely. By miles. Just way over your head.
 
TurtleDude said:
so what part of the constitution empowered the federal government to restrict such spending?
Click to expand...

There was legislation in place to limit the influence of corporate finance on campaigns. I'm a little disappointed that the supreme court just repealed it. It had been in place for decades, and I don't know how comfortable I feel having the billionaire rich having a significantly stronger political voice than my own.
 
Redress said:
You did miss my point. Completely. By miles. Just way over your head.
Click to expand...

wrong again but I am sure you will smugly pretend it is so

You really aren't in a position to do that

Now answer the question
 
Z3n said:
There was legislation in place to limit the influence of corporate finance on campaigns. I'm a little disappointed that the supreme court just repealed it. It had been in place for decades, and I don't know how comfortable I feel having the billionaire rich having a significantly stronger political voice than my own.
Click to expand...



so labor unions or groups like PETA shouldn't be able to pool resources?

actually I wish net tax payers had far more influence. If I were Lord High Master of the universe people would get additional votes for every additional 1000 dollars in taxes they pay

I detest the fact that politicians can pander to 55% of the voters by promising them the wealth of the other 45%--or as it is now the wealth of 10%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom