Guess the next scotus justice.

[Anonymous]

Gerard Lynch. Might be a bit old, though. Unbelievably brilliant.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

[Anonymous]

Andrew Wilkow: "Obama's perfect SC candide is a gender-fluid, bi-racial, individual in a wheelchair, who was a victim of police brutality and lost his home to Trump in an eminent domain case"

[Anonymous]

^^ Candidate not candide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Not the PP, but I'll hazard a response: because you believe in the system. In theory at least the goal of the prosecutor is not to win, it's to see that justice is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Duke and UNC Greensboro are not on the same team. Prosecutors and defenders qlk uphold the same constitution. No one benefits when the constitutional right to a fair trial is threatened

BTW Greensboro isn't even in the acc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

"Destroy"?! Bet you don't know how to say that in Spanish, Ted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

Most black voters are going to vote for the Dems anyway and the rest of the country is basically frustrated up to here with what they perceive as black whining. That's one of the reasons why Trump is so popular.

Black voting % isn't the issue, black turnout is. Without Obama, we'll need to make sure blacks still show up in the same (or hopefully greater) number.

The issue won't have that much resonance with black voters, because there's already a black justice on the court.

You can't possibly be serious. That's really pretty insulting.

Insulting to whom? That's the political reality. Or do you think that Justice Thomas isn't "black enough"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gerard Lynch. Might be a bit old, though. Unbelievably brilliant.

Who the heck is Gerard Lynch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitch McConnell is a piece of work, declaring that Obama should leave the selection of the new justice to the next president. Who does he think died and made him God? And at the rate the GOP race is going, he should be careful what he asks for.

Also saw something in my news feed today that Mitch has approved SCOTUS nominees in election years before. Of course, it was for a Repub pres...

What McConnell's saying today is a complete, radical 180 degree departure from what he said in 2005

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

Back then he said it was the absolute right of the sitting President to have his nominations heard by the Senate.

Was he lying then or is he lying now?

He's always lying.

[Anonymous]

Judge Sri. But if the GOP decides to block him, it might put pressure on the GOP nominee to select Nikki Haley for VP, so as not to totally alienate Indian-American voters.