As long as she is not nominated for SCOTUS, fine with me. Not that I think Clinton will be a grat Secretary of State, but at least she wouldn't be damaging the Constitution and America sitting 20 or mayber 30 years in the SCOTUS.

Bad idea.

Hillary is just as much a distraction to the Democrats as Palin is a distraction to the Republicans. The difference is that Hillary herself realizes that more than the Democrats do and will stay in New York and the Republicans(the real ones, anyway) realize that more than Palin does and will try to make her stay in Alaska.

I don't know. I could see her as Sec. State or SCOTUS.

From what we learned in the last 8 years, you can do far more damage to the constitution as President.

I think it is just a courtesy to her to talk about her and the Sec. of State position. I would be surprised if she left her Senate seat to take an appointed postion under Obama.
I agree with Member, I don't want her nominated for SC, I'd rather have a LIBERAL nominated.

Now there's some change we can believe in! It's about time we put the Clintons in the Executive Branch. Bravo!!

I can't imagine why she'd want either Sec. of State or SCOTUS. As it is she's probably Senator for life if she chooses.

Danni, I think she'd make a damn fine justice.

Ewwwwwwwwww that just turns My stomach. I don't think She could really be all that diplomatic, She is too snide and condesending really.

Larry

well hil, here is your future landscape as Sec of State.

But today, one week after the O Revolution in America, the Guardian suddenly sounds like the Wall Street Journal -- telling its readers not to worry, that nothing is going to change.

We see headlines like:

"Why America will not turn to the left"

Hold the red carpet: amid the euphoria, states find their own reasons for doubt.

The Guardian sounds worried that under Obama America might leave the Philippines to its Muslim rebels, or that it might stop defending free capitalist trade in the world's oceans.

Those headlines come from the same scribblers who soft-pedaled Putin's brutal invasion of Georgia just six months ago. The same folks spent years noisily sneering at the danger of Iranian mullahs armed with nukes. Every single day of the Bush years the Guardian ripped us another one. For decades they peddled multiculti nonsense to browbeat their domestic enemies and smeared dissenters as racists. They went weak in the knees for radical chic, Islamofascist style, and scoffed at democracies under deadly assault, like Israel, the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and most recently Georgia. They imposed a Politically Correct speech code on everyday life in the United Kingdom.

It would be poetic justice for the European Left to get exactly what it's been asking for. Unfortunately that would be bad for the United States and the civilized world. If the US withdrew from Europe, would you trust them to behave decently? I wouldn't. They would instantly sell out to the nearest Putinista or the richest Saudi Prince, or both.

That's the real American dilemma when it comes to the Left, here and abroad. The big question about the radical Left is always - should grownups let them cross the street alone? Can you ever trust them?

We will find out the answer very soon.

If there are any grownups in Washington in the coming administration -- a very big "if" -- they will have to answer that question every single day. If the Left follows its instincts and the American military are systematically weakened, cut down and demoralized, Europe may realize its fondest wish.

No more American guardian angel.

It's what they secretly fear.

ugh - strike one, Barry! Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt...

Hillary was always more Liberal than Bubba. She is currently rated 16th most Liberal in the Senate.

Obama just positioned himself as more of a Lib for the Dem Primary, constantly trying to find ways to get Left of her. It wasn't easy.

Who would replace her in the Senate from NY, though? Bloomberg as a Repub?

I'm not sure why she would want to trade a potentially permanent Senate seats for a Sec job that could be just a few years.

But I can see some in the Obama camp thinking that she would be less likely to run against him in 2012, if any Dem does run against him, were she on the team.

Could her first international tour begin with say...Atlantis.

Hillary Liberal My foot. She may be Liberal on social issues but She is a Right Winger on the rest. She was a Goldwater girl for pete sake.

Larry

Corky, I think that unless Obama screws up majorly and by that I mean live boy or dead girl bad, it seems unlikely that a Democrat with the savvy and gravitas of Hillary would run against him in '12. I watched this news break last night and just sorta scratched my head, it doesn't seem to make sense of the surface. I've said it before and will again, I'd love to see Hillary on SCOTUS. She could make a difference there for many years to come.

Not to mention that her nomination would quite possibly cause Lush Rimjob the Dominican Boy Baller to burst a vein in his head.

"Those headlines come from the same scribblers who soft-pedaled Putin's brutal invasion of Georgia just six months ago."

Scooter, probably be a good idea to read a newspaper or something before posting nonsense.

