Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-30-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You've not recanted or even restated that position. You've even started another thread that demonstrates very clearly that you still do not understand the separation of power and the checks and balances that Articles I-II of the United States Constitution clearly define.

I'm not taking the bait on the changing of the subject with the Bush as a democrat scenario because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand which is: you stated that the method of selecting a Supreme Court Judge is stupid, and flies in the very face of checks and balances as the method that is currently used. You are still stating political when they're judicial.

The posit of the Bush scenario shows you still don't understand the foundation of the discussion of separation of powers and the checks and balances stated in the US Constitution. If you are seriously making this a What If? It may be a discussion, but it's simple and one dimensional since it doesn't matter as to what the partisan politics, they have some bearing maybe, but not all bearing. That's about as far as that discussion can go.

Back to selecting Justices post#13, how is it stupid? post#15 How is it that they are representing partisan politics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond.

You've clarified it quite well, you aren't interested in debating this subject based on the reality of the US Constitution Articles I-III.

You clearly don't want to discuss the actual points outlined for you that actually relate to the OP.

The_Jazz · 05-31-2008, 08:33 AM

I find it ironic that the person who's explicitely stated that the Constitutional system of checks and balances is broken doesn't understand how it works. For the record. And that's "ironic" used correctly, not in the Alanis Morrisette way.

So, who exactly is the leadership of the Judicial branch that is selected by the legislature when every Federal judge is selected in the same way? Who are these "unbiased" judges that you propose we have and how are they "unbiased" when all the sitting SCOTUS justices are? Why is Hillary a bad selection and William Howard Taft wasn't?

Willravel · 05-31-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I find it ironic that the person who's explicitely stated that the Constitutional system of checks and balances is broken doesn't understand how it works. For the record. And that's "ironic" used correctly, not in the Alanis Morrisette way.

I don't find it ironic at all that someone as brilliant as you is still arguing a point I conceded days ago. (Post 91, back on Thursday).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, post 91

Edit: BTW, mea culpa about the checks and balances thing. I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly. It is proper checks and balances. I don't think two branches choosing the leadership of a different branch is a good idea, but it is checks and balances.

The executive and legislative choosing the leadership of the judicial branch IS checks and balances. How many times must I concede this point before people pay attention?

The_Jazz · 05-31-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I don't find it ironic at all that someone as brilliant as you is still arguing a point I conceded days ago. (Post 91, back on Thursday).

The executive and legislative choosing the leadership of the judicial branch IS checks and balances. How many times must I concede this point before people pay attention?

You've missed the point AGAIN. I read what you wrote, left-handed apology (for lack of a better term) that it was. I'm focused on the "good idea" aspect of your comments, specific the fact that you think that it's not a good idea.

You've admitted that checks and balances do exists. And for that I thank you. But that is a minor part of the whole. Why do you insist that the way federal judges are chosen is a bad idea? Please, there is an audience lurking in this thread waiting to hear you expound on your rationale. We have none up to this point. This one point goes all the way back to Post #2. It's the premise for me posting in this thread to begin with.

Explain, please.

mortgage007 · 06-02-2008, 09:23 AM

Hilary has shown throughout this campaign why most people do not trust her. Her personal ambitions have driven her to lie about numerous facts and have shown her to change her mind to interpret facts to suit her own cause. This is certainly not what we need for the supreme court. A justice should be scholarly, have judicial experience at the district and local level and needs to be as objective as humanly possible in applying the constitution to the facts in the case. Hillary has none of the above qualities. Simply being smart is not enough. She has made agreements, i.e. Florida and Michigan DNC rules, and signed off on them only to make a 180 degree turn when it no longer suited her. She has repeatedly insisted she is ahead in the popular vote when in fact she is not. (She is not counting causcus states and is counting Michigan when Obama was not on the ballot. Bosnia is laughable in that she claimed three seperate times to have been under fire!!.

No, there is no way this lady deserves to be on the court, in the diplomatic service or vice president. Without her last name being Clinton, she would not have even been a senator and never would have run for president.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortgage007

A justice should be scholarly, have judicial experience at the district and local level and needs to be as objective as humanly possible in applying the constitution to the facts in the case. .... Simply being smart is not enough.

