In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A Most Beautiful Supreme Court Justice
Ricci Wright
Member Posts: 8,259 ✭✭
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/20/judge-jeanine-pirro-opens-show-slams-hamilton-protest-mike-pence
I think she would be great!!
I think she would be great!!
Comments
I got the big, beat down, on lack of qualifications.
I still think, She would be a great pick. IMHO.
Yes,she is good looking. Yes,she is good at what she has done. But,her experience and expertise is very limited. Supreme Court?? I just dunno,,
Yeah she does not have the resume for that gig, way above her pay grade.
She was DA for Westchester County N.Y for 12 years so that should count as experience. Personally I value common sense and a sense of what's right more than experience. I didn't realise she was 65 years old. She looks younger.
Exerperience in State or county court does not equate to experience in the federal court system, experience as a clerk at the Supreme Court or federal appellate court level or arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court.
She was DA for Westchester County N.Y for 12 years so that should count as experience. Personally I value common sense and a sense of what's right more than experience. I didn't realise she was 65 years old. She looks younger.
I'm 55. I'd do her. [}:)]
Comments directed towards me,
"She has only been a County Judge." Etc. etc.
I'm OK with that. She seems to have a crap load of common sense. I would agree, that is what SCOTUS needs, badly.
I could do a better job. No long winded irrelevant summaries either.
as far as her resume goes it has far better experience at 12 years as district attorney than justice Sonia Sotomayors 4 1/2 years as assistant district attorney
William Renquist was one. Anyone remember him? Want to embarrass yourself by questioning his standing as one of a select few highly impactful justices? He was 'only' a US Attorney prior to being appointed by Reagan.
Another justice not as well known today, but highly respected and acknowledged as an astounding legal intellect with unassailable Constitutional knowledge was Robert H. Jackson. He was also a US Attorney with no judicial background. Jackson is probably best known for having written the majority opinion in West VA Board of Education v Barnette. At issue was the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to not salute the flag. I quote part of that opinion often to leftists who claim that 'a majority of people support reasonable gun control'.
Perhaps after reading it, you will understand why I use this quote...and realize that judicial experience of any kind is nowhere near as important as a knowledge of, and respect for, Constitutional rights and principles.
quote:The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
That is what I, and I believe a lot of Americans, want to see.
Maybe I'm wrong. I do not beleive so, though.
Americans for "Common Sense," in Government. You got a problem, with that??
quote:Originally posted by Ricci Wright
She was DA for Westchester County N.Y for 12 years so that should count as experience. Personally I value common sense and a sense of what's right more than experience. I didn't realise she was 65 years old. She looks younger.
I'm 55. I'd do her. [}:)]
Comments directed towards me,
"She has only been a County Judge." Etc. etc.
I'm OK with that. She seems to have a crap load of common sense. I would agree, that is what SCOTUS needs, badly.
HELL you'd do her mother.[:p][}:)]quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by Ricci Wright
She was DA for Westchester County N.Y for 12 years so that should count as experience. Personally I value common sense and a sense of what's right more than experience. I didn't realise she was 65 years old. She looks younger.
I'm 55. I'd do her. [}:)]
Comments directed towards me,
"She has only been a County Judge." Etc. etc.
I'm OK with that. She seems to have a crap load of common sense. I would agree, that is what SCOTUS needs, badly.
What's she look like?? [:0][}:)]
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Whether Pirro is a good choice for SCOTUS is an open question. That said, those of you basing your concerns on a lack of judicial experience ought to study some SCOTUS history prior to forming what passes for your opinion. There are quite a number of SCOTUS justices in history who have had little or no judicial experience at any level.
William Renquist was one. Anyone remember him? Want to embarrass yourself by questioning his standing as one of a select few highly impactful justices? He was 'only' a US Attorney prior to being appointed by Reagan.
Another justice not as well known today, but highly respected and acknowledged as an astounding legal intellect with unassailable Constitutional knowledge was Robert H. Jackson. He was also a US Attorney with no judicial background. Jackson is probably best known for having written the majority opinion in West VA Board of Education v Barnette. At issue was the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to not salute the flag. I quote part of that opinion often to leftists who claim that 'a majority of people support reasonable gun control'.