But I can see some in the Obama camp thinking that she would be less likely to run against him in 2012, if any Dem does run against him, were she on the team.
#10 | Posted by Corky

Highly unlikely. Nobody's running against Obama on the Dem side absent a complete catastrophe.

What it might do is keep the voters together in 2012 since we won't be dealing with the threat of another four years of GWB policies to keep them in line.

"soft-pedaled Putin's brutal invasion of Georgia"

#9 | Posted by bellaspapa

'Soft-pedaled' or not, you seem to have bought into it.

Anita Hill for SC!

C'mon. I said, "if any Dem does run against him". However unlikely that may be sans a catastrophe.

But campaigns are known for both their paranoia and their adherence to, "keeping friends close and enemies closer". Some in that camp still see her as such and might prefer her on the payroll rather than independent.

But she would excel at either SoS or as a Justice.

She should become Senate Majority Leader. She is strong, smart and dedicated to helping the American people. I think her talents would be wasted on the SC and Sec. of State would put her in a position to be subservient to President Obama which I doubt she would accept. I think she will assume a role similar to the one Ted Kennedy has had and influence American politics for a couple of decades.

Lioness of the Senate.

I could live with that Corky. It'd get a lot done for US.

Lyin'ess of the Senate.

Ah, how cute! TriteisTrite made a punny.

*Lioness of the Senate*

bhhhhhah! for all you conspiracy nutz...this is actually a ploy for Barry to get her out of his hair...she'd have to give up her post a madam senator...then he could ditch her after a few years...bwahhhh

If the US withdrew from Europe, would you trust them to behave decently? I wouldn't. They would instantly sell out to the nearest Putinista or the richest Saudi Prince, or both.

#8 | Posted by scooter28054

Yeah, scooter, just think if Europe sells out to rich Saudi Arabia just as the US HAS DONE.

-most of the 911 terrorist were Saudi as is the
top al-qaida guy, Osama Bin Laden, so we get
mad and invade Afghanistan and Iraq

-Bush walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king

-Saudis screwing us in the ass with their
oil exports

I also think Bill Clinton would be a real hinderance if Hilary were to be Sec. of State. It would be too much of a distraction and it would cause protocol problems when she was traveling to other nations if he accompanied her. I just don't think it is a good idea at all really and is just President Obama's way of thanking her for her support by saying he is considering her for the highest Cabinet position.

Porky, you've been a laugh-a-minute ever since you started banging the drum for the Clinton campaign.

It would be too much of a distraction and it would cause protocol problems when she was traveling to other nations if he accompanied her.
#27 | Posted by danni

I guess there is that little problem, true.

Yeah and that little matter with Secret Service Protection too. Lot of hassle You would think if She were to become the Secretary of State.

Larry

Does Hillary have Secret Service protection now?

The SecState is protected by the Diplomatic Security Service.

Does Hillary have Secret Service protection now?

The SecState is protected by the Diplomatic Security Service.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-14 11:22 AM | Reply

Yeah She is a Former First Lady after all.

He could just make Bill Secretary of State.....

-a laugh-a-minute

I appreciate that, no really, I do. Sort of a counter-balance to your Hour of Doom Specials.

Clinton and Clinton's people filling the cabinet.
The only change is the boss, President Osame.

-He could just make Bill Secretary of State.....

Now, that would be ballsy!

"I think she will assume a role similar to the one Ted Kennedy has had and influence American politics for a couple of decades."

#20 | Posted by danni

Do you mean she is going to become a fat stupid drunk?

It would be stupid what it would be. Two Presidents in the executive Branch. Not smart at all.

Larry

Looking at the transition team and the names announced or under consideration for positions in the new administration, selecting Hillary would add the one Clinton era distinction missing from the Obama administration...a Clinton. This is change?

Yeah She is a Former First Lady after all.

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr

I know, but they can turn it down.

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

#41 | Posted by Corky

I think it was mostly just the (D).

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

#41 | Posted by Corky

Sounds like the title of a different thread.

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

Posted by Corky at 2008-11-14 11:29 AM | Reply

Not this BULLSHIT again Corky. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. If You had Bill Clinton as Secretary of State You would have problems with 2 Egos trying to compete for supremacy. With Hillary You get condesention and snide remarks. I am sorry we are trying to pull ourselves out of the hole we find ourselves in. Not add to it.