The obvious inferrence I can make from the above is that you would never have wanted Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis or Felix Frankfurther on the court. Is that the case?

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 09:56 AM

Thurgood Marshall argued and won Brown v. Board of Education. He had possibly one of the most distinguished law careers in American history. Before serving on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall was appointed to and served on United States Court of Appeals. He was a judge at the federal level. While he was a judge at the federal level, he wrote 112 opinions on the court (none of which were overturned).

In contrast, Hillary Clinton served a minor role in the Watergate scandal and authored some works on children's rights, never arguing a major case. She only became an influential attorney because of her marriage and various charity work. Her Senate race was against a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly democratic state. She has never had any judicial experience.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 10:16 AM

I stand corrected, Will.

See how easy that was?

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 10:35 AM

One could also argue that Earl Warren's service as California Attorney General was judicial experience of a kind (though the supporting of the internment of Japanese Americans is probably one of the most deeply shameful moments in the history of the US).

And Louis Brandeis, of course, had a stellar litigation career.

Felix Frankfurter (with relish on a sesame seed bun) I might give you, though his law career was also much more notable than Clinton's.

I think there is a question you should ask yourself: could Hillary Clinton be the next Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis or Felix Frankfurther? To be honest, I kinda doubt it.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 10:54 AM

Will, basically you pointed out that all these guys were lawyers - just like Hillary. The thing is I have the luxury of knowing a bit about Clinton's litigation career in the 80's seeing as how much insurance business I write in Arkansas (I think it's about $6M in premium, but I didn't look it up. May be more, may be less). And she was/is a hell of a litigator. In the late 80's she took a $1M+ settlement off of one of an account I write. I know that because my client made a point of telling me. I drive by her old law firm on the way to their office from the airport. And that means that she has exactly the same qualifications as Brandeis and Frankfurther - if not more because she's been involved in the actual crafting of legislation.

Have no doubts - whatever you think of her personally she is an incredibly bright lady. That said, could she be the next Marshall et al? Given the nature of this thread thus far, I have no choice but to say "sure, anything's possible!" And lucky for me, I actually believe it.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 10:58 AM

It's also possible that I'll be president some day. What's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe Hillary (on the off change she accepted a nomination, which is something that probably should be discussed) would—not could—be a justice on par with the aforementioned justices?

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 11:04 AM

Hillary is certainly qualified...she has a strong academic law background, a strong litigation background in Ark, a strong national legal advocacy background with Childrens Defense Fund and as a Carter-appointed board member of the Legal Services Corp, and a strong federal legislative background.

In response to mortgage007...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortgage007

Hilary has shown throughout this campaign why most people do not trust her. Her personal ambitions have driven her to lie about numerous facts and have shown her to change her mind to interpret facts to suit her own cause. This is certainly not what we need for the supreme court. service or vice president. Without her last name being Clinton, she would not have even been a senator and never would have run for president.

I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest that one's demeanor during a hard fought political campaign would be the same if she were to serve on the Court.

What I dont think she has....is the interest in a judicial position.

For the most part, a USSC justice (particularly the most juinor) is a very low key position and would not provide the opportunity to focus on advocating her particular areas of interest - children/family issues, health care.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's also possible that I'll be president some day. What's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe Hillary (on the off change she accepted a nomination, which is something that probably should be discussed) would—not could—be a justice on par with the aforementioned justices?

The circle of life of this thread is complete. From post #2 we've been off the rails (entertainingly so in my book), and here's our derailer finally trying to put it back on track.

Clinton has already demonstrated that she has a talented legal mind. How talented? Well, I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question. I can't even conceive of a ratings scale that would allow an observer to compare such things, let alone actually apply one.

dc, I disagree that she wouldn't be interested. I think she is, namely for the reason that it allows her to stay in power for exactly as long as she wishes. Granted she would be in the third of the three branches (among equals, of course), but the thing about the Court is that the "power structure" there is relatively flat. No one justice is any more important than another, and the Chief's job is really no different than the most junior member's.

Finally - and I hope for the final time - are we ever going to get to discuss why the system of checks and balances is broken or not?

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 11:20 AM

One comment on checks and balances...which I firmly believe is at the beadrock of our governmental system.

