He'll only do that if he hates her enough that he wants her assassinated.

And, anyway, forget the politics of it for a moment, and simply ask: Is Hillary qualified to be a judge, let alone a justice of the Supreme court? I don't mean formally, I mean ethically.

Not on your life.
 

It works better the other way--elect Clinton and put Obama on the court!
 

Brett emulates a recent Gov. Mike Huckabee loose lips episode (for which he apologized promptly).
 

Given her (alleged) expertise (not to mention her obsessive-compulsive passion) on the matter, wouldn't Surgeon General be a better fit?

It's hardly less asinine a proposition than suggesting she is in any way qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

(Alternatively, I'm sure Obama will need an ambassador to Bosnia. After all, she already knows how to dodge the sniper fire there.)
 

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that a divisive figure is widely hated, and that widely hated figures placed in positions of unaccountable power face a risk of assassination.

Pointing out a fact, however unfortunate it may be, is not the sort of thing that demands apology.

Hillary is not qualified, on the basis of her ethical track record, to preside over a divorce court. If Obama wants to put a liberal on the court, he's got a wide selection of rather more principled and ethical ones available to him.
 

If Obama has something like this on his mind, however, he is unlikely to announce it publicly during the middle of a Presidential campaign. Telling the Republicans that he plans to nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court would be like waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

See Brett for example.

Given Hillary Clinton's ethical challenges, those hearings would be worth the price of admission.

However, I think your time would be better spent discussing whether McCain will keep his promise to nominate conservatives who need to be confirmed by what will be a bluer Senate. Mr. Obama has alienated about 25% of his Dem base and has a tough row to hoe.
 

If one were to point out that "a divisive figure [commenting on blogs] is widely hated, and that widely hated figures placed in positions of unaccountable power face a risk of assassination," would that constitute pointing out a fact however unfortunate it may be? We all know the unaccountable power of blog commenters, don't we?
 

Mr. Obama has alienated about 25% of his Dem base and has a tough row to hoe.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:09 AM

McCain has done the same, and faces the same tough row. The big difference is that McCain has to hoe shackled to the rotting corpse that is the disaster in Iraq.
 

"We all know the unaccountable power of blog commenters, don't we?"

I'll gladly own up to being "divisive", widely hated would require that I be widely known, and blog commentators have diddly squat in the way of power.
 

18 U.S.C. § 599

Promise of appointment by candidate.

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
 

JB,

One more historical precedent: Ike putting Warren on Supreme Court in 1953. That was based upon a promise Ike made to Warren when they were challenging each other for the presidential nomination in the Republican Party in 1952.
 

Interesting that many in one philosophical camp immediately assume that if someone from the opposing camp with whom they vehemently disagree is elevated to a position of power, some simpatico will assassinate him or her. Do they know something the rest of us don't?

And is there a corresponding fear for the safety of Justices S or T? And if not, I wonder why.

- Charles
 

"Interesting that many in one philosophical camp immediately assume that if someone from the opposing camp with whom they vehemently disagree is elevated to a position of power, some simpatico will assassinate him or her."

There are a whole host of people in the opposing philosophical camp who could be elevated to that position of power, without much risk of getting assassinated. It isn't her philosophy that endangers Hillary, it's her proclivity for making enemies.

Heck, I personally would be even less happy with Obama on the Supreme court than Hillary, but I wouldn't expect him to get wacked. HE doesn't have her talent for pissing folks off.
 

Brett:

And, anyway, forget the politics of it for a moment, and simply ask: Is Hillary qualified to be a judge, let alone a justice of the Supreme court? I don't mean formally, I mean ethically.

"Lying" (or fibbing) about being under fire in Bosnia is no disqualification. Rehnquist lied under oath about his authorship of the Brown memo he wrote while clerking for Jackson. And Rehnquist was active in voter intimidation efforts for the Republican party in his salad days.

Then, there's the outright lying of the per curiam opinion in Dubya v. Gore.

Perhaps you could elucidate on your "ethical" concerns here....

