Judge Kavanaugh

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by DZ

If you don't agree with Kavanaugh's nomination at the very least pick another name off the list of 25 that you would support and say why.

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

[Sea Dangles]

At least she is trying to make the cost of education more affordable
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

I understand. But the nomination of conservative SC justices is something that comes with winning the past election. If you win you get to call the shots and try and get your picks in. I remember a past president said something to the effect of "Elections have consequences". Kind of like that. Some people can go crazy but at the end of the day he may get his pick into the SC.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. .

where exactly is the center...?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.

Fried, who donated $250 to Warren's campaign, told the Republican, a Springfield, Mass., newspaper, in 2012, "This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've heard this from people, that she made the declaration AFTER she was hired. But she also knew that this was a big box to check in Academia (if you think it is not you are fooling yourself). Tom Nichols (a NeverTrumper BTW) who's opinion I trust and consider even when I don't agree with his statements, had a great point; he know's people in Academia that *COULD* claim some minor ethnicity due to family lure and how well that plays in Academia but they DON'T when the cannot document that heritage. Warren went with it. Whether before or after the hire she went with it because it would boost her own rating.

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is she checked the box AFTER she was hired filling out some paperwork they use to document minority employees. The person who hired her has publicly stated they had no knowledge of any minority status and it wasn't a factor.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. This is just a political hit job to smear a woman with a pretty impressive resume.

See above.

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

Yes, both of those ALT-RIGHT Fascist organizations ; )

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is she checked the box AFTER she was hired filling out some paperwork they use to document minority employees. The person who hired her has publicly stated they had no knowledge of any minority status and it wasn't a factor.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. This is just a political hit job to smear a woman with a pretty impressive resume.

Kavanaugh's resume is also impressive. His political hit job will be worse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. .

'So you don't think she's a liar, you think she's delusional. Got it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

where exactly is the center...?

Somewhere well left of you

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Somewhere well left of you

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

"This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."
Charles Fried
Politics and affiliations
In September 2005, Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States. After the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Fried praised Alito as an outstanding judge but dismissed claims that Alito is radical, saying, "He is conservative, yes, but he is not radically conservative like Scalia."[6] Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and wrote a New York Times op-ed in support of Alito, who had served under him in the Solicitor General's office.[7]

On October 24, 2008, despite his previous support for the presidential aspirations of Senator John McCain, Fried announced that he had voted for Senator Barack Obama for President by absentee ballot. Fried cited Senator McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate as the principal reason for his decision to vote for Senator Obama.[8] As president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Obama had published an article Fried wrote criticizing the effects of race-based affirmative action.[9] Fried later told The Wall Street Journal:

I admire Senator McCain and was glad to help in his campaign, and to be listed as doing so; but when I concluded that I must vote for Obama for the reason stated in my letter, I felt it wrong to appear to be recommending to others a vote that I was not prepared to cast myself. So it was more of an erasure than a public affirmation—although obviously my vote meant that I thought that Obama was preferable to McCain-Palin. I do not consider abstention a proper option.[10]

In February 2011, Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of President Obama's health care reform law.[11] When asked by Illinois Senator Richard Durbin to respond to critics of the law's individual mandate who ask: "[I]f the government can require me to buy health insurance, can it require me to have a membership in a gym, or eat vegetables?,” Fried replied:

Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something. But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional.[12][13]

Fried is an adviser to the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I've heard this from people, that she made the declaration AFTER she was hired. But she also knew that this was a big box to check in Academia (if you think it is not you are fooling yourself). Tom Nichols (a NeverTrumper BTW) who's opinion I trust and consider even when I don't agree with his statements, had a great point; he know's people in Academia that *COULD* claim some minor ethnicity due to family lure and how well that plays in Academia but they DON'T when the cannot document that heritage. Warren went with it. Whether before or after the hire she went with it because it would boost her own rating.

I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.

Judge Kavanaugh is also extremely smart and passionate. Your side is saying that if he gets confirmed, then many women will die. Is that fair?