Perhaps after reading it, you will understand why I use this quote...and realize that judicial experience of any kind is nowhere near as important as a knowledge of, and respect for, Constitutional rights and principles.
quote:The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Rehnquist was far more than that...you might want to brush up on his bio. He was first in his law class at Stanford, also held a Masters from Harvard. He was a law clerk for SCOTUS under Justice Robert Jackson. He served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal counsel under President Nixon, and became an Associate Justice in 1971 after Nixon nominated him. He was then nominated by Reagan in 1986 to become Chief Justice.
I would submit that is quite a bit more on his resume than Judge Pirro. My concern with Pirro is she does not appear to have any federal court experience, let alone federal appeallete court or SCOTUS whether as a law clerk, or experience in litigating cases of that magnitude in before SCOTUS. I would bet that there are probably many hundreds of originalists out there that have far better pedigree and demonstrated judicial records than former Judge Pirro.
Nice use of The Google to recover. Gathering knowledge is better done late than never.
Atleast I took the time to look and provided accurate information.
Seems the last few months might have taught that lesson, but WTH.
Was there something in what I posted that was not "accurate"? Perhaps if you spent more time learning, and less posting empty opinions, you wouldn't be embarrassed so often by your lack of knowledge.
Seems the last few months might have taught that lesson, but WTH.
You stated that he was only a US Attorney, which is not accurate. He was an associate justice prior to Reagan's appointment.
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Was there something in what I posted that was not "accurate"? Perhaps if you spent more time learning, and less posting empty opinions, you wouldn't be embarrassed so often by your lack of knowledge.
Seems the last few months might have taught that lesson, but WTH.
You stated that he was only a US Attorney, which is not accurate. He was an associate justice prior to Reagan's appointment.
Or I should say Reagan's nomination.
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
While I would not be unhappy with her selection, but at 65 she would likely not serve as long as we would like to see.
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Cruz would never accept an appointment. He made it clear that we were good with our SCOTUS staffing levels.
He is a man of honor who would never go back on his assessment of the proper level of Justices. Ever. Particularly if it advanced his own career.
If you can't feel the music; it's only pink noise!
quote:Originally posted by popgun
While I would not be unhappy with her selection, but at 65 she would likely not serve as long as we would like to see.
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Cruz would never accept an appointment. He made it clear that we were good with our SCOTUS staffing levels.
He is a man of honor who would never go back on his assessment of the proper level of Justices. Ever. Particularly if it advanced his own career.
Staffing levels? WTH does that mean? There are 9 positions on the SCOTUS. 1 is currently open. Whoever is appointed will not change that.
quote:Originally posted by bigoutside
quote:Originally posted by popgun
While I would not be unhappy with her selection, but at 65 she would likely not serve as long as we would like to see.
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Cruz would never accept an appointment. He made it clear that we were good with our SCOTUS staffing levels.
He is a man of honor who would never go back on his assessment of the proper level of Justices. Ever. Particularly if it advanced his own career.
Staffing levels? WTH does that mean? There are 9 positions on the SCOTUS. 1 is currently open. Whoever is appointed will not change that.
There haven't always been 9.
Cruz said we were good with 8 and shouldn't fill the vacant spot.
quote:Originally posted by montanajoe
Yes,she is good looking. Yes,she is good at what she has done. But,her experience and expertise is very limited. Supreme Court?? I just dunno,,
Yeah she does not have the resume for that gig, way above her pay grade.
If an idiot like Obama with absolutely no experience at doing anything is considered president material by over half the people in this country then anybody could be a supreme court judge.
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by bigoutside
quote:Originally posted by popgun
While I would not be unhappy with her selection, but at 65 she would likely not serve as long as we would like to see.
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Cruz would never accept an appointment. He made it clear that we were good with our SCOTUS staffing levels.
He is a man of honor who would never go back on his assessment of the proper level of Justices. Ever. Particularly if it advanced his own career.
Staffing levels? WTH does that mean? There are 9 positions on the SCOTUS. 1 is currently open. Whoever is appointed will not change that.
There haven't always been 9.
Cruz said we were good with 8 and shouldn't fill the vacant spot.
Cruz said 8 was fine until after the election. Your gal lost. Now we move on.
