Should Barack Obama be nominated to the Supreme Court?

Impressive research; interesting, thought-provoking post. I agree. Thanks for your effort & for sharing.

 

No he didn’t. They were leaked.

 

First, I'd like to recommend you study the recent post #173, by btthegreat, above. It ties into your narrative quite nicely.

Second, I understand your preference for justices who have had past experience as judges. The most important aspect of any SCOTUS justice is to interpret the Constitution, & legal training & experience ties nicely into that duty. But the Constitution is the apex of all laws that govern every aspect of our lives as Americans, and those lives are highly complex & diverse, reflecting the diversity of the people making it up. Those trained in law have a unique perspective on that subject, quite distinct from the perspective of average citizens not so trained. Having a SCOTUS with justices trained exclusively in law, can result in such a narrow, biased perspective as to be both useless & even damaging to the lives of those citizens seeking that court's opinion. One way to broaden the court's views, would be to have justices there who come from a wide variety of personal backgrounds & experiences. That would enable the SCOTUS to develop a more holistic understanding of the people they serve & the culture resulting from the wide diversity of the American people. Such understanding should & could result in a more integrated, interconnected legal system that serves a wider range of Americans successfully.

I disagree with our current Republican leadership's efforts to stack the courts with conservative & ultra-conservative judges--not because they are always wrong, but because their approach is to force fit a diverse people into a small, tight, dogmatic mold of thinking & behavior. Trump, McClellan & all the others actively engaged in this process don't seem to be aware of the damage they are doing to the generation of Americans who will be headed by their own children & grandchildren. America is always changing. American culture is always changing. And those changes aren't now, nor will they ever be, comfortable in the political & economic dogmas of past generations. This misguided attempt to stack the judicial system with adherents of these old dogmas, will create severe & unnecessary stresses for our society for decades to come. That is a sad legacy for these leaders now, who have such a unique opportunity to leave something good from their time in power.

 

Then he's the exception. Good for him.

 

He also never claimed that it was not taken from him, that is his blind supporters.

 

Typical semantics from an avowed liberal. Trying to change the meaning of words when they don't agree with your desire. Wrong and ignorant, but what else should we expect?

Way to back track on your position.

BTW, you just said that no democrat has willingly released his records but a hated republican has and show admiration for it. It must be so confusing to be you.

 

A little proof from your hate filled soul would be nice.

Proof that he talked about grabbing a woman's genitals.

Trump never named names as to who he was referring to in his comment "go back where you came from". That was decided by those who seem to admit that they are doing just what he referred to.

 

Does Kenya even have a Supreme Court?

 

I know exactly what was claimed about two attorneys without so much a blemish on their licenses and ironically without even "a little proof from his hate filled soul" that you demand of others.

 

And just how do you know "exactly what was claimed"? Do you sit on the judicial committee in the licensing state? Are you the one in the position to make those decisions? Of course you claim no decision was needed because they volunteered to give up their licenses and by your standards, and yours alone, you claim that they had no blemish on their records.

In other words, I am calling you out on your specious claim.

 

No I sit and read what was claimed in this thread sir.. Show the 'blemish' with links and citations. We are begging for your credible citations and links suggesting a single inconsistency between the explanations provided by the ABA Perchance have you noticed any specious claims about why both Clintons went to inactive status that are INCONSISTENT with the statements made by the ABA in this thread? You know, the innuendos everyone else is talking about. You don't appear to be interested in any that do not involve a smear campaign against two attorneys. Why is that that the smears gain no disrespect as 'specious'?

 

You are claiming complete knowledge, yet can provide no proof. When anyone else acts in the exact same manner as you, you attack.

You don't see a problem with this type of action? Declares you for what you are.

 

I did not use the phrase 'complete knowledge'.Its your invention. I did not use the word 'knowledge'. That's another invention of yours. I am claiming that

1. the story told by the Obamas is verified by the Illinois Bar
2. That there is a distinct difference between surrendering their license, and asking to be put on inactive status or retiring their licence.
3. That there is no evidenced base reason to doubt their story
4. And that it is also consistent with what many lawyers are apt to do if they are not now using their license to practice law, have not had any reason to practice law in a long time, and don't see any reason in the near future to need to use that license to practice law.
5. That anyone who suggests that there was some ethics complaint /charge in the works or in the pipeline against either Michelle or Barack as an alternate motive , has a duty to provide documented evidence of those complaints being filed with the ABA.