Larry

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2008-11-14 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would be the peace that saw two embassies devastated in Africa and the Rangers slaughtered in Somalia because Bill's SecDef didn't give them the tanks they requested, right? You should than Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for ending the Cold War and handing Clinton an international peace through strength. Our major adversaries were in no position to make mischief.

thank Ronald...

"I think she'd make a damn fine justice."

Are you joking? She has never been a judge in her life. What are her qualifications other than a law degree?

Are you joking? She has never been a judge in her life. What are her qualifications other than a law degree?

#47 | Posted by JOE

Not all SCOTUS justices have been judges prior to their appointment, Joe. You know this.

I do know this - but you'd need some pretty stellar qualifications to be one of the top judges in the land when you've never been a judge before. I'm asking what Hillary's are.

"She has never been a judge in her life. What are her qualifications other than a law degree?"

So she can write and enact laws, but somehow she can't understand them enough to interpret them?

Murtha over Veteran's Affairs
Stevens over Banking
Kennedy over the ATF

*Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?*

Which *peace* were you referring to?

Oh, you mean the *peace* generated by Clinton sticking his head in the sand an ignoring the terror threat around the world? All the while hoping like hell he could make it out of office before we had a major attack on U.S. soil?
The *peace* in Africa? He didn't lift a finger to help those people...hundreds of thousands died during his watch. That peace?

What prosperity?
You mean the prosperity he inherited from previous administrations and the prosperity of the dot.com and tech boom(before the bubble burst)or the record run up of the stock market?
Yea, he *created* that prosperity. Any intellectually honest individual would admit his *contribution* to that economy was staying the f*@k out of its way...flame on!

John Roberts: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (20032005); Private practice (19932003); Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (19922005); Principal Deputy Solicitor General (19891993); Private practice (19861989); Associate Counsel to the President (19821986); Special Assistant to the Attorney General (19811982).

John Paul Stevens: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (19701975); Private practice (19481970); Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School (19501954); Lecturer, Northwestern University School of Law (19541958).

Antonin Scalia: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (19821986); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (19771982); Assistant Attorney General (19741977); Professor, University of Virginia School of Law (19671974); Private practice (19611967).

Anthony Kennedy: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (19751988); Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific (19651988); Private practice (19631975).

David Souter: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (19901990); Associate Justice, New Hampshire Supreme Court (19831990); Associate Justice, New Hampshire Superior Court (19781983); Attorney General of New Hampshire (19761978); Deputy Attorney General of New Hampshire (19711976); Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire (19681971); Private practice (19661968).

Clarence Thomas: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (19901991); Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (19821990); Legislative Assistant for Missouri Senator John Danforth (19791981); employed by Monsanto Inc. (19771979); Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth (19741977).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (19801993); General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (19731980); Professor, Columbia Law School (19721980); Professor, Rutgers University School of Law (19631972).

Stephen Breyer: Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (19901994); Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (19801990); Professor, Harvard Law School (19671980).

Samuel Alito: Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (19902006); Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law (19992004); U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (19871990); Deputy Assistant Attorney General (19851987); Assistant to the Solicitor General (19811985); Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (19771981).

Now do Sandra Day O'Connor.

Well, I meant relative peace and prosperity, you know like not attacking a country "preemptively", then bogging down there for years.

And like paying down the debt and leaving a surplus, you know, the opposite of what your guy GW did.

"So she can write and enact laws, but somehow she can't understand them enough to interpret them?"

When did I ever say she was qualified to write and enact laws? The point is that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and it would be nice to have appointees with experience being a judge.

"Now do Sandra Day O'Connor."

No thanks.

For Lil' Kevie:

Sandra Day O'Connor: In 1969 she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate and was subsequently re-elected as a Republican to two two-year terms. In 1973, she was elected majority leader.

In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by Democratic governor Bruce Babbitt. During her time in Arizona state government, she served in all three branches.

"When did I ever say she was qualified to write and enact laws?"

You didn't have to, moron. The voters in the state of NY did for you. It is how representative democracy works.

Lil' Kevie: If you want to tell me what Hillary Clinton's qualifications are to be a judge, go right ahead. If you're here for another pissing contest, don't waste your time.

So Sandra had zero federal experience then? Interesting how that didn't matter at all.

Joe,

Don't get your panties all bunched up. You started this BS by saying she WASN'T qualified. Now man up and show why.

I don't even like Hillary. But even I know she's as "qualified" as anyone else.

I do know this - but you'd need some pretty stellar qualifications to be one of the top judges in the land when you've never been a judge before. I'm asking what Hillary's are.
#49 | Posted by JOE

I don't know if there is that much difference between never having been a judge, like Hillary, and having been a judge for one year, like Thomas.

