GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:No tears. Scalia was a corrupt, backward, regressive POS. At least Obama will be submitting candidate, he is more conservative than progressive, but it beats a Trump or Cruz possibly picking the next one.

I know that you meant well but Obama is not conservative. Obama may not be extreme left but he's been a very progressive president. I don't see how he could've done much better than he did given the obstruction of the Republican led congress. Obama has been the most progressive president in recent history and would've done more if not for Congress.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Im sorry Nix but you have absolutely no idea what a progressive is.

Going to the GOP and offering to gu Social Security and medicare in his "grand bargain" is not progressive.

Renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich in the middle of the great recession was not progressive.

Neither was the austerity program on the poor and middle class.

Prosecuting fewer corporate criminals than any president in more than 30 years, less than George W Bush.

Prosecuting more whislteblowers and reporters than all other presidents combined, has classified more information than George Bush

Gave us a healthcare plan that was Bob Dole's without any price controls.

Made a deal with big pharma not to negotiate prescription drug prices, despite having the most expensive in the world.

Made it legal to kill on imprison an American for life without trial or charges,

opened up drilling all over the US coast, which even some republicans thought went too far.

Approved the dumping of the oil dispersant corexit to disperse the oil from the drilling disaster despite it being banned almost everywhere else because its so toxic. Its going to take decades to undo the damage.

The best Obama could do was for Wall Street and other power brokers, the rest got austerity.

Forgot to add his crowning achievement, the TPP which effectively places corporations over countries, including the US.

Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD. No President is going to be perfectly Progressive. You can go down a list and pick at things Obama did or didn't do but that list doesn't compare to all the MANY, MANY things he did do to advance the Progressive Agenda.

Obama has moved the Progressive Agenda further along than any President since the 60's. You're arguing PURITY over what can PRACTICALLY be done in this environment. You're version of a Progressive President has NEVER existed and will NEVER be allowed to accomplish the true goals of a PURIST PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!! I fully understand what the Progressive goals are but in reality there has to be some recognition of the fact that this isn't a 100% Progressive country. Also once you're in the machine you are NOT free to do whatever you want and you're not all powerful. There are always constraints on power and concessions that are made by a President.

Richard Nixon founded the EPA, OSHA, and opened relations between China and the US, does that make him a progressive? Of course not. You are suggesting that the president did the best he could to make this a more progressive country, I am suggesting that the president did almost everything he could to do the opposite.

All the items I listed were a choice, not a compromise. And every single one has hurt this country immeasurably. What I listed was a strategy to give corporate America even more power, discourage dissent, and make the rich even richer. It was no accident that almost all the gains from this so called recovery went to the top one percent.

I will throw a quote right back at you, "Judge a man by his actions".

When you have the time do a little research on the TPP. I posted about it here a few years ago. It was negotiated with representatives of over more than 400 corporations. Obama wouldnt allow any govt officials to see what exactly was being negotiated, including the media. Eventually they let congress read it but they were watched by trade officals while they read, could not take notes, or leak the info or be prosecuted. Corporations all access pass, Our elected representatives muzzled.

Someone leaked a draft. It gives corporations the abilty to skirt US laws, sue any country that prevents them in any way from making money including anti-tobacco ads, buy American programs, any regulation that hurts their bottom line. And you know who decides? Not the country being sued, but a panel of lawyers who alternate between deciding cases and working for the same people they are passing judgement upon. Obama has tried to cram this deal down our throats, it will drive down wages, increase the offshoring of jobs, prescription drug prices among other things, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the middle class, and the poor will suffer even more. None of what I just cited are the actions of anyone but a very conservative president. His hero is Ronald Reagan, please Nix.

Going back to Nixon only proves things are much more divided and extreme than ever. If Obama is So conservative why did Congressional opposition reach unprecedented levels during his Presidency?

It's simply not realistic to expect PURIST PROGRESSIVISM to go unchallenged by the Conservatives! You think only a narrow view of what is or isn't progressive is right and like anything in life there are varying degrees. Progressive doesn't mean ONLY the extreme left. Calling Obama conservative is false and insulting. A candidate like Bernie wouldn't even have a chance without the accomplishments of Obama!!! Whether you acknowledge it or not Obama moved the ball way down the Progressive court!

Surprised you dont know the answer, its because Obama is black.

