View Full Version : Loretta Lynch
How's that hostage-taking coming along for you cons? :)
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama chastised Senate Republicans on Friday for refusing to confirm his attorney general nominee, saying it's inexcusable to hold Loretta Lynch "hostage" as a bargaining chip for separate legislation.
"You don't hold attorney general nominees hostage for other issues," Obama told The Huffington Post's Sam Stein in a sit-down interview. "This is our top law enforcement office. Nobody denies that she's well-qualified. We need to go ahead and get her done. "The irony is, of course, that the Republicans really dislike Mr. Holder," said Obama. "If they really want to get rid of him, the best way to do it is to go ahead and get Loretta Lynch confirmed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/obama-loretta-lynch_n_6905422.html?
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/50/250bdc32-2b19-11e4-946b-001a4bcf887a/53f91d25560fa.preview-620.jpg
Peter1469
03-21-2015, 02:07 PM
Why? She is too partisan to be AG.
This regime has harmed the position.
Green Arrow
03-21-2015, 02:55 PM
As I've said repeatedly...so what? It's not like the position is vacant.
It is different when Democrats Bork them.
Who recalls the shitty treatment Bush's expected appointments got. And yes, even from Obama.
Why? She is too partisan to be AG.
This regime has harmed the position.
Ridiculous Peter1469. She's frickin' AMAZING and has never shown partisanship in in her entire career.
But hey, if you're happy with Holder (who actually IS a partisan of sorts) .. enjoy him for another two years!
birddog
03-22-2015, 01:12 PM
It will be interesting to see who and how Obama will pardon certain ones before he leaves office.
It is different when Democrats Bork them.
Who recalls the shitty treatment Bush's expected appointments got. And yes, even from Obama.
Not comparable Bob. There is nothing objectionable or controversial about Lynch .. there absolutely was about Bork.
Hold a vote today, and she'll fly through by a 2-1 margin.
It will be interesting to see who and how Obama will pardon certain ones before he leaves office.
Ehh, what did that have to do with my OP?
Not comparable @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). There is nothing objectionable or controversial about Lynch .. there absolutely was about Bork.
Hold a vote today, and she'll fly through by a 2-1 margin.
There was no reason to stop Bork.
The republicans must deal with Obama in ways to force him to finally listen. That or she sits on her current job where you must think she does just fine. She is not out of work.
Green Arrow
03-22-2015, 02:05 PM
Not comparable @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). There is nothing objectionable or controversial about Lynch .. there absolutely was about Bork.
Hold a vote today, and she'll fly through by a 2-1 margin.
What was so bad about Bork?
What was so bad about Bork?
Bork is an outstanding Judge and had he been on the court, I believe some changes would have happened. But the Demcorats love to hate the man.
birddog
03-22-2015, 04:07 PM
Ehh, what did that have to do with my OP?
Holder, who Lynch wants to replace, could be a good candidate for a pardon. Both may need it.
zelmo1234
03-22-2015, 04:58 PM
Not comparable @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). There is nothing objectionable or controversial about Lynch .. there absolutely was about Bork.
Hold a vote today, and she'll fly through by a 2-1 margin.
Actually at last count, she needs the VP as the tie breaker.
she is not evena good candidate, much less as great one
Holder, who Lynch wants to replace, could be a good candidate for a pardon. Both may need it.
Yeah, one more scab on the Obama legacy.
hanger4
03-22-2015, 08:04 PM
Ridiculous Peter1469. She's frickin' AMAZING and has never shown partisanship in in her entire career.
But hey, if you're happy with Holder (who actually IS a partisan of sorts) .. enjoy him for another two years!
Other than believing Obama’s executive actions on immigration are reasonable, yea she's great. :rollseyes:
Cigar
03-23-2015, 01:11 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAy7XizUwAAVcJO.jpg
Other than believing Obama’s executive actions on immigration are reasonable, yea she's great. :rollseyes:
She didn't say that. She simply said (as do most legal scholars) that she believed it to be legal and not without a myriad of precedent.
What was so bad about Bork?
He was a racist kook for starters.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation), rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair), reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice. -Ted Kennedy
Green Arrow
03-23-2015, 02:40 PM
He was a racist kook for starters.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation), rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair), reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice. -Ted Kennedy
So your evidence that Bork was a "racist kook" is a quote from Ted Kennedy?
birddog
03-23-2015, 02:51 PM
So your evidence that Bork was a "racist kook" is a quote from Ted Kennedy?
Ted has a history of not "drowning" in the truth! His "drowning" is more criminal in nature.
So your evidence that Bork was a "racist kook" is a quote from Ted Kennedy?
No, his racism and a myriad of various other kooky RW beliefs are quite well documented.
Put it this way, Bork makes Scalia and Thomas look like wild-eyed liberals. ;-)
Mister D
03-23-2015, 02:59 PM
No, his racism and a myriad of various other kooky RW beliefs are quite well documented.
Put it this way, Bork makes Scalia and Thomas look like wild-eyed liberals. ;-)
Is it now? Could you cite his racism? Please use reptuable sources.
Is it now? Could you cite his racism? Please use reptuable sources.
Would it really matter if i took the time to do so Mister D? Most of you folks refuse to acknowledge quotes that to the average person, clearly have racist overtones.