Do you think she'd have any problems getting a job teaching in a first tier law school?

So Obama is considering draining more of the swamp of the Dem Senate members. Good.

Too bad he can't figure out a job for Teddy Kennedy and get him out of the Senate as well.

So Obama is considering draining more of the swamp of the Dem Senate members. Good.

#66 | Posted by MURPHY

I don't think that Governor Patterson would replace Clinton with a Republican.

"So Sandra had zero federal experience then?"

I said people should have experience being a judge - not a federal judge. Learn how to read.

I think being a judge should be a pre-requisite to being the highest judge in the land. It gives the public (and the senate) the ability to see how you handle cases in all areas of law as opposed to the sometimes more narrow areas on which your private practice was focused.

It's a simple position. If someone is going to be CEO of a company, they should probably have experience being in charge of people. If someone is going to be in charge of the litigation group at a law firm, they should probably have experience litigating and not just pushing papers at a transactional firm. Same with being the top judge in the United States - you should probably have experience being a judge. Not saying that someone can't be one without it - but show me why Hillary should be the exception.

"Do you think she'd have any problems getting a job teaching in a first tier law school?"

No - but she'd most likely get hired to teach Family Law - where she has "experience."

Joe, stop wetting your little panties or perceived slights. No one claimed you said "federal". I did. Because having experience at the right level is just as relevant to having experience in "all three branches".

"I think being a judge should be a pre-requisite to being the highest judge in the land."

And most would disagree. And some of the best justices had no prior experience from the bench.

"Not saying that someone can't be one without it - but show me why Hillary should be the exception."

She's not. She'd be one of many. No need to argue unless there is a point to be made against her specifically which didn't apply to those who came before.

Read up:

"most would disagree"

Who is "most?" You?

"She'd be one of many."

Or one of zero on the court today.

No - but she'd most likely get hired to teach Family Law - where she has "experience."

#69 | Posted by JOE

Joe, stop being an ankle biter and READ.

rimshot.

"having experience at the right level is just as relevant"

Wrong. I'm only arguing that you should have work experience as a judge. I'd still rather see someone with a lifetime of state supreme court experience on the SC bench than someone who was a senator their whole life.

Good article, Kevin. I'm only telling you the experience I think a SC justice should have, and I've admitted that many SC justices have not had prior judicial experience. There's no need to prove that to me.

I've told you why I think SC justices should have prior judicial experience. Tell me why you think Hillary is qualified without it.

*Well, I meant relative peace and prosperity, you know like not attacking a country "preemptively", then bogging down there for years.

And like paying down the debt and leaving a surplus, you know, the opposite of what your guy GW did*

You mean the *surplus* generated by a Republicans? Holding Clinton's feet to the fire(on spending) and cutting taxes therefore generating the additional dollars that paid down our debt?

You must mean the *relative* peace of Kosovo and ethnic cleansing?
Didn't Clinton waged war against a tyrannical regime that did not immediately threaten the United States? Kinda like that? Funny how when Clinton did this it was for *humanitarian* reasons and when Bush did it was for *oil and the greed* of his buddies in big oil..

"Tell me why you think Hillary is qualified without it."

She's been legally trained. She's written legislation at various levels. She's advocated for people, corporations and government at various levels. She was one of the most active first ladies in US history. New York apparently loves her. How does this not "qualify" her?

You are right Hag--but the opportunity for someone else to be in the Senate is the promise.

Obama is considering taking about 5 Senators--maybe more like 8 when you count him and Biden that are going to leave the Senate.

Appointments or special elections will be done and there is opportunity for different folks to run.

ie Rudy could run, Pataki could run. And they would win in NY.

"relative peace"

When you've outlived all your relatives.

"Wrong. I'm only arguing that you should have work experience as a judge. I'd still rather see someone with a lifetime of state supreme court experience on the SC bench than someone who was a senator their whole life."

That is stupid. Someone who comes from CA and only knows CA laws and procedures may not have any clue as to how to interpret federal law or deal with a conflict of state laws. Someone whose worked in state and federal legislative bodies, AND been involved in executive branches at state and federal levels is MUCH more qualified to understand and interpret.

ie Rudy could run, Pataki could run. And they would win in NY.
#79 | Posted by MURPHY

Being from NYC, I'm not so sure about that, but anything is possible.

