DUmmies are becoming too predictable and I grow weary of their foolishness

[Billiam Pitts]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024108564#post5

kpete (41,072 posts)

Obamas Might Stay in Washington After Presidency Ends

I saw this thread and thought to my self, "this is going to turn into a circle jerk about how they simply must get Obammy elected to the Supreme Court. Yup, 5 posts in, and:

Skink (8,879 posts)
5. Another reason to appoint Obama to the supreme court

What a novel idea, some DUmmie read that Taft was on the Supreme Court and every DUmmie that spews that crap thinks they are being oh so clever by suggesting that Obama should be on the Supreme Court or one of the Clintons. It really rather tiresome, keeping up with the drivel that the DUmp Monkeys spew daily.

[franksolich]

It really rather tiresome, keeping up with the drivel that the DUmp Monkeys spew daily.

But it's necessary to do so; the price of liberty is Eternal Vigilance.

As enscribed on the side of the state capitol in Lincoln, Nebraska, "the salvation of the state is the watchfulness of the citizens."

Since the primitives pose a real Threat to the republic, to our way of life, to our lives and liberties, and to humanity in general anywhere in the world, they need watched, their sedition and crimes and lies exposed for all the world to see.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Skink (8,879 posts)

5. Another reason to appoint Obama to the supreme court

Obama appoints himself.

Dems in senate use the new no-filibuster rule to pass his lifetime appointment by simple majority.

[/conspiracy]

[FlaGator]

If that were to happen it would prove that God now hates America.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

[tanstaafl]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

And, also, didn't he and the Mrs. voluntarily disengage themselves from the Bar? I'm pretty sure that question would pop up before any hearings.

And the filibuster - breaking rule is only in effect on federal judgeships, not for Supreme Court nominees, ambassadors or other presidential appointments.

[Freeper]

grasswire (38,517 posts)
8. no thanks

I want a progressive/liberal defending my Constitution.

That is so wrong on so many levels, first of all 0bama is as liberal/ progressive as they come. Secondly a progressive/liberal will not defend the constitution, progressives have always hated the constitution and have always had to work around it.

polichick (32,774 posts)
10. Makes sense to let Sasha finish school - let's just hope...

the prez does not become a lobbyist.

He already is a lobbyist, the man does nothing but campaign.

TeamPooka (4,161 posts)
21. That way it will be easier to move back into the White House when Michelle is elected President.

Lord help us all if that happens.

[Delmar]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

You can't expect him to practice law, that's for ordinary people.

“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/11/24/george-will-obamas-enormous-brain#ixzz2m537IyK7

[jukin]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

Sorry, you neither need be an attorney nor have practiced law to be on SCOTUS.

[thundley4]

Obama is planning on staying in DC, but only if those in the military back him. The way he is decimating the military hierarchy and putting his flunkies in place it looks like he might try and overthrow the representative republic we now have. 

He already ignores the congress, the courts and most of the US Constitution.  Why not ignore the part about elections too?

[I_B_Perky]

Sorry, you neither need be an attorney nor have practiced law to be on SCOTUS.

Jukin is correct. Maybe that is what we need... some common folks on that court with some plain old common sense. Most attorneys, for some reason, don't seem to have that.

[Skul]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

Think liberal/DUmocRATic/socialists.
Ridiculous now? 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Since he's never really even practiced law, that's a ridiculously far-fetched idea.

All the better for Obama to better interpret the Constitution without being muddled by all that pesky stare decisis established legal theory.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sorry, you neither need be an attorney nor have practiced law to be on SCOTUS.

Since I am an attorney and have practiced law, incidentally having been admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, I also know there is a huge difference between the technical qualifications set out in the late 18th Century and what it really takes to get through the vetting and the necessary confirmation hearings with any chance of success.

As far as current bar status goes, I believe Barry went to 'Retired' (Or so I've read, you can't do that in my State at his age, but Illinois has its own rules on those details) and the Wookie to 'Inactive' when they went to the White House, both of which can be reversed easily enough back to 'Active' if they so request.

[jukin]

Since I am an attorney and have practiced law, incidentally having been admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, I also know there is a huge difference between the technical qualifications set out in the late 18th Century and what it really takes to get through the vetting and the necessary confirmation hearings with any chance of success.

As far as current bar status goes, I believe Barry went to 'Retired' (Or so I've read, you can't do that in my State at his age, but Illinois has its own rules on those details) and the Wookie to 'Inactive' when they went to the White House, both of which can be reversed easily enough back to 'Active' if they so request.

All I'm saying is that pretty much anybody can be nominated, technically. As the current president and senate majority leader don't necessarily follow the law anyway, it's open season on judge appointments. As to the two Obama's I thought they were advised to give up their licenses as opposed to losing them. Could be wrong, too good to check; i.e I Dan Rathered this.

[Karin]

Now they're making up names for King Barky:

Response to Skink (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 04:32 PM

 TheKentuckian (18,325 posts)

24. There isn't a reason in the world to appoint Lil Cappy Corporatist NSA McDrone to the Supreme Court

Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 03:12 PM

 TeamPooka (4,162 posts)

21. That way it will be easier to move back into the White House when Michelle is elected President.

Who is this, Grahamcrackers?  They really do want a King/Emperor/Supreme Leader don't they?  They do not deserve self government. 

[Mr Mannn]

Who is this, Grahamcrackers?  They really do want a King/Emperor/Supreme Leader don't they?  They do not deserve self government. 

The democrats have no intention to live up to their party's name. They have always been totalitarians. They hate ever aspect of freedom. They want to violate and repeal every right in the Constitution.
These people are evil. Their blackened souls are full of plans for murder and bloody purges. They are not enlightened, they want to stamp out the light. They thrive in the dark, where their dreams are hidden from view.

We laugh at their rejects housed in DU...but these rejects are the window to our future.

[DumbAss Tanker]

All I'm saying is that pretty much anybody can be nominated, technically. As the current president and senate majority leader don't necessarily follow the law anyway, it's open season on judge appointments. As to the two Obama's I thought they were advised to give up their licenses as opposed to losing them. Could be wrong, too good to check; i.e I Dan Rathered this.

I've seen the same thing internet stuff about them both surrendering their licenses to avoid disciplinary action, and while it's extremely plausibly-written, unfortunately it's a complete hoax.   

While it is technically possible to nominate a completely inexperienced lawyer, or even a non-lawyer, to the Supreme Court, very few in the Senate to include even the Democrats would buy it.  Their own battles against Republican nominees have all been based on experience and judicial/legal record, if they sacrifice that camouflage for a purely partisan move like that, they'd have absolutely no credibility left to object to the qualifications of any nominee the next Republican President puts up.  Unlike the House, the Senate on both sides of the aisle tends to play a longer, deeper game than you would tend to think from the press coverage of their doings.

[Bad Dog]

Not a chance O'bongo would accept the nomination.  The Justices only get 60 or 70 vacation days per year.

[DefiantSix]

Not a chance O'bongo would accept the nomination.  The Justices only get 60 or 70 vacation days per year.

And the taxpayer doesn't foot the bill for them either.