Cheers,
 

KipEsquire:

Given her (alleged) expertise (not to mention her obsessive-compulsive passion) on the matter, wouldn't Surgeon General be a better fit?

She's a lawyer, not a doctor. She has never pretended to be a doctor, unlike the party apparatchiks in the Dubya maladministration that overrule the conclusions of scientists and doctors on ideological grounds.

Cheers,
 

Brett:

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that a divisive figure is widely hated, and that widely hated figures placed in positions of unaccountable power face a risk of assassination....

"... when the folks that hate them are foaming RW nun-guts...."

OKC is your tar-baby.

Cheers,
 

Brett:

It isn't her philosophy that endangers Hillary, it's her proclivity for making enemies.

Of the WhirledNutzDaily/LittleFreepGoofballs/Falwell-"Clinton-Chrinicles"/Aransas-Project school...

But, if I was counted an "enemy" by those nut-jobs, I'd consider it the highest praise, and keep on doing what I'm doing....

Cheers,
 

"But, if I was counted an "enemy" by those nut-jobs, I'd consider it the highest praise, and keep on doing what I'm doing...."

I might care what she'd done to make them enemies, it's possible to piss people you don't like off by doing bad things, after all.

Personally, my dream Supreme court nomination is Alex Kozinski, but I don't expect to see him nominated by either major party.
 

Brett:

I might care what she'd done to make them enemies, it's possible to piss people you don't like off by doing bad things, after all.

You have yet to say what it is about her that pisses you off. Or should I just traipse over to Freeperland and save you the bother?

Personally, my dream Supreme court nomination is Alex Kozinski, but I don't expect to see him nominated by either major party.

I've met him (at a Boalt dinner a ways back). While I disagree with him on quite a number of things, he's one of the brighter and less ideologically blinkered conservatives. I think I disagreed with him on whether colours ought to merit trademark protection. I thought that was going a bit overboard; there's only so any to choose from, and plenty of alternatives....

Cheers,
 

She was a mediocure lawyer at best. She is ethically challenged and morally deficient. These qualities to do not translate to the credentials of a Supreme. She is grossly partisan. She would have a difficult path to confirmation from both sides of the aisle. The repub's as a given---the Dem's because she has attempted to split the party and caused down ticket problems. I would love to see the hearings ,however!!!!
 

She was a mediocure lawyer at best. She is ethically challenged and morally deficient. These qualities to do not translate to the credentials of a Supreme. She is grossly partisan. She would have a difficult path to confirmation from both sides of the aisle. The repub's as a given---the Dem's because she has attempted to split the party and caused down ticket problems. I would love to see the hearings ,however!!!!
 

"You have yet to say what it is about her that pisses you off. Or should I just traipse over to Freeperland and save you the bother?"

Can't say she particularly pisses me off, (Unlike her husband, who managed to raise my hackles from the start.) but, while politicians quite often are merely well adjusted sociopaths, Hillary strikes me as less well adjusted than some, and a bit too accustomed to getting away with things.

Her husband's (lack of) morals, without the charm.
 

docb:

She was a mediocure [sic] lawyer at best.

(Too easy...)

But even mediocrity deserves representation, if you ask the conservatives: "So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

But JOOC, on what do you base this evaluation?

... She is ethically challenged and morally deficient....

Once again, bare assertion is a rather poor form of 'argument'.

... These qualities to do not translate to the credentials of a Supreme. She is grossly partisan...

You misspelled "Democratic". As for "partisan", when you look that up in the OED nowadays, you find: (n): Republican.

... She would have a difficult path to confirmation from both sides of the aisle. The repub's as a given---the Dem's because she has attempted to split the party and caused down ticket problems. I would love to see the hearings ,however!!!!

Perhaps. But if President Obama nominated her, I suspect the process would go fairly smoothly.

Personally, there's a couple people I'd like to see on the court before her, but how can she be worse than the five patently dishonest hacks that signed on to Dubya v. Gore?