"Someone who comes from CA and only knows CA laws and procedures may not have any clue as to how to interpret federal law or deal with a conflict of state laws."

Are you saying state court judges never decide federal issues? Are you saying they never interpret federal law? You would be wrong.

"She's been legally trained. She's written legislation at various levels. She's advocated for people, corporations and government at various levels."

I omitted "active first lady" and "New York loves her" because they have nothing to do with the practice of law. If you think this qualifies someone to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, more power to you. I think it, at most, qualifies her to sit on the bench of a lower court, and more realistically, qualifies her to be a high ranking lawyer or professor.

"Are you saying state court judges never decide federal issues?"

Joe, what is the basis for removal to federal court? Federal Q needs interpreting, or a conflict of state laws. This is basic first week of law school stuff here. Just because a state judge might look at a controlling federal statute doesn't mean he's any sort of expert.

Which did ya'll hate most about the Clinton admin, the peace or the prosperity?

* * * *

The piece.

"what is the basis for removal to federal court?"

The question was not whether federal questions can be removed to federal court. They are not always removed. The question is, are you saying that state court judges never interpret federal rules? If so, you are wrong.

rimshot for RiR

"I omitted "active first lady" and "New York loves her" because they have nothing to do with the practice of law. If you think this qualifies someone to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, more power to you."

Here you go again with your crazy tangents. Those were merely the icing on the cake (things that make her even MORE uniquely qualified, not qualifying her to begin with). Seriously, stop being so lazy. Either address the points head-on without having to cherry-pick, or just admit that you can't address most of what I said.

"They are not always removed. The question is, are you saying that state court judges never interpret federal rules? If so, you are wrong."

Did I say that Joe?

Now your just actively trying to avoid the point. I figured as much.

"Those were merely the icing on the cake"

When I said "if you think 'this' qualifies her," the "this" was "your qualifications minus the icing." Stop wetting your little panties over perceived slights.

The point, idiot, is that state court judges are not completely unfamiliar with federal law as you'd like to make it seem. Just because a federal question can be removed to federal court does not mean that it is going to be. Federal issues are decided in state courts, by state court judges. So your claim that "CA judges only know CA law" is fucking stupid.

are "sometimes" decided

ie Rudy could run, Pataki could run. And they would win in NY.
#79 | Posted by MURPHY

Being from NYC, I'm not so sure about that, but anything is possible.

Being from NY state, I'm no so sure about that either. People were pretty sick of Pataki after he got done being governor, and I think Rudy's best chance was when Hillary first ran and he had to drop because he had cancer. Not saying he couldn't win now, but I think his chances have diminished somewhat since then. It would really depend who ran against either of them.

"The point, idiot, is that state court judges are not completely unfamiliar with federal law as you'd like to make it seem."

Look moron, you need to stop pretending and perceiving and start comprehending. No one said anything of the sort and you know it. You want to get back on point? Or keep making up statements to argue with?

Me: "I'd still rather see someone with a lifetime of state supreme court experience"

Idiot: "That is stupid. Someone who comes from CA and only knows CA laws and procedures may not have any clue as to how to interpret federal law or deal with a conflict of state laws."

Me: "State court judges often interpret federal issues"

Idiot: ???

"So your claim that "CA judges only know CA law" is fucking stupid."

That's because you pulled it out of your ass.

Joe,

You've gone off the deep end. I'll just assume that you were incapable of arguing with anyone but yourself. Nice job.

are you saying that state court judges never interpret federal rules? joe

They may follow federal rules, law & precedent but they don't "interpret" federal anything because they lack subject matter jurisdiction.

One more reason you should be glad to get that internship with the Traffic Law Center.

"They may follow federal rules, law & precedent but they don't "interpret" federal anything because they lack subject matter jurisdiction."

YAWWWWN.

OzarkAggie, you are a real dipshit.

Applying a governing federal statute on occasion really does equate to being an "expert" in federal law, now does it? What about the fact that state court judges often misinterpret federal law which is why states differ much of the time? What about all the areas of federal law where federal courts have original jurisdiction? Etc.

I know. Never mind the whole point at issue. Lets try and go off on procedural nonsense to try and look smart, make shit up to argue with, call everyone stupid, and go home with the ball. What a bunch of BS.

"Applying a governing federal statute on occasion really does equate to being an "expert" in federal law"

When was that argued? It simply means that you are wrong to suggest that a judge from CA only knows CA law and procedure. You don't have to be an "expert" to know about something.

Lawyers always play word games joey.