If being someone who doesnt want to see corporate america have dominion over our govt our laws, our lives, who believes that no American should be put to death or imprisoned without a trial, that our jobs shouldnt be offshored, that we shouldnt be spied upon is a "Purist" than I wear that badge with honor. You arent a progressive, if anything you're a liberal. A progressive cares about policy, a liberal these days cares about the party. What was wrong in the Bush administration is Ok in the Obama administration.

Your defense of Obama is exactly why Bernie Sanders is shaking things up in this election, and why Hillary is on the ropes. Hillary could get the super delegate vote which cancels out the popular vote, which would cause the party to fracture. I guess there are tens of millions of "purists" out there as well.

Cuz Obama is Black they blocked progressive policies? Clearly there was a lot of racial crap involved but that doesn't explain everything. OK... Now that you've laid out your views and it's clear where you're coming from I'll leaves this convo alone cuz I see it's pointless trying to talk reason to you.

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:No tears. Scalia was a corrupt, backward, regressive POS. At least Obama will be submitting candidate, he is more conservative than progressive, but it beats a Trump or Cruz possibly picking the next one.

I know that you meant well but Obama is not conservative. Obama may not be extreme left but he's been a very progressive president. I don't see how he could've done much better than he did given the obstruction of the Republican led congress. Obama has been the most progressive president in recent history and would've done more if not for Congress.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Im sorry Nix but you have absolutely no idea what a progressive is.

Going to the GOP and offering to gu Social Security and medicare in his "grand bargain" is not progressive.

Renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich in the middle of the great recession was not progressive.

Neither was the austerity program on the poor and middle class.

Prosecuting fewer corporate criminals than any president in more than 30 years, less than George W Bush.

Prosecuting more whislteblowers and reporters than all other presidents combined, has classified more information than George Bush

Gave us a healthcare plan that was Bob Dole's without any price controls.

Made a deal with big pharma not to negotiate prescription drug prices, despite having the most expensive in the world.

Made it legal to kill on imprison an American for life without trial or charges,

opened up drilling all over the US coast, which even some republicans thought went too far.

Approved the dumping of the oil dispersant corexit to disperse the oil from the drilling disaster despite it being banned almost everywhere else because its so toxic. Its going to take decades to undo the damage.

The best Obama could do was for Wall Street and other power brokers, the rest got austerity.

Forgot to add his crowning achievement, the TPP which effectively places corporations over countries, including the US.

Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD. No President is going to be perfectly Progressive. You can go down a list and pick at things Obama did or didn't do but that list doesn't compare to all the MANY, MANY things he did do to advance the Progressive Agenda.

Obama has moved the Progressive Agenda further along than any President since the 60's. You're arguing PURITY over what can PRACTICALLY be done in this environment. You're version of a Progressive President has NEVER existed and will NEVER be allowed to accomplish the true goals of a PURIST PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!! I fully understand what the Progressive goals are but in reality there has to be some recognition of the fact that this isn't a 100% Progressive country. Also once you're in the machine you are NOT free to do whatever you want and you're not all powerful. There are always constraints on power and concessions that are made by a President.

Richard Nixon founded the EPA, OSHA, and opened relations between China and the US, does that make him a progressive? Of course not. You are suggesting that the president did the best he could to make this a more progressive country, I am suggesting that the president did almost everything he could to do the opposite.

All the items I listed were a choice, not a compromise. And every single one has hurt this country immeasurably. What I listed was a strategy to give corporate America even more power, discourage dissent, and make the rich even richer. It was no accident that almost all the gains from this so called recovery went to the top one percent.

I will throw a quote right back at you, "Judge a man by his actions".

When you have the time do a little research on the TPP. I posted about it here a few years ago. It was negotiated with representatives of over more than 400 corporations. Obama wouldnt allow any govt officials to see what exactly was being negotiated, including the media. Eventually they let congress read it but they were watched by trade officals while they read, could not take notes, or leak the info or be prosecuted. Corporations all access pass, Our elected representatives muzzled.

Someone leaked a draft. It gives corporations the abilty to skirt US laws, sue any country that prevents them in any way from making money including anti-tobacco ads, buy American programs, any regulation that hurts their bottom line. And you know who decides? Not the country being sued, but a panel of lawyers who alternate between deciding cases and working for the same people they are passing judgement upon. Obama has tried to cram this deal down our throats, it will drive down wages, increase the offshoring of jobs, prescription drug prices among other things, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the middle class, and the poor will suffer even more. None of what I just cited are the actions of anyone but a very conservative president. His hero is Ronald Reagan, please Nix.