The process for selecting federal judges has served us well.....the only change I might be open to considering is lifetime appointments (although the Constitution does not say lifetime...it says as long as they demonstrate good behavior).

I would be open to hearings on a proposed Constitutional amendment that would not change the judicial appointment process, but would term limit judges...perhaps 12-15 years, to extend over several administrations.

Norm Ornstein makes an interesting case.

Quote:

Whoa, you say. Lifetime appointments insulate the judicial branch from political influence, don't they? Not anymore. Is there anything more political than the Senate's unceasing battles over these nominations? Meanwhile, the nominees themselves have become politicized by the battles -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will always remain bitter over how the Senate treated him during his confirmation hearings. It's been 17 years since Senate Democrats blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and the ideological wars over the judiciary began in earnest. If the Senate can't figure out how to reach a truce in its battles over these all-important jobs, maybe the best solution is to make the jobs not quite so important.

A 15-year term would still provide insulation from political pressure; that tenure is seven years longer than any president can serve. It would allow plenty of time for a judge or justice to make a substantial contribution while diluting the efforts of any president to project his views onto future generations. ..

I dont know that I would support it, but I think its worthy of discussion in Congress.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

dc, I disagree that she wouldn't be interested. I think she is, namely for the reason that it allows her to stay in power for exactly as long as she wishes. Granted she would be in the third of the three branches (among equals, of course), but the thing about the Court is that the "power structure" there is relatively flat. No one justice is any more important than another, and the Chief's job is really no different than the most junior member's.

Hillary wants a political platform. As Loq demonstrated, the Supreme Court really isn't a political platform. If she continues on as she has, she will likely go back to being a Senator.

Or she'll make a movie about something and win an Oscar.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 11:42 AM

Will, you're confusing "politics" and "power", but that's an easy mistake to make. They're similar but mutually exclusive. SCOTUS is the ultimate "decider" - and the more you think about that statement, the more you'll realize how multilayered it is. And the thing about SCOTUS - without the reforms dc proposed (which I like, BTW) - is that it's forever. It is the culmination of a career, justices don't work that hard, and it is the pinacle of what a lawyer is supposed to aspire to be. Unless you're loquitur, who's probably hoping that Larry Flynt needs help again in the future.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 11:46 AM

The pay sucks ($208k/Associate Justices and $217/Chief Justice), at least in terms of what a top law firm partner would make.

And that $20 million debt is out there.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 11:47 AM

Politics and power can be mutually exclusive, but they are not always and certainly are not in Hillary. "Political power" is both, and it's the perfect description for Hillary Clinton's ambitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The pay sucks ($208k/Associate Justices and $217/Chief Justice), at least in terms of what a top law firm partner would make.

And that $20 million debt is out there.

A very good point. I'm sure Hillary could give speeches for $200k a pop for a few years and make up for her massive debt. She'd be wise to write a book or make a movie (as I mentioned above). Al Gore has done quite well since 2000.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The pay sucks ($208k/Associate Justices and $217/Chief Justice), at least in terms of what a top law firm partner would make.

And that $20 million debt is out there.

That's a pay raise from the $169,300 she's making now. I doubt that the debt would sway her one way or the other. It's not like Bill isn't earning or that her speaking fee wouldn't quadruple if she went to the bench.

And Will, politics and power are mutually exclusive. That's why "political" modifies "power" in your example.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

That's a pay raise from the $169,300 she's making now. I doubt that the debt would sway her one way or the other. It's not like Bill isn't earning or that her speaking fee wouldn't quadruple if she went to the bench.

But if she stays in the Senate, she can funnel money raised for her next re-election campaign (or a 2010 campaign for NY governor, which I still think is a possibility).

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 11:54 AM

dc, I really don't think that the Clintons think much about debt when it comes to this kind of thing. It certainly wasn't one of Bill's when he left office.

Cynthetiq · 06-02-2008, 11:55 AM

oh... 2010 NY governor.... hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that. Again, I didn't want her as a senator but she's been less than liberal in my opinion.

I was all excited about Spitzer initially until he got all I'm King You subjects do as I say.... and was happy to see him torn down.

of course now what a scandal that would be... Hillary and a #9 I don't know if that's even sexy or not.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 11:59 AM

At long last...the Hillary-Rudy face off...2010 in NY!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399?tid=relatedcl

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And Will, politics and power are mutually exclusive. That's why "political" modifies "power" in your example.