Generally you would think that interpreting the law assumes some authority to actually define the law. States follow federal precedent and procedural rules for consistency, but their application of those laws may or may not be proper.

Nonetheless, stick to traffic joey. You're just the kind of lowlife that will enjoy pleading speeding tickets down to a parking violation, despite the fact that it will allow unsafe drivers to continue violating the law and retain their good "record" for insurance purposes.

"Generally you would think that interpreting the law assumes some authority to actually define the law."

Speaking of word games...

Your claim was that state court judges don't "interpret" federal anything because they lack subject matter jurisdiction. I've shown that they do in fact have the authority to interpret federal law. Whether you have some jumbled definition of "interpret" in your own mind does not change the fact that you were wrong. Stop prattling on about traffic court and admit that you were full of it.

"You don't have to be an "expert" to know about something."

So Hillary IS qualified then. Thanks for coming FULL CIRCLE Joe. You are so fucking stupid, I swear. Entertaining though.

"It simply means that you are wrong to suggest that a judge from CA only knows CA law and procedure."

You were arguing with yourself dumbass. No one but you suggested that. lol.

"No one but you suggested that"

Really? I posted "I'd still rather see someone with a lifetime of state supreme court experience on the SC bench than someone who was a senator their whole life."

Then you said: "That is stupid. Someone who comes from CA and only knows CA laws and procedures may not have any clue as to how to interpret federal law or deal with a conflict of state laws."

If that isn't a suggestion that state court judges only know that state's law, I don't know what is.

A little reading comp 101 for Joe:

"Someone who comes from CA and only knows CA laws and procedures may not have any clue as to how to interpret federal law or deal with a conflict of state laws."

is very different from:

"CA judges only know CA law"

"So Hillary IS qualified then."

You have to be, without a doubt, THE dumbest person on this website. You claimed state court judges don't know federal law, I proved you wrong, then you claim they aren't experts. When I say they don't have to be experts to know about it (which was all they had to do for you to be wrong), you claim this is somehow a basis for Hillary being qualified. There is something wrong with you.

You're a fucking troll. I don't have time to argue with you about this anymore. Like a typical troll you will claim some sort of "victory."

"You claimed state court judges don't know federal law"

Never happened. Joe's wishful thinking and lack of comprehension ability has betrayed him yet again.

"I proved you wrong"

LOL. Delusional. Hilarious though.

"then you claim they aren't experts."

You mean, the whole point of what we're talking about? Expertise in the area of federal law so as to sit on the highest most important court in the US?

"When I say they don't have to be experts to know about it (which was all they had to do for you to be wrong), you claim this is somehow a basis for Hillary being qualified."

So you're whole point is that "knowing about" something is a good enough qualification. Therefore, all one need to show is that Hillary "knows about" federal law to be qualified.

Simple enough for you, stupid?

"There is something wrong with you."

I know. I have a soft spot for drooling retards like you.

"I proved you wrong"

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-14 01:55 PM

"Like a typical troll you will claim some sort of "victory."

#111 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-14 01:59 PM

Keep it coming Joe! GREAT STUFF!

Hillary has to be Sec of State, it is her year to be the money handler for the Box Gang this year and she needs diplomatic immunity when she travels.

"you're whole point is that "knowing about" something is a good enough qualification"

Wrong again, Kevie. Knowing about something is enough to disregard your stupid example of a CA judge who only knows CA law and procedure. I know you are confused, but try to see the big picture.

I see judicial experience as a necessary qualification for the SC not simply from the knowledge of the law that you will gain in that position, but the "work experience" that comes along with it. For example, if I were hiring a golf instructor, I would want someone who has played golf before, not someone who has simply worked for the PGA and written rules about playing golf. If you don't agree, that's okay. Move on.

Joe, if you think that your litmus test of judicial experience is any more helpful than any other stupid litmus test, you haven't read enough cases. Judicial experience can mean a number of things, many of which might not translate to being a good Supreme Court justice. Instead of addressing that, you decided to play games with words and assumptions which is typical for you on DR, but worthless in practical terms. The point, in case you are as stupid and stubborn as you habitually make yourself out to be, is that she IS just as qualified as many others who may have bench experience because their familiarity with a lot of legal doctrines are limited to "knowing about it" as opposed to being an "expert".

Litmus tests are useless. Cases are all different. Any first year law student worth their salt should know that.