Cheers,
 

Brett:

[Arne]: "You have yet to say what it is about her that pisses you off. Or should I just traipse over to Freeperland and save you the bother?"

Can't say she particularly pisses me off, (Unlike her husband, who managed to raise my hackles from the start.) but, while politicians quite often are merely well adjusted sociopaths, Hillary strikes me as less well adjusted than some, and a bit too accustomed to getting away with things.

Oh. IC. You don't like her. Well, that's an 'argument' ... sort of....

Her husband's (lack of) morals, without the charm.

Uhhh, please, Brett: Can't you respond with more than more bare allegations?

Does she have less 'morals' than, say, Vito Fosella? "Duke" Cunningham? "Scooter" Libby? Rep. Jerry Lewis? Ted Stevens? Karl Rove? Tom DeLay? Mark Foley? Who? Can you put up some standard of morality that we might compare her to objectively? Much appreciated.

Cheers,
 

"She was a mediocure lawyer at best."

Assuming that this would be a disqualification for Hillary Clinton to serve on the Supreme Court, then perhaps because John McCain was a mediocre pilot at best, he would be disqualified to serve as a President claiming to be experienced in foreign policy. Take a peek at Rosa Parks' column in today's LATimes for a chronicle of McCain's positions on Iraq going back to late 2001.

Yes, McCain is a Kosher Republican, since he doesn't like pork. He is so frugal he squeaks, a real conservative; John McCain, as we used to say back in Roxbury, has short arms and ... but wait a minute, it's his wife that has the deep pockets. And she is not going to disclose her foaming earnings from a product that may benefit DUI-er attorneys, never, never, never. There may be 57 varieties of reasons why this wealthy wife of the trophy husband that John McCain is, should not disclose her tax returns. (Did she get a pre-nup to make sure John keeps his hands in his own pockets?) Teresa Heinz Kerry may have had stronger claims to 57 varieties of reasons, but Republican pressure brought about her release of her tax returns. So this Bud's for Democrats to keep up the drumbeat for Cindy McCain's tax returns. Meantime, John McCain can make another cameo appearance on SNL with the old vaudeville line:

"Who's got pockets?"

Of course the answer is: The lobbyists that surround him, deep, deep pockets. John's bud Charlie will keep McCain's campaign in the black.

I AM NOT JOHN McCAIN AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.
 

"Rosa Parks" should be "Rosa Brooks." A Rosa by any other name is not the same but in this case each blooms. My apologies.
 

"Does she have less 'morals' than, say, Vito Fosella? "Duke" Cunningham? "Scooter" Libby? Rep. Jerry Lewis? Ted Stevens? Karl Rove? Tom DeLay? Mark Foley?"

Have I given any indication AT ALL that I'd want anybody on that list on the Supreme court? I've only mentioned one fellow I'd like there, and he rather conspicuously was NOT a crooked politician.

I think it's generally a bad idea putting politicians on the bench, since ethical politicians are thin on the ground, and get rarer as you move up the food chain. About the only current politician who comes to mind that I wouldn't mind seeing on the bench is Ron Paul, since he's demonstrably willing to put principle ahead of policy preferences. Can't think of any Democrats I'd make an exception for, but that may be due to a lack of familiarity, I'm sure there must be SOME ethical Democratic politicians.

But Hillary isn't one of them.

"Uhhh, please, Brett: Can't you respond with more than more bare allegations?"

Nah, there's crocs in de Nile, and I wouldn't want them to get you. ;)
 

Nah, there's crocs in de Nile, and I wouldn't want them to get you. ;)

Translation: You're right. I've got nothing.
 

Sigh. Alright.

Money laundering via cattle futures.

"Finding" the Rose law firm records only after the statute of limitations expired.

I'd say that's a start.
 

I'd say that's a start.

If Dumbya is any indication, that's a good start for a presidential candidate.
 