Mister D
03-23-2015, 03:50 PM
Would it really matter if i took the time to do so @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4)? Most of you folks refuse to acknowledge quotes that to the average person, clearly have racist overtones.
What you mean to say is that there aren't any such quotes. There are only quotes one has to add to and/or distort in order to make your case. I wouldn't bother either. I'll tear that shit apart. :wink:
What you mean to say is that there aren't any such quotes. There are only quotes one has to add to and/or distort in order to make your case. I wouldn't bother either. I'll tear that shit apart. :wink:
You do that.. here's a starter link for you.
https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2013/05/16/from-the-archives-the-naacp-reviews-robert-h-bork/
PolWatch
03-23-2015, 03:58 PM
I looked him up & I agree he did not belong on the Supreme Court:
he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax)
his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren) and Burger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Burger) courts
Nixon ordered the firing of special prosecutor Cox & 2 attorney generals resigned rather than do it because they thought it illegal. Bork did it. His actions were overruled and he gained the reputation of being an advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy - wiki
Mister D
03-23-2015, 03:59 PM
You do that.. here's a starter link for you.
https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2013/05/16/from-the-archives-the-naacp-reviews-robert-h-bork/
Pick something (i.e. a quote from Bork) to discuss. Why are you being so evasive? Oh, that's right. I'll tear that shit up. :wink:
Pick something (i.e. a quote from Bork) to discuss. Why are you being so evasive? Oh, that's right. I'll tear that shit up. :wink:
No, tear it up point by point. I'll give you a couple of weeks.
But if crunched for time, defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
Here's more for your edification.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0
And yes, this one is Salon but they provide a number of links as supporting evidence.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/robert_borks_nauseating_worldview/
Reason10
03-23-2015, 04:34 PM
How's that hostage-taking coming along for you cons? :)
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama chastised Senate Republicans on Friday for refusing to confirm his attorney general nominee, saying it's inexcusable to hold Loretta Lynch "hostage" as a bargaining chip for separate legislation.
"You don't hold attorney general nominees hostage for other issues," Obama told The Huffington Post's Sam Stein in a sit-down interview. "This is our top law enforcement office. Nobody denies that she's well-qualified. We need to go ahead and get her done. "The irony is, of course, that the Republicans really dislike Mr. Holder," said Obama. "If they really want to get rid of him, the best way to do it is to go ahead and get Loretta Lynch confirmed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/obama-loretta-lynch_n_6905422.html?
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/50/250bdc32-2b19-11e4-946b-001a4bcf887a/53f91d25560fa.preview-620.jpg
Crack Pipe Post? Seriously.
GROW THE FCK UP.
Actually at last count, she needs the VP as the tie breaker.
she is not evena good candidate, much less as great one
Link zelmo1234? Because i don't believe you. Graham, Flake, Colliins and Hatch will all vote for her.
Hell, even Rudy "Noun-Verb-911" Giuliani says do it!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/20/politics/giuliani-loretta-lynch-confirmation/
Mister D
03-23-2015, 05:18 PM
No, tear it up point by point. I'll give you a couple of weeks.
But if crunched for time, defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
Bo, I'm not reading any articles. Just pick a quote for us to discuss. What are you afraid of? Oh, that's right. I'll tear that shit up. :wink:
Captain Obvious
03-23-2015, 05:23 PM
Who wouldn't nominate this?
http://images1.mtv.com/uri/mgid:file:docroot:cmt.com:/sitewide/assets/img/artists/lynn_loretta/getty/74282205-x600.jpg?enlarge=false&matte=true&matteColor=black&quality=0.85
texan
03-23-2015, 07:20 PM
How's that hostage-taking coming along for you cons? :)
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama chastised Senate Republicans on Friday for refusing to confirm his attorney general nominee, saying it's inexcusable to hold Loretta Lynch "hostage" as a bargaining chip for separate legislation.
"You don't hold attorney general nominees hostage for other issues," Obama told The Huffington Post's Sam Stein in a sit-down interview. "This is our top law enforcement office. Nobody denies that she's well-qualified. We need to go ahead and get her done. "The irony is, of course, that the Republicans really dislike Mr. Holder," said Obama. "If they really want to get rid of him, the best way to do it is to go ahead and get Loretta Lynch confirmed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/obama-loretta-lynch_n_6905422.html?
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/50/250bdc32-2b19-11e4-946b-001a4bcf887a/53f91d25560fa.preview-620.jpg
Boy this is good stuff, Obama complaining of someone being petty and vindictive........Not getting their way so acting out........LOL
Peter1469
03-23-2015, 08:40 PM
So your evidence that Bork was a "racist kook" is a quote from Ted Kennedy?
Did Bork murder a woman like Ted?
Mister D
03-23-2015, 08:45 PM
Did Bork murder a woman like Ted?
http://memecrunch.com/meme/1C67Z/you-did-not-just-go-there/image.png
Green Arrow
03-23-2015, 09:36 PM
No, his racism and a myriad of various other kooky RW beliefs are quite well documented.
Put it this way, Bork makes Scalia and Thomas look like wild-eyed liberals. ;-)
If they are quite well-documented, then you should have no problem showing them.
No, tear it up point by point. I'll give you a couple of weeks.
But if crunched for time, defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
Since I have Borks book and can look up any page, tell me what page his opposition shows up on?
Who wouldn't nominate this?
I'd ride it. :D
http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2012/news/120604/loretta-lynn-440.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.