Maybe you can elaborate on "power"? It's a bit vague (thus the necessity of the qualifier). Monetary, political, economic, social?

Cynthetiq · 06-02-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

At long last...the Hillary-Rudy face off...2010 in NY!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399?tid=relatedcl

That is an interesting roadmap being discussed and an interesting matchup to compete against.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Maybe you can elaborate on "power"? It's a bit vague (thus the necessity of the qualifier). Monetary, political, economic, social?

Sure. I guess my example wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

The kind of power we're discussing means the ability to change the courses of lives and the course of the country. I suppose that it would include your "political power" example but also encompass aspects of monetary and social power.

The Senate is a small pool of legislators that decide lots of things that affect the common man. I'll immediately conceed that SCOTUS has less ability to resolve policy issues (or really have any affect on them at all, except in the grossest terms) but they do appear in the spotlight and have the ultimate authority on legality (in practice anyway, so I'm not counting amendments). I think the fact that this would be a lifetime appointment might hold some interest for Hillary since I personally think that she's never been a huge fan of campaigning (it's seemed obvious to me since the 1992 "60 Minutes" interview).

Dc, if you're right and her personal economics factor into this more than I give credence to, a SCOTUS seat would increase her speaking fee by quite a bit.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 12:18 PM

I may be wrong, but I think most SCOTUS justices donate any speaking fees to charity to avoid any perception of influence peddling, although its not required by any rules of the Court.

Scalia is the only one that I am aware of that keeps any fees he receives...he doesnt really give a shit about public perceptions.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I may be wrong, but I think most SCOTUS justices donate any speaking fees to charity to avoid any perception of influence peddling, although its not required by any rules of the Court.

Scalia is the only one that I am aware of that keeps any fees he receives...he doesnt really give a shit about public perceptions.

I can understand why some would, but I have to agree with Scalia on this one. If people want to pay you to speak, you should be able to keep the money. I don't think that Scalia would let a speaking fee influence him. Say what you will about him, but he is remarkably consistent.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 12:29 PM

I think SCOTUS justices should be held to the same standard as other federal judges covered by the Official Code of Conduct for United States Judges....they, and Appeals Court judges, are evidently exempt.

Quote:

Canon 5 - A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES

C (4) A judge should not solicit or accept anything of value from anyone seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judge, or from anyone whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of official duties; except that a judge may accept a gift as permitted by the Judicial Conference gift regulations.

I dont suggest that it affects Scalia's decisions....but it does create a public perception or potential "appearance of impropriety" which the code strongly discourages.

SecretMethod70 · 06-02-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

At long last...the Hillary-Rudy face off...2010 in NY!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399?tid=relatedcl

I might be tempted to move to NY to vote in that election

05-31-2008, 08:33 AM	#122 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I find it ironic that the person who's explicitely stated that the Constitutional system of checks and balances is broken doesn't understand how it works. For the record. And that's "ironic" used correctly, not in the Alanis Morrisette way. So, who exactly is the leadership of the Judicial branch that is selected by the legislature when every Federal judge is selected in the same way? Who are these "unbiased" judges that you propose we have and how are they "unbiased" when all the sitting SCOTUS justices are? Why is Hillary a bad selection and William Howard Taft wasn't? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2008, 09:23 AM	#125 (permalink)
mortgage007 Upright	Hilary need to go away entirely Hilary has shown throughout this campaign why most people do not trust her. Her personal ambitions have driven her to lie about numerous facts and have shown her to change her mind to interpret facts to suit her own cause. This is certainly not what we need for the supreme court. A justice should be scholarly, have judicial experience at the district and local level and needs to be as objective as humanly possible in applying the constitution to the facts in the case. Hillary has none of the above qualities. Simply being smart is not enough. She has made agreements, i.e. Florida and Michigan DNC rules, and signed off on them only to make a 180 degree turn when it no longer suited her. She has repeatedly insisted she is ahead in the popular vote when in fact she is not. (She is not counting causcus states and is counting Michigan when Obama was not on the ballot. Bosnia is laughable in that she claimed three seperate times to have been under fire!!. No, there is no way this lady deserves to be on the court, in the diplomatic service or vice president. Without her last name being Clinton, she would not have even been a senator and never would have run for president.