Were she being considered for a District Judge, I'd have far more reservations seeing as how she is unfamiliar with procedure. But Supreme Court justices need only be able to ask questions, understand the facts, read the applicable law, and apply it. Nowhere do I see the need for mandating bench experience. It would just serve to diminish your application pool for no good reason at all.

Kevin, if you think that I am alone in my position that someone should be a judge before they are appointed to the highest court in the land, then you are mentally retarded. Everyone is allowed to have their own criteria. Obama's criteria is that the person be able to empathize with black people. I like mine better. To each his own.

someone should be a judge before they are appointed to the highest court in the land

That is like saying someone should serve in government before leading it.

That Congress should read a bill before voting on it.

That the faithful should study their faith before forcing others to follow it.

Wait a minute!

Every politician I've heard in recent history, right and left, will tell you that there should be NO Litmus test. I guess they are all mentally retarded.

You need to settle your little bitch-ass down and learn to understand what you are saying before you type it.

"Obama's criteria is that the person be able to empathize with black people."

proof?

"someone should be a judge before they are appointed to the highest court in the land

That is like saying someone should serve in government before leading it.

That Congress should read a bill before voting on it.

That the faithful should study their faith before forcing others to follow it."

Or like saying one should be a part of an industry before they regulate it. Oh wait...

Every politician I've heard in recent history, right and left, will tell you that there should be NO Litmus test.

Kevin,
They say it, but they all lie about it. No Democrat will vote for a person to be on the Supreme Court they know will vote against abortion. No Republican will vote for a person to be on the Supreme Court they know will increase the reach of Roe V Wade.

Or like saying one should be a part of an industry before they regulate it. Oh wait...

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-11-14 02:41 PM

A part of an industry regulate it? NO! They have a vested interest in the outcome. An understanding of the industry? Yes.

Kanrei,

If you want to discuss what people think in their own heads, I doubt we'll get anywhere.

"That is like saying...That Congress should read a bill before voting on it."

Glad we agree.

"proof?"

Sorry you live in a cave, I'm not going to dig the quote up for you.

Joe,
We agree quite a bit. I am a true moderate and never pick a side without facts. My facts may be wrong and cause me to switch sides sometimes, but I will never pick a side based on what "my side" should be.

Kevin,
All anyone ever does here is discuss what people think in their own heads.

"Ayers hates America"
"Palin knows nothing about America"
"Obama is going to side with terrorists"
"Clinton knows enough to be Sec of State"
"Clinton knows nothing to be Sec of State"

And for the record, we will never get anywhere here because 99% of those who post here have drawn their lines in cement, not sand.

"Sorry you live in a cave, I'm not going to dig the quote up for you."

But you will spend hours trying to spin your arguments to make them work, oftentimes failing miserably. Priorities. Google is so hard to use, I know.

Kanrei,

Of course you are right. But it is sort of fun poking holes in declarative statements and watching some people run around in circles trying to rationalize them.

On Topic,

It appears that Obama and Hil did meet yesterday....

Obama's and Clinton's advisers are remaining tight-lipped, but sources close to the president-elect's transition team told NBC News, Politico and the Associated Press, among others, that the former first lady is a prime candidate to oversee the State Department in an Obama administration.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports the two met on Thursday:

Three independent sources say that President-elect Barack Obama met yesterday with Sen. Hillary Clinton in Chicago.

The meeting took place at Obama's transition offices in the mid-afternoon.

It did not appear on the schedule that's distributed to Clinton staff and handlers.

One knowledgeable source said that the meeting was "not an interview." The source would not elaborate.

At this point, the speculation could be a trial-balloon from the Obama team, which also has been said to be considering Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and others for the spot. It could also be an attempt to reach out to and possibly co-opt Clinton, whose fierce primary campaign set her up as Obama's No. 1 rival in the Democratic party.

"The fact that this was being kibbitzed about could have been part of a process of trying to seem respectful of Hillary Clinton by leading members of the Obama team. It could have been a 'head fake.' Alternatively, it could have been real," writes Steve Clemons, a Washington foreign policy expert who was first tipped off about the possible Clinton placement last weekend.

Clinton was in Chicago Thursday for separate private business. It's unclear if she met with Obama or other members of his transition team, but a pool reporter staking out the president-elect said a three-SUV motorcade left his transition headquarters prior to Obama heading home Thursday evening.

"Clinton would be a formidable nominee despite her primary battles with Obama over the direction and temperament of foreign policy," notes The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder. "A member of the Senate Armed Services committee and as First Lady, she is on a first-name basis with world leaders and generals. News of Clinton's trip to Chicago has already made worldwide headlines."