I attack RW innuendo and smear campaigns and I will not stop attacking RW innuendo and smear campaigns because you don't like it that I do.

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/
"
: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so. [ Edit It also minimizes any need to be maintain annual professional liability insurance]
FULL ANSWER

We briefly addressed rumors about the status of the Obamas’ law licenses back in January 2010 in an Ask FactCheck titled “Clueless ‘Columbo.’ ” But a steady stream of questions about them has continued to flow to our inbox ever since.

It’s true that neither the president nor the first lady holds an active license to practice law. A search on the website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois shows that Barack Obama is listed as “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law,” and Michelle Obama is listed as “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.”

But it’s not true that President Obama “surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application,” or that Michelle Obama “ ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993 after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud,” as the chain email claims.

Lawyers who voluntarily change their registration status to inactive or retired “may not practice law based upon their Illinois license or hold themselves out as being so authorized,” according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. But James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the ARDC, said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”

Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009.
Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily had her license placed on “inactive” status.

Neither of the Obamas has any public record of discipline or pending proceedings against them, according to the online public registration records of the ARDC. We also confirmed that with Grogan, who said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”

 

Any Democrat can make claims. I want them all to commence proving their claims.

 

Wow, really touched a nerve there, didn't I?

For that kind of reaction and reversion to what others, not you, have claimed with such vehemence reveals all anyone needs to know about you.

You do exactly as I predicted and attack any who dare to call you wrong. And claim purity of the Obama reign of terror and racism

Bit of advice to make your life easier, switch brands of Kool-Aid. Less stress in your life and certainly allows more truth to enter your thoughts.

 

And still no links, no citations suggesting that either Obama did anything remotely unethical or that they were being investigated or had any complaints pending with their Bar Association or that they 'surrendered' their license to practice law. . And more to the point, still blithely unconcerned about 'specious claims' made on these boards if those claims promote your hatred driven anti Obama agenda. Considering your performance here, you 'd be smart to just stay out of threads like this.

 

Oh, I usually hang out with those that can think for themselves. You wouldn't understand.

Just continue on in your fog of hate and lack of thought if that is what makes you happy.

BTW, if you think that you have made some kind of point, you have. Blind obedience is always wrong, as you are.

 

No...... in the final months of his presidency he set up something that
borders on treason...........
He and his team attempted to sabotage the Trump presidency.... .and information is coming out
regarding the probable why.... that I am convinced is going to astonish all of us.

 

Still no link, no citations to suggest there was ever any ethics complaint filed for either Michele or Barack Obama, or contemplated. Nothing but specious innuendo that you defend while claiming some intellectual high ground. The high ground is not established by you claiming you can think for yourself and someone else cannot. It is built on evidence. If you don't supply any, or if you defend others who don't, you are that last one who should ever refer to 'specious claims' . Put up or shut up time Arjay.

 

How is this relevant to anything being discussed?

 

Then prove him wrong. You are of course fully aware that you can’t.

 

No, the court is political enough. There are lots of other well qualified candidates

 

Great argument from the smoke filled room in Oz that your inhabit. As long as you can find others to say, with alleged proof, what you cannot do for yourself.

You seem to rely on citations and quotes from others, never mentioning that you did not think of them yourself, as some kind of validation. In your case, it most certainly is not what you claim to think it is.

Here is a quote for you, "you can't fix stupid". You have supplied ample evidence to support it.

 

Just because you demand such a thing does not mean that anyone has to bend to your will.

We are all stating opinions, as per the poll. Yet there are certain "persons" who insist that this is even a possibility. You ae all wrong.

In evidence, provide proof that this was even considered or offered to him.

You of course are fully aware that you can't.

Wait! Did I just ruin your rant with facts?

 

Reference that Obama is suspected of coming from Kenya. Much as you wish to dismiss it, this exists and further ruins your rant.