I think reducing Hillary's prevarications, half-truths, and fancy stepping throughout this campaign cycle to the Bosnian sniper flub is a nice rhetorical trick, but it's frankly overwhelming. I'd say the way her accent changes based on the state she's in would be enough for me to consider her a bad candidate.

I know, not much of an argument without specifics, but it's like trying to identify drops in an ocean--it seems like every day I get another bad vibe. I'm sure I have a pro-Obama bias in effect, but I wouldn't trust her farther than I could throw her, and I have those T. rex arms that Shag mentioned earlier...maybe it's cause I was born in the PCZ?
 

Brett:

I'm sure there must be SOME ethical Democratic politicians.

But Hillary isn't one of them.

Repeated assertions is a rather slender reed of an 'argument'.

Sigh. Alright.

Money laundering via cattle futures.

Huh? Did you forget to mention Hillary's murder-for-hire of Vincent Foster? What "money-laundering"? Be specific now.

"Finding" the Rose law firm records only after the statute of limitations expired.

Huh?!?!? "[A]fter the statute of limitations expired"? WTF are you talking about? What SOL? Not to mention, they found the records, and there was no "there" there.

You really need better news sources that WhirledNutzDaily and Freeperville.....

The Clintons were the subject of multiple 'investigations' for over half a decade, with the enormous resources of the FBI and some $50 million of taxpayers money. They found nothing, notwithstanding that they were really digging for embarrassing dirt:

"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."

(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)

This long before Lewinsky fell into Starr's lap and he had even the slightest plausible jurisdiction to go looking into such.

Cheers,
 

PMS_Chicago:

I think reducing Hillary's prevarications, half-truths, and fancy stepping throughout this campaign cycle to the Bosnian sniper flub is a nice rhetorical trick, but it's frankly overwhelming. I'd say the way her accent changes based on the state she's in would be enough for me to consider her a bad candidate.

I'm not happy with Clinton's campaign either (but it's hardly out of the ordinary, and no worse that McSame's flip-flopping, hypocrisy, and eedjitcy). People pander to the voters all the time, picking up guns as need be, kissing babies, and eating the local haute cuisine with a grin.

That said, there's a difference in what you do while trying to get elected and what you'd do as a jurist.

Cheers,
 

Be careful of the crocs, Arne, you're getting pretty deep into denial. What money laundering? It's a pretty simple technique: You and the person who wants to pay you under the table hook up with the same cooperative broker. He then runs a series of day trades on BOTH sides of the market, and assigns the profitable one to you, the unprofitable one to the guy who's paying you, and takes the commission as his cut.

That's how somebody who doesn't know squat about cattle futures turns $1000 into $100,000 in six months of trades structured so as to leave no records, so that you can't identify where the money was actually coming from.

I mean, really: If you were good enough to turn a 10,000% profit in under a year, don't you think you'd stick with it for a few more months to be set for life? Well, you wouldn't if you knew it was a money laundering scheme, and your fantastic luck was going to evaporate as soon as all the money was laundered.

This, Arne, is the sort of thing Hillary claims to have been "vetted" about.
 

Brett:

Be careful of the crocs, Arne, you're getting pretty deep into denial. What money laundering? It's a pretty simple technique: You and the person who wants to pay you under the table hook up with the same cooperative broker. He then runs a series of day trades on BOTH sides of the market, and assigns the profitable one to you, the unprofitable one to the guy who's paying you, and takes the commission as his cut.

That's not "money laundering". Do you have any evidence that this was done (outside of Freeperland screeching, that is)?

That's how somebody who doesn't know squat about cattle futures turns $1000 into $100,000 in six months of trades structured so as to leave no records, so that you can't identify where the money was actually coming from.

Nice assertions. Do you have any evidence this happened?

I'd note that many people who don't know much about markets let managers run their funds. Some do well, some don't. When that's 'illegal', lots of people will end up in jail.

I mean, really: If you were good enough to turn a 10,000% profit in under a year, don't you think you'd stick with it for a few more months to be set for life? Well, you wouldn't if you knew it was a money laundering scheme, and your fantastic luck was going to evaporate as soon as all the money was laundered.