I don’t see warren as a threat, you are missing the point. She’s a liar and/or a lunatic. She’s a world class hypocrite ( attacks banks for profiting from school loans, yet she made 400k teaching at Harvard; criticizes banks for the subprime mortgage mess, yet she profited from flipping foreclosures). She is a huge gift to my side, I hope she runs for President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

I understand. But the nomination of conservative SC justices is something that comes with winning the past election. If you win you get to call the shots and try and get your picks in. I remember a past president said something to the effect of "Elections have consequences". Kind of like that. Some people can go crazy but at the end of the day he may get his pick into the SC.

EXACTLY. I guess elections only have consequences when democrats win.

I get why the dems are pissed that Merrick Garland didn't get confirmed. But the American people freely chose to give control of the senate to the GOP, and common sense suggests that they didn't do so, so that they'd let Obama do whatever he wanted.

When the American people decide to give senate control back to the democrats (in other words, when we decide we'd all be better off with smaller paychecks), then the democrats can confirm whoever they want.

[Jim in CT]

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/polit...tas/index.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something.

Would it be a violation to force you to buy vegetables?

But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional.[12][13]

Would it be constitutional to force you to pay for something you don't want to buy?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Judge Kavanaugh is also extremely smart and passionate. Your side is saying that if he gets confirmed, then many women will die. Is that fair?

I don't know exactly how he'll vote but if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die.

I don’t see warren as a threat, you are missing the point. She’s a liar and/or a lunatic. She’s a world class hypocrite ( attacks banks for profiting from school loans, yet she made 400k teaching at Harvard; criticizes banks for the subprime mortgage mess, yet she profited from flipping foreclosures). She is a huge gift to my side, I hope she runs for President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do think she's a threat that's why you can't think straight. She's not a hypocrite. She understands the economy and finance. Hell, she used to be a Republican.

Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

[Sea Dangles]

Speculation Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Speculation Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More like common sense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't know exactly how he'll vote but if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die.


You do think she's a threat that's why you can't think straight. She's not a hypocrite. She understands the economy and finance. Hell, she used to be a Republican.

Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

"if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die."

Where to begin...

(1) first, before Roe V Wade, I believe abortion was legal when the life of the mom was in actual jeopardy. That is very rare. The overwhelming majority of abortions today, are done for convenience, not necessity. Let's frame it honestly for a second. I know that's very challenging for your side on this issue, but let's try.

(2) even if Roe V Wade was overturned, THAT DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION. It means that the question would go to the states. Very few states would outlaw early-stage convenience abortions, and you know this. State would only do this if a majority of the citizens wanted it that way, and that's how it's supposed to work.

"You do think she's a threat "

I think she's a deranged, hypocritical, azzhole. And she's not a threat to my side, she's a valuable asset. because evefry time she opens her big, fat, commie, 100% Caucasian mouth, money gets donated to the GOP. I would not want her to go away, heck I want her to run for POTUS.

"that's why you can't think straight"

She refuses to take the DNA test that will settle this. So I know she's lying, there's no other reason not to take the test. You are the one in denial, the one not thinking straight.

"She's not a hypocrite"

So when she says it's wrong for banks to profit off of college tuition, but it's OK if she profits off of college tuition...you don't think that's hypocritical? Can you elaborate? Have fun trying.

Not your best work here, Spence.

[TheSpecialist]

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I
Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

How about my argument about her profiting from college students going into debt, while she says it's unethical for banks to do the same. Let's focus on that.

[TheSpecialist]

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

More like common sense.

Tighten the chinstrap my little cupcake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

How many Pinocchios Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

Yeah, but if you convert those dollars to wampum, which is the currency that Warren surely deals in, she probably only broke even.

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

I have never seen a single credible reference that she was paid more than normal to teach X classes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

It was 5 months actually.

She helped her family buy a decrepit property (not a foreclosure by the way) and remodel it for resale. Even in 1993 you couldn't do that level of extensive renovations on an entire house with a small profit and expect anything less. Who knows if she even made any money.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Tighten the chinstrap my little cupcake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are adorable. Always worthy of a reach around in my book.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

He can relate.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.

What that Academia, particularly Harvard, does not award extra Purple Forehead Stars and unicorn sticker points for extra check boxes on Diversity? They've got an effing wing of Diversity Zampolits. Being one 64th Insert Your Ethnic Diversity Mark here is a big checkmark on Campus. That is worth two whole licks on the Self-Licking Faculty IceCream Cone.