Going back to Nixon only proves things are much more divided and extreme than ever. If Obama is So conservative why did Congressional opposition reach unprecedented levels during his Presidency?

It's simply not realistic to expect PURIST PROGRESSIVISM to go unchallenged by the Conservatives! You think only a narrow view of what is or isn't progressive is right and like anything in life there are varying degrees. Progressive doesn't mean ONLY the extreme left. Calling Obama conservative is false and insulting. A candidate like Bernie wouldn't even have a chance without the accomplishments of Obama!!! Whether you acknowledge it or not Obama moved the ball way down the Progressive court!

Surprised you dont know the answer, its because Obama is black.

If being someone who doesnt want to see corporate america have dominion over our govt our laws, our lives, who believes that no American should be put to death or imprisoned without a trial, that our jobs shouldnt be offshored, that we shouldnt be spied upon is a "Purist" than I wear that badge with honor. You arent a progressive, if anything you're a liberal. A progressive cares about policy, a liberal these days cares about the party. What was wrong in the Bush administration is Ok in the Obama administration.

Your defense of Obama is exactly why Bernie Sanders is shaking things up in this election, and why Hillary is on the ropes. Hillary could get the super delegate vote which cancels out the popular vote, which would cause the party to fracture. I guess there are tens of millions of "purists" out there as well.

Cuz Obama is Black they blocked progressive policies? Clearly there was a lot of racial crap involved but that doesn't explain everything. OK... Now that you've laid out your views and it's clear where you're coming from I'll leaves this convo alone cuz I see it's pointless trying to talk reason to you.

Whatever nominally progressive policies Obama has enacted have been overwhelmed by what he has done for the one percent and what will be a great deal of suffering in the coming years (by action or inaction) to the poor and middle class. In many ways more than almost any president in US history.

Do you know what the definition of a conservative is? Its someone who conserves the existing power structure. Thats what Obama is doing, and thats what you're doing in your vigourous defense of his presidency. Not progressive.

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:No tears. Scalia was a corrupt, backward, regressive POS. At least Obama will be submitting candidate, he is more conservative than progressive, but it beats a Trump or Cruz possibly picking the next one.

I know that you meant well but Obama is not conservative. Obama may not be extreme left but he's been a very progressive president. I don't see how he could've done much better than he did given the obstruction of the Republican led congress. Obama has been the most progressive president in recent history and would've done more if not for Congress.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Im sorry Nix but you have absolutely no idea what a progressive is.

Going to the GOP and offering to gu Social Security and medicare in his "grand bargain" is not progressive.

Renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich in the middle of the great recession was not progressive.

Neither was the austerity program on the poor and middle class.

Prosecuting fewer corporate criminals than any president in more than 30 years, less than George W Bush.

Prosecuting more whislteblowers and reporters than all other presidents combined, has classified more information than George Bush

Gave us a healthcare plan that was Bob Dole's without any price controls.

Made a deal with big pharma not to negotiate prescription drug prices, despite having the most expensive in the world.

Made it legal to kill on imprison an American for life without trial or charges,

opened up drilling all over the US coast, which even some republicans thought went too far.

Approved the dumping of the oil dispersant corexit to disperse the oil from the drilling disaster despite it being banned almost everywhere else because its so toxic. Its going to take decades to undo the damage.

The best Obama could do was for Wall Street and other power brokers, the rest got austerity.

Forgot to add his crowning achievement, the TPP which effectively places corporations over countries, including the US.

Never let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD. No President is going to be perfectly Progressive. You can go down a list and pick at things Obama did or didn't do but that list doesn't compare to all the MANY, MANY things he did do to advance the Progressive Agenda.

Obama has moved the Progressive Agenda further along than any President since the 60's. You're arguing PURITY over what can PRACTICALLY be done in this environment. You're version of a Progressive President has NEVER existed and will NEVER be allowed to accomplish the true goals of a PURIST PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!! I fully understand what the Progressive goals are but in reality there has to be some recognition of the fact that this isn't a 100% Progressive country. Also once you're in the machine you are NOT free to do whatever you want and you're not all powerful. There are always constraints on power and concessions that are made by a President.

Richard Nixon founded the EPA, OSHA, and opened relations between China and the US, does that make him a progressive? Of course not. You are suggesting that the president did the best he could to make this a more progressive country, I am suggesting that the president did almost everything he could to do the opposite.

