From a cursory glance, David F. Hamilton seems like a perfectly fine moderate nomination to the appeals court. But, should a Supreme Court vacancy come up – which is more likely than not to happen a few times over the next 8 years – you must nominate a competent, well qualified liberal to the bench. We have to live for likely several decades with the George W. Bush picks of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and anything less than an ideological counterweight to those two would be an extraordinary mess.
Now, considering President Obama’s experience with constitutional law and my overall regard for him, I think he’ll easily do the right thing. But I just wanted to have this down somewhere on electrons.
Did you say?
“Now, considering President Obama’s experience with constitutional law”
And what experience might that be???
You’re welcome, Joaquin!
You know, that was a 10-second google search, by the way.
Liberal or Conservative should have no place in the Supreme Court. Everyone on the bench needs to be moderate.
Perhaps Mr. Joaquin is a little too invested in the “Obama-was-born-in-Kenya” mythology. Is this Joaquin’s perception of Mr. Obama?
Obama is a well resected constitutional scholar. Joaquin, on the other hand, is (fill in the blanks)and offers nothing of interest or value to any conversation.
Pity him.
Duros62,
I couldn’t agree more. I refuse to vote for any judge that takes a party affiliation or espouses ideology. Judges should be neutral. This may be pie in the sky thinking, but we can’t espouse unbiased justice if our judges are liberal or conservative.
“He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track”
Do you idiots read what you reference??? BWAAA HA HA HA!!!
You guys are sooooo easy it’s almost embarrassing.
So a con law lecturer for 12 years is not what you would consider being well versed in con law, Joaquin?
Anyway, I’d prefer someone without any big time political ideology either way. I think the more relevant criteria is whether someone is an originalist or not. Left swinging or right swinging is not always determinative; for instance Earl Warren was supposedly a Republican, and look what he did? One of the most “liberal” judges ever and pretty much changed how our legal system works forever.
I would prefer someone not bound by the rigid textualism of Clarence Thomas, someone who would agree with the idea of substantive due process, fundamental rights, and a respect for prior precedent on the 14th, 5th, and 4th amendments and its application in securing rights for our citizens. This would ensure things such as Roe and Casey, the exclusionary rule, privacy rights in general, and possibly help for more things down the line such as ending institutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Perhaps joaquin would enlighten us as to the minimum requirements for qualifications in this area which he just made up.
Judges should be neutral.
Isn’t that the very definition of Judge? Never understood that.
Do you idiots read what you reference??? BWAAA HA HA HA!!!
Which part do you not understand? Maybe we can explain it to you in smaller words.
Go play.
Joaquin, you asked what experience the president had with constitutional law. I answered you in literally less than a minute.
Your contributions are becoming steadily more unhinged.
Your contributions are becoming steadily more unhinged.
Thanks, Parthy. I, for one, was feeling a bit stung by Mr. Joaquin’s endless refrain of “Obamee!! Yah!! Yah!!!” I needed a little bucking up.
I hope you guys realize that you are not only embarrassing yourselves, but insulting every single law professor.
Obama lectured part-time, and now he’s considered by you a law professor!
That’s like me parring the 17th hole at TPC Sawgrass therefore announcing that I’m now on the PGA Tour and an equal to Tiger and Michelson.
Allow me to serve you another cup of Kool-Aid.
I needed a little bucking up.
The guy is tiring, isn’t he? Speaking of…
Allow me to serve you another cup of Kool-Aid.
Joaquin, for goodness sakes. From the link, emphasis mine.
“UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Are you actually a conservative parody, like Jon Swift or Stephen Colbert?
joaquin: Allow me to serve you another cup of Kool-Aid.
How can there be any left for us when you’re drinking it all?
Seriously, dude. How much time does one need to spend teaching con law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the county to be considered to have “experience with constitutional law”?
Can you even answer just one question like a grownup?
Sean, I’m not inside Joaquin’s head but I’ll venture a guess:
(However long Barack Obama taught) + a bit more.
Or, alternatively…
(However long a conservative taught) – a bit less.
joaquin says: “I hope you guys realize that you are not only embarrassing yourselves…”
Wow.
The total disconnect there is … just wow.
Oh this is too funny.
I guess you will now say that he went straight from High School to being a law professor.
And not just a law professor, but one of the most brilliant professors in the country!
And not just a brilliant law professor, but he also taught law while being a community activist, and also helping blind children cross the street!!
Allow me to smack that EASY button!
It’s been fun laddies, but it is St. Patties Day and there’s a couple of pints of Guinness waiting fer me……..and a Hoyo Robusto!
No one here seems to care if he is a law professor besides you Joaquin, the only thing anyone is debating is his experience with Con Law. Which he has by virtue of his 12 years lecturing on it.
Twelve years teaching consitutional law at one of the premiere schools of law on the planet.
joaquin: Bah! That’s nothing!
Tell you what, chester. It beats the crap out of anything that ever happened at Regent U. Your people spent the last eight years kissing up to that sort. How’d that work out?
joaquin: I guess you will now say that he went straight from High School to being a law professor.
Nobody said that, but then nobody is surprised the only response you can give is to set up a straw man to complain about a something that nobody did.
And not just a law professor, but one of the most brilliant professors in the country!
Nope. Still nobody who said that except you. I suppose refuting your own made-up arguments is a lot easier than dealing with reality.
And not just a brilliant law professor, but he also taught law while being a community activist, and also helping blind children cross the street!!
And now I’d just say you’re being silly and hyperbolic, except from all the other comments you’ve made I really can’t be certain that you don’t actually believe that.
Allow me to smack that EASY button!
As in, take the easy way out by ignoring both reality and what other people actually say to live in your own little distorted fantasy world where you don’t have to actually ever make sense.
Basically just the textbook definition of a troll, I think. Using logic and reason with Joaquin is probably futile. Just as well try using html code on a rock.
Parthy, I find his onomatopoetic ejaculations strangely persuasive. I, for one, was convinced to oppose universal health care by a provocatively argued “pfffft!”
Man, now that you put it that way. Between pffft and Farris’ many warnings that government doctors eat babies, I suddenly see the light. Death to the commies!
Are you actually a conservative parody, like Jon Swift or Stephen Colbert?
No. He’s a jackass.
‘Nuff said.
Maybe you should ask the scholarly, constitutional law professor Barrack Obama about the proposed 100% taxation of AIG bonuses and how that relates to monetary punishment rather than a criminal conviction.
Maybe you should also ask him about constitutional notions of equal protection, and doesn’t a 100% levy go beyond taxation and become confiscation?
Have at it.
Barack’s response may be…”what?” Do you mean “is this a bill of attainder?” To get an answer first you need a reasonable question. Yours seems…unwieldy. (Equal protection? Really?)
Maybe you should ask the scholarly, constitutional law professor Barrack Obama about the proposed 100 percent taxation of AIG bonuses
If that proposal actually has legs, I imagine someone will ask him. He’ll probably have an interesting answer.
Is that what you meant?