Still more assertions. Where's the evidence?

Do you think that the pit-bull Rethuglicans would have gone for consensual sex if they had actual criminal charges possible? This has all been looked into, and no one, not even GOP/Arkansas Project tools like Jackie Bennett, Bob Bittman, and Hickman Ewing could make anything of it. Not for lack of trying, of course, as the USN&WR article I quoted above shows....

This, Arne, is the sort of thing Hillary claims to have been "vetted" about.

Indeed. Where's the convictions? Hell, where's even the indictments?!?!?

You know, Brett, you really shouldn't have fried up those little boys and served them to your house guests after your little axe-murdering pederasty spree. See, that was easy.....

Cheers,
 

Arne, if you really think you can attribute a 10,000% profit in under a year to "letting a manager run her fund", you're far, far stupider than I'm willing to credit. Take the rose colored blinders off, and see Hillary for what she is: A crook. Your world won't fall to pieces around you if you admit the wingnuts were right about something once.
 

Brett:

Lack of evidence (as specifically requested) duly noted. Goodbye.

Cheers,
 

Refusal to accept evidence as evidence duly noted, right back at you.

You're pretty deep in denial, how's the mud down there?
 

Refusal to accept evidence as evidence duly noted, right back at you.

What evidence, Brett? We need evidence of a crime. Cites to both statute and to media reports of actual evidence would be appreciated.

As I asked before, what convictions? What indictments even?

Do you really think that Bittman, Bennett, and Ewing were falling down on the job? Even the more kindly disposed to these guys refer to one of them as a "pitbull"....

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, sans evidence, as to Hillary's nature. But others aren't required to give your opinion any shrift, particularly with the inchoate assaults you've put forth here. In which case, you're better off saving such moments for when you're walking the streets alone, mumbling about the vast unfairness of the "Clinton Chronicle" indifference by the vast majority of the sentient public.

Cheers,
 

Arne, the fund manager who can turn $1000 into $100,000 in under a year might, in the realm of fiction, exist. Maybe even the fund manager who can accomplish it for one of his clients, but apparently no others. The client of said fund manager, who would let him manage her funds for under a year, and then stop, scarcely exists even in the realm of bad fiction.

It was money laundering. That's the only conclusion that makes sense of both the insanely improbable rate of return AND the fact that she didn't let it continue for another year to become the owner of the entire planetary economy.

She wasn't prosecuted? Fine, it was competently executed money laundering, successful money laundering. That means we can't put her in jail. It doesn't mean we have to pretend she isn't too corrupt to be morally qualified for a seat on the Supreme court.
 

Brett:

You're allowed to bet on 100-1 longshots at the track. It's legal. You're allowed (up to a certain amount) to buy on margin (I'm not sure whether futures rules are different from rules for stocks). Hell, you're even allowed to take out unsecured loans for $1000 and go play the horses with it.

To establish that this was unethical or criminal, you need more.

She wasn't prosecuted? Fine, it was competently executed money laundering, successful money laundering. That means we can't put her in jail. It doesn't mean we have to pretend she isn't too corrupt to be morally qualified for a seat on the Supreme court.

So you can't point to a crime, eh? Why didn't you say so up front?

Cheers,
 

BTW, "Brett": How much of a stake did Dubya ever put up for Harken, Arbusto, etc.? How much was his? How much was he on the hook for. There's plenty of business dealing that are not to my liking. There's plenty that are far less ... ummm, "kosher" ... that Hillary's.

And then there was McCain and the Keating scandal....

Cheers,
 

Arne, didn't we go over this before? I'm arguing that Hillary doesn't belong on the Supreme court due to her corruption. This does not, outside the mysterious confines of your own twisted mind, imply that I think some OTHER corrupt politician DOES belong on the Supreme court. Politicians who belong on the Supreme court are very few, and very far between, and we can get by without that few. Supreme court seats should not be used to buy off political opponents.

Yes, you can win a 100 to 1 bet at the track. Turning $1000 into $100,000 over the course of hundreds of trades is not a single high stakes bet. It's statistically improbable to a degree that is mind boggling.

It's also a known method of money laundering. And Hillary's case bore all the signs: Transactions organized so that no record would be retained. Improbable winning streak abruptly abandoned. Tell me, who the hell trades cattle futures for a short while, making a 100 to one profit, and then stops before they're stinking rich?

Ok, it's clear, you flatly refuse to believe the woman is a crook, no matter the evidence. Fine, enjoy your insulation from reality, just don't expect people to share it.
 

Brett:

Yes, you can win a 100 to 1 bet at the track. Turning $1000 into $100,000 over the course of hundreds of trades is not a single high stakes bet. It's statistically improbable to a degree that is mind boggling.

Your knowledge of statistics is not very good.

Assuming that the odds are reasonably fair and accurate on the track and on the bourse, the payoff on a "hundred to one" bet on either is equally likely (or unlikely, however you want to look at it). Yes, you can pick "bets" that are high percentage, low risk ... and low yield. You can also pick bets
that are higher risk, lower percentage, and higher yield. And one can say that trading futures is not as risky as horse-racing, in that there is some external knowledge one can apply to the bets (although my sister would say the same is true of horse racing).

My personal take on stocks and futures markets is that it is essentially a form of gambling, in that you're relying on both a fair market (no insider trading) and perfect information to all, if the markets are fair and performing correctly. But I think they aren't, and since no one is giving me insider tips (and I'd refuse to take them), I know that I'm at a disadvantage. I think the folks that call the numbers given on radio for hot tips on oil futures (once commonplace on talk radio) -- they call it "investment counseling" or something -- are ridiculous; you're betting with others, and even if the info/advice you're getting is correct, you're gambling against all the others that heard the same damn ad.... But that's just me. Some people pretend the markets are fair and open.

That being said, it's not illegal or even particularly immoral to play the markets; some even think it's a good thing.

What you have to do, Brett, is show that there was anything funny going on with Clinton. That you have not done. Yes, such a return on investment is unusual. No, such a return on investment is not unheard-of.

I'd point out that plenty of people become millionaires literally overnight, buying out (@ $0.01 a share or such) and selling their options, when companies go IPO. And some of the first investors in the door at certain IPOs have scored 10-fold increases within days. Some, of course, have seen their money vanish in a cloud of dust too. C'est la vie.

Cheers,
 

Brett:

It's also a known method of money laundering. And Hillary's case bore all the signs: Transactions organized so that no record would be retained. Improbable winning streak abruptly abandoned.

Cites/links for these assertions? Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
 

Brett: When you have evidence (aside from mere assertion that the trades smell) people might be willing to listen to it.

Earlier you got handed a list of names; when looking at the morals of Clinton, of those who were well regarded in the party you favor; you shifted to saying you didn't propose them for the bench; well neither did you say (though you may wish we had inferred) that you were looking at Clinton's merits for the bench.

No, you said her lack of morals was why you didn't like her. Not her possible appointment, but her.

You can have the cake, or eat it. But those are the options, you can't do both.
 

"well neither did you say (though you may wish we had inferred) that you were looking at Clinton's merits for the bench."

Um, Arne, please examine for a moment the title of the post.

I've expressed the opinion that Hillary is morally unqualified for the bench, and named a non-politician, and a very unusual politician who nobody I know of has ever accused of corruption, (Lots of things, but not corruption.) and you inferred from this that I favored putting a long list of corrupt politicians on the bench. If that wasn't just a really stupid bit of rhetoric, you're mad.

And I don't mean angry. Cheers!
 

My apologies, Arne, I should have addressed that to Terry.
 

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
2013 Beyaz Eşya modeller
Sizlere Güvenlik Sistemleri ayarliyoruz
Arayin Hırdavat bulun
Samsung Nokia İphone Cep telefonu alin.
Super Led Tv keyfi