All the items I listed were a choice, not a compromise. And every single one has hurt this country immeasurably. What I listed was a strategy to give corporate America even more power, discourage dissent, and make the rich even richer. It was no accident that almost all the gains from this so called recovery went to the top one percent.

I will throw a quote right back at you, "Judge a man by his actions".

When you have the time do a little research on the TPP. I posted about it here a few years ago. It was negotiated with representatives of over more than 400 corporations. Obama wouldnt allow any govt officials to see what exactly was being negotiated, including the media. Eventually they let congress read it but they were watched by trade officals while they read, could not take notes, or leak the info or be prosecuted. Corporations all access pass, Our elected representatives muzzled.

Someone leaked a draft. It gives corporations the abilty to skirt US laws, sue any country that prevents them in any way from making money including anti-tobacco ads, buy American programs, any regulation that hurts their bottom line. And you know who decides? Not the country being sued, but a panel of lawyers who alternate between deciding cases and working for the same people they are passing judgement upon. Obama has tried to cram this deal down our throats, it will drive down wages, increase the offshoring of jobs, prescription drug prices among other things, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the middle class, and the poor will suffer even more. None of what I just cited are the actions of anyone but a very conservative president. His hero is Ronald Reagan, please Nix.

Going back to Nixon only proves things are much more divided and extreme than ever. If Obama is So conservative why did Congressional opposition reach unprecedented levels during his Presidency?

It's simply not realistic to expect PURIST PROGRESSIVISM to go unchallenged by the Conservatives! You think only a narrow view of what is or isn't progressive is right and like anything in life there are varying degrees. Progressive doesn't mean ONLY the extreme left. Calling Obama conservative is false and insulting. A candidate like Bernie wouldn't even have a chance without the accomplishments of Obama!!! Whether you acknowledge it or not Obama moved the ball way down the Progressive court!

Surprised you dont know the answer, its because Obama is black.

If being someone who doesnt want to see corporate america have dominion over our govt our laws, our lives, who believes that no American should be put to death or imprisoned without a trial, that our jobs shouldnt be offshored, that we shouldnt be spied upon is a "Purist" than I wear that badge with honor. You arent a progressive, if anything you're a liberal. A progressive cares about policy, a liberal these days cares about the party. What was wrong in the Bush administration is Ok in the Obama administration.

Your defense of Obama is exactly why Bernie Sanders is shaking things up in this election, and why Hillary is on the ropes. Hillary could get the super delegate vote which cancels out the popular vote, which would cause the party to fracture. I guess there are tens of millions of "purists" out there as well.

Cuz Obama is Black they blocked progressive policies? Clearly there was a lot of racial crap involved but that doesn't explain everything. OK... Now that you've laid out your views and it's clear where you're coming from I'll leaves this convo alone cuz I see it's pointless trying to talk reason to you.

Whatever nominally progressive policies Obama has enacted have been overwhelmed by what he has done for the one percent and what will be a great deal of suffering in the coming years (by action or inaction) to the poor and middle class. In many ways more than almost any president in US history.

Do you know what the definition of a conservative is? Its someone who conserves the existing power structure. Thats what Obama is doing, and thats what you're doing in your vigourous defense of his presidency. Not progressive.

Now you're exaggerating and going to extremes! Obama didn't create this economic structure. It's been in existence for decades and NO PRESIDENT has the ability to dismantle it on his own. Bernie couldn't have done it either. It's easy to talk big when there's nothing on the line but back when Obama took over the Presidency those decisions were not easy ones and there was the very real chance to have made things worse!!!

Now after all that has been done it's easy to piss on the job Obama did but IMO that's a really lame stance to take given what he was facing. Typical BS from people not able to appreciate just how difficult the job is. The world on fire, 2 wars, massive unemployment and total obstruction from the Republicans!!! It's ungrateful and unrealistic at the same time IMO.

LOL thought you were done talking sense to me. Back to your old tricks. I said conserve the existing power structure, not create it. People like you said the same thing in the 30s about Social Security during the depression. Roosevelt knew the risk he was under and he pushed it through anyway. Some of the heads of the largest corporations in america planned a military coup to remove him but he kept "welcoming their hatred", Obama welcomed their money. Real profile in courage there.

As far as wars, he expanded the war in Afghanistan as promised (didnt like that but voted once for him anyway) , and the removal of troops from Iraq was negotiated during the Bush administration, he had nothing to do with it. Those too big too fail banks are even larger because he didnt break them up. He hasn't prosecuted anyone who caused tne crash, now corporations who defraud Americans just pay fines and get a tax break on it and operate like the crash never happened.