With four Conservative to Moderate Justices and four leftist Justices, nothing of importance would ever get done. Maybe a few want that, but not most Americans.
Trump will make it 5-4 Conservative/Moderate, and likely it won't be long before he can make it 6-3 Conservative.
If Thomas, Kennedy and Breyer retire, Trump can make the Court left-proof for 30-40 years.
I could then die in peace knowing the country was safe for at least that long.
In today's society, Judge Pirro will be seen as possessing only 1 qualification to serve on the Supreme Court,.
Her gender. (and a fine example of the female gender is she)
She would be disqualified by the left because she's easy on the eyes, not black, hispanic, asian or openly samesexual.
As far I'm concerned, she would be a great choice!
On a seperate note though, Dads3040:
I've seen a recurring theme in some of your posts of maligning anyone who uses info that you think MIGHT have been aquired through an internet search
This may not be your intention, but it seems as though you throw "internet search" out there as some kind of accusation or as if it completely dismisses an opposing point of view.
That's a little difficult for me to fully understand, as in the year 2016, a google search (personally I use dogpile) is the equivalent of digging through The Encyclopedia Britannica to find information and research historical facts.
I don't for a moment suspect you of being a leftist, but it's clear you've dealt with many of them, because you well know how to use their tactics.
Marginalizing opposing points of view by attacking their sources of information doesn't necessarily win the argument.
quote:Originally posted by bigoutside
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by bigoutside
quote:Originally posted by popgun
While I would not be unhappy with her selection, but at 65 she would likely not serve as long as we would like to see.
Ted Cruz is 45 and widely noted to be an excellent and impeccably Conservative Constitutional scholar, so I'd much prefer him. He should easily serve 30+ years.
One thing true about both of them is that Trump wouldn't have to worry about their getting into office and then turning sharply left - as did Souter, Earl Warren and Breyer. Both are strong Conservatives.
Cruz would never accept an appointment. He made it clear that we were good with our SCOTUS staffing levels.
He is a man of honor who would never go back on his assessment of the proper level of Justices. Ever. Particularly if it advanced his own career.
Staffing levels? WTH does that mean? There are 9 positions on the SCOTUS. 1 is currently open. Whoever is appointed will not change that.
There haven't always been 9.
Cruz said we were good with 8 and shouldn't fill the vacant spot.
Cruz said 8 was fine until after the election. Your gal lost. Now we move on.
Ha! No. He didn't. That's patently a lie.
That's two things you made up in one sentence.
Maybe you should google more.
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
quote:Originally posted by Ricci Wright
She was DA for Westchester County N.Y for 12 years so that should count as experience. Personally I value common sense and a sense of what's right more than experience. I didn't realise she was 65 years old. She looks younger.
Exerperience in State or county court does not equate to experience in the federal court system, experience as a clerk at the Supreme Court or federal appellate court level or arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court.
No argument but unfortunately, that's what we've nominated forever and look at what good its done.
I'd look for her as Trumps second appointment,, really, what would you rather have A senile Ruth Ginsberg or an energetic and vivacious, smart, no holds barred Judge Jeannie?
Guys lusting over a dried up 62 year old woman tells me there are some very serious issues at play on this here board. [}:)][:D]
DRIED UP?/, hardly,,,The woman is a straight shooter with most of my beliefs. That there is enough to get wind in my sails...
Hillary is the dried up vile hag with evil dripping around here mouth, ears and other places.[|)]
quote:Originally posted by CoolhandLuke
Guys lusting over a dried up 62 year old woman tells me there are some very serious issues at play on this here board. [}:)][:D]
DRIED UP?/, hardly,,,The woman is a straight shooter with most of my beliefs. That there is enough to get wind in my sails...
Hillary is the dried up vile hag with evil dripping around here mouth, ears and other places.[|)]
I guess you missed the word lusting, didn't mean in a political sense !! And I don't like cars that require high mileage lubrication either.[;)]
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
Excuse me, sir. How dare you make such a remark about my fiancee?
My sense of honor forbids me to let this insult go.
How would you like to meet me at daybreak tomorrow on the field of honor to settle this matter?
Your Obedient Servant,
Allen