"Google is so hard to use, I know."

Must be. Adios Kevin.

I think Hillary would be an excellent choice - and I sure as hell prefer her over John Kerry. This would also send a clear signal that Obama doesn't intend to surround himself with a bunch of Yes men/women like Chen -errr- Bush did.

Here's a new vid

And a story about what she would have to give up, including political staff...

You can't google what isn't there. Adios, puta.

"I think Hillary would be an excellent choice"

Out of genuine curiosity, why?

You can't google what isn't there. Adios, puta.

#133 | Posted by kevin23 at 2008-11-14 03:07 PM | Reply

You keep believing he didn't say it cupcake.

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

-BO

The only time I can remember Obama speaking directly about black people in America (outside that one race speech) was in reference to slave reparations (sp?) and he did say they did not go far enough and was looking to government programs to make up for it.

I just gave ammo to 101 I think.

I'm not going to dig the quote up for you.

#125 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-14 02:53 PM

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

-BO

#136 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-14 03:14 PM

That's a good bitch. Just wanted you to know who owns your ass. I didn't doubt he said it, BTW. Great stuff.

Joe,
I see that as him saying that his judges are going to protect against the tyranny of the majority instead of the "majority rules so deal with it" attitude that has been in DC for decades. I could be reading that wrong and you reading it right though.

I think Hillary Clinton would make an excellent Secretary of State.

Does anyone else besides me find it rather humorous that Obama was partly voted in as President so we wouldn't have the old Washington establishment. We didn't want a continuation of the "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" family dynasties, and instead would have "change and hope" with Obama yet here Obama goes and surrounds himself with all of the same people from the Clinton Adminstration. Obama has picked some good, smart, and strong people from the Clinton years but I sure don't see much "change" from the same old DC players.

CalifChris-

I think it is to be expected that the first appointees will be the ones with roots to the only democratic administration of the past 28 years. If the trend continues, then your point becomes valid.

proof?
Posted by kevin23 at 2008-11-14 02:39 PM

You can't google what isn't there.
Posted by kevin23 at 2008-11-14 03:07 PM

--

I didn't doubt he said it.
Posted by kevin23 at 2008-11-14 03:16 PM

Poor Kevin. Maybe you need a nap.

Does anyone else besides me find it rather humorous that Obama was partly voted in as President so we wouldn't have the old Washington establishment.
#140 | Posted by CalifChris

When it comes down to it, there's only going to be one thing that really justifies the claim of "change", during his first term at least. But its not polite to talk about it.

I was kind of hoping for Bill Richardson. I'm just not seeing Hilary at secretary of state - one President at a time is enough for any of us to have to deal with.

"Poor Kevin. Maybe you need a nap."

Keep tapping your heals together repeating "I am not a tool" over and over again. One day, it just might work. Until then, you'll be my little lapdog and google what I tell you to google.

It's a simple position. If someone is going to be CEO of a company, they should probably have experience being in charge of people.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-14 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously this principle does not apply to the Commander in Chief just elected. Hope he is surrounded with sound advisors who have learned a thing or two since they advised Bill.

Obama appointingpeople from the past doed not mean that his policies will reflect the past.

Obama is the leader---not Hillary---not Bill. If Obama wants change--change will come, no matter who he appoints to what position. Obama needs knowledgeable people in positions of power. Hillary fills the bill.

Don't cry till you've been hurt.

What a bunch of whiners---Obama should have lived out his life as a happy senator, and let you pigs wallow in McCains pigsty for 8 years.

Actually--this is brilliant from Obama--did I just post that??

Anyway--take out the competition--put Hillary in the administration and she can't run for POTUS.

Now there's some change we can believe in! It's about time we put the Clintons in the Executive Branch. Bravo!!

#5 | Posted by rightisright at 2008-11-14 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

When you're old codger wins, you get to make the choices....until then......though shit.

I hope she takes it
and then maybe we wont ever hear from her again

but on a news show they were talking about how all the clintonistas being in the obama white house wasnt a bad thing that someone needed to know where the 'restroom keys were"
shit all they have to do is ask blowjob billy and I am sure he can even show them the womens bathroom peephooles,..

Obama has offered one position to a former Clinton WH staffer that's been filled.

One. Rahm Emmanuel - who also happens to be a long time friend of Obama's from IL.

Beside Hillary he's also talked with Bill Richardson about SoS. Former U.N. Ambassador.