Nothing Ive cited that he has done in office seems to faze you one bit. That kind of attitude is welcome in higher places. Accept things the way they are, worry more about red vs blue while they make all the green. It was the "purists" who mobilized this country and got Obama elected, don't kid yourself. Wall Street bankrolled him, but it was his progressive talk that got young people involved. I will take my chances with Bernie over Hillary any day of the week. Thats it for me on this discussion, back to the Knicks.

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

That's kind of a dangerous political game but Obama has done **** like that before with Georgia federal judges. Just out of curiosity, what makes Collins and Snowe so moderate? Kennedy and Roberts were suppose to be "moderates" themselves and they gave us Citizens United, so I'm not terribly encouraged by the prospect of Republican SC judges at all.

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

Sri Srinivasan

Among those the administration could turn to is Sri Srinivasan, 48, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since May 2013. He would be the first Indian-American on the court and has impeccable bipartisan credentials.

The Senate confirmed him on a 97-0 vote three years ago. He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired, a 1981 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. At Srinivasan’s confirmation hearing, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, now a presidential candidate, described himself as a long-standing friend dating back to their time together as law clerks in the U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia.

Cruz said Srinivasan had done a “very fine job” in answering the committee’s questions.

During his nomination to the appeals court, prominent Republicans such as former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson supported Srinivasan. At his 2013 investiture, leading lights of the legal establishment from both parties praised him. Federal appeals court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee for whom Srinivasan was also a law clerk, called him “lightning smart.”

So far on the appeals court, his rulings have not sparked controversy.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/indian-american-among-those-obama-could-nominate-to-replace-justice-scalia/

I'm a "liberal," or progressive, but I'd have no issues with a slightly left of center moderate added to the court, assuming that this is what Sri Srinivasan has been as a jurist, and adding a new ethnicity to the court is always a good thing, assuming he/she is qualified.

Don't think I'm going to do a "Case for Sri Srinivasan" thread on UK, but without having done serious research on the guy, I'm hoping that he gets some consideration.

NardDogNation wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

Saw this...nice nomination in terms of diversity, and he's been acceptable to Republicans so far, and not a controversial jurist according to the article.

Sri Srinivasan

Among those the administration could turn to is Sri Srinivasan, 48, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since May 2013. He would be the first Indian-American on the court and has impeccable bipartisan credentials.

The Senate confirmed him on a 97-0 vote three years ago. He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired, a 1981 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. At Srinivasan’s confirmation hearing, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, now a presidential candidate, described himself as a long-standing friend dating back to their time together as law clerks in the U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia.

Cruz said Srinivasan had done a “very fine job” in answering the committee’s questions.

During his nomination to the appeals court, prominent Republicans such as former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson supported Srinivasan. At his 2013 investiture, leading lights of the legal establishment from both parties praised him. Federal appeals court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee for whom Srinivasan was also a law clerk, called him “lightning smart.”

So far on the appeals court, his rulings have not sparked controversy.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/indian-american-among-those-obama-could-nominate-to-replace-justice-scalia/

I'm a "liberal," or progressive, but I'd have no issues with a slightly left of center moderate added to the court, assuming that this is what Sri Srinivasan has been as a jurist, and adding a new ethnicity to the court is always a good thing, assuming he/she is qualified.

Don't think I'm going to do a "Case for Sri Srinivasan" thread on UK, but without having done serious research on the guy, I'm hoping that he gets some consideration.

His association/approval with Ted Cruz is a huge red-flag for me and makes me question his character. I understand that this is politics but I think the "birds of a feather" motto is still applicable in this context. I'm all for diversity but not if it's the Indian version of an Uncle Tom like Clearance Thomas.

And really what does this say about our politics when men like Scalia, Thomas and Alito get to be gay-bashing, corporatists and racists yet still get nominated to the court but liberals can't even get a liberal Democrat to even be considered?

I have only read a little on Sri and I wouldn't take remarks from Cruz with any regard at all. Read up on Sri, lots of praise for him as a person, family man, human, and legal scholar.

martin wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

Saw this...nice nomination in terms of diversity, and he's been acceptable to Republicans so far, and not a controversial jurist according to the article.

Sri Srinivasan

Among those the administration could turn to is Sri Srinivasan, 48, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since May 2013. He would be the first Indian-American on the court and has impeccable bipartisan credentials.

The Senate confirmed him on a 97-0 vote three years ago. He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired, a 1981 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. At Srinivasan’s confirmation hearing, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, now a presidential candidate, described himself as a long-standing friend dating back to their time together as law clerks in the U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia.

Cruz said Srinivasan had done a “very fine job” in answering the committee’s questions.

During his nomination to the appeals court, prominent Republicans such as former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson supported Srinivasan. At his 2013 investiture, leading lights of the legal establishment from both parties praised him. Federal appeals court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee for whom Srinivasan was also a law clerk, called him “lightning smart.”

So far on the appeals court, his rulings have not sparked controversy.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/indian-american-among-those-obama-could-nominate-to-replace-justice-scalia/

I'm a "liberal," or progressive, but I'd have no issues with a slightly left of center moderate added to the court, assuming that this is what Sri Srinivasan has been as a jurist, and adding a new ethnicity to the court is always a good thing, assuming he/she is qualified.

Don't think I'm going to do a "Case for Sri Srinivasan" thread on UK, but without having done serious research on the guy, I'm hoping that he gets some consideration.

His association/approval with Ted Cruz is a huge red-flag for me and makes me question his character. I understand that this is politics but I think the "birds of a feather" motto is still applicable in this context. I'm all for diversity but not if it's the Indian version of an Uncle Tom like Clearance Thomas.

And really what does this say about our politics when men like Scalia, Thomas and Alito get to be gay-bashing, corporatists and racists yet still get nominated to the court but liberals can't even get a liberal Democrat to even be considered?

I have only read a little on Sri and I wouldn't take remarks from Cruz with any regard at all. Read up on Sri, lots of praise for him as a person, family man, human, and legal scholar.

Will do. I know very little about this aspect of politics, so I'm ramping up for a crash course in it. You guys have been a big help to start though.

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

That's kind of a dangerous political game but Obama has done **** like that before with Georgia federal judges. Just out of curiosity, what makes Collins and Snowe so moderate? Kennedy and Roberts were suppose to be "moderates" themselves and they gave us Citizens United, so I'm not terribly encouraged by the prospect of Republican SC judges at all.

I say moderate based on the rating systems I've found online. They both tended to be more liberal than the most conservative Democrats are. I think they're both liberal on almost all the social issues. I don't know that they'd actually help to get the money out of politics, but the thought of Ted Cruz making the replacement nomination is scary.
I would have said Colin Powell if he hadn't screwed up with the Iraq war. I might still consider him.

Colin Powell had a law degree? As for the court, this is one arena that I hope Obama actually starts far left on in hopes of getting some that is actually center-left. All too often, he starts negotiations right at the center and leaves with a far-right compromise. He better do the right thing while he still has a shot at a legacy with substance.

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren would take the job?

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:No tears for Scalia.

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren would take the job?

For me, she is doing pretty good where she's at.

Yeah, I can see that. I know her stance is pretty much the same - she can do more good there.

It's just frustrating she's locked in a GOP-controlled Senate. But maybe she'll help get the appointment through.

I'd really like to see her run for President someday, but we also need as many strong voices like her in the Senate.

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obama should nominate a moderate Republican like Collins or Snowe from Maine. I think it would be disastrous for Republicans if they weren't even willing to let him appoint one of their Republican colleagues.

That's kind of a dangerous political game but Obama has done **** like that before with Georgia federal judges. Just out of curiosity, what makes Collins and Snowe so moderate? Kennedy and Roberts were suppose to be "moderates" themselves and they gave us Citizens United, so I'm not terribly encouraged by the prospect of Republican SC judges at all.

I say moderate based on the rating systems I've found online. They both tended to be more liberal than the most conservative Democrats are. I think they're both liberal on almost all the social issues. I don't know that they'd actually help to get the money out of politics, but the thought of Ted Cruz making the replacement nomination is scary.
I would have said Colin Powell if he hadn't screwed up with the Iraq war. I might still consider him.

Colin Powell had a law degree? As for the court, this is one arena that I hope Obama actually starts far left on in hopes of getting some that is actually center-left. All too often, he starts negotiations right at the center and leaves with a far-right compromise. He better do the right thing while he still has a shot at a legacy with substance.

You don't have to have a law degree to be an SC Justice.

Is it wise to select someone who isn't (I'm seriously wondering)?