06-02-2008, 09:56 AM	#127 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Thurgood Marshall argued and won Brown v. Board of Education. He had possibly one of the most distinguished law careers in American history. Before serving on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall was appointed to and served on United States Court of Appeals. He was a judge at the federal level. While he was a judge at the federal level, he wrote 112 opinions on the court (none of which were overturned). In contrast, Hillary Clinton served a minor role in the Watergate scandal and authored some works on children's rights, never arguing a major case. She only became an influential attorney because of her marriage and various charity work. Her Senate race was against a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly democratic state. She has never had any judicial experience. Last edited by Willravel; 06-02-2008 at 10:00 AM..

06-02-2008, 10:16 AM	#128 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I stand corrected, Will. See how easy that was? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2008, 10:54 AM	#130 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, basically you pointed out that all these guys were lawyers - just like Hillary. The thing is I have the luxury of knowing a bit about Clinton's litigation career in the 80's seeing as how much insurance business I write in Arkansas (I think it's about $6M in premium, but I didn't look it up. May be more, may be less). And she was/is a hell of a litigator. In the late 80's she took a $1M+ settlement off of one of an account I write. I know that because my client made a point of telling me. I drive by her old law firm on the way to their office from the airport. And that means that she has exactly the same qualifications as Brandeis and Frankfurther - if not more because she's been involved in the actual crafting of legislation. Have no doubts - whatever you think of her personally she is an incredibly bright lady. That said, could she be the next Marshall et al? Given the nature of this thread thus far, I have no choice but to say "sure, anything's possible!" And lucky for me, I actually believe it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2008, 10:35 AM	#129 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	One could also argue that Earl Warren's service as California Attorney General was judicial experience of a kind (though the supporting of the internment of Japanese Americans is probably one of the most deeply shameful moments in the history of the US). And Louis Brandeis, of course, had a stellar litigation career. Felix Frankfurter (with relish on a sesame seed bun) I might give you, though his law career was also much more notable than Clinton's. I think there is a question you should ask yourself: could Hillary Clinton be the next Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis or Felix Frankfurther? To be honest, I kinda doubt it.

06-02-2008, 10:58 AM	#131 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's also possible that I'll be president some day. What's reasonable? Would it be reasonable to believe Hillary (on the off change she accepted a nomination, which is something that probably should be discussed) would—not could—be a justice on par with the aforementioned justices?

06-02-2008, 11:42 AM	#136 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, you're confusing "politics" and "power", but that's an easy mistake to make. They're similar but mutually exclusive. SCOTUS is the ultimate "decider" - and the more you think about that statement, the more you'll realize how multilayered it is. And the thing about SCOTUS - without the reforms dc proposed (which I like, BTW) - is that it's forever. It is the culmination of a career, justices don't work that hard, and it is the pinacle of what a lawyer is supposed to aspire to be. Unless you're loquitur, who's probably hoping that Larry Flynt needs help again in the future. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2008, 11:46 AM	#137 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The pay sucks ($208k/Associate Justices and $217/Chief Justice), at least in terms of what a top law firm partner would make. And that $20 million debt is out there. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-02-2008, 11:54 AM	#141 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	dc, I really don't think that the Clintons think much about debt when it comes to this kind of thing. It certainly wasn't one of Bill's when he left office. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2008, 11:55 AM	#142 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	oh... 2010 NY governor.... hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that. Again, I didn't want her as a senator but she's been less than liberal in my opinion. I was all excited about Spitzer initially until he got all I'm King You subjects do as I say.... and was happy to see him torn down. of course now what a scandal that would be... Hillary and a #9 I don't know if that's even sexy or not. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-02-2008, 11:59 AM	#143 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	At long last...the Hillary-Rudy face off...2010 in NY! http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399?tid=relatedcl __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-02-2008, 12:18 PM	#147 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I may be wrong, but I think most SCOTUS justices donate any speaking fees to charity to avoid any perception of influence peddling, although its not required by any rules of the Court. Scalia is the only one that I am aware of that keeps any fees he receives...he doesnt really give a shit about public perceptions. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire