What? District Court judges are Article III judges, they all have lifetime appointments. They cannot be removed without impeachment. Same with Circuit and Supreme Court. Magistrates are 8 year terms, Bankruptcy 14.
Ive just skimmed this thread since my last post but does anyone else find it ironic that Obama supporters who have threatened to not vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomition are upset that Clinton supporters who have donated a lot to the Democrats are making a fuss if the Democratic rules (super-delegates aren't held to support the winner of the popular vote or pledged delegates) aren't followed? It is fairly ironic for you guys to be arguing about the good of the party when many of you have already stated you care more about Obama (or just hate Clinton more) than you do about the party.
What you're saying makes sense, but there are alot of people out there who think having Clinton in the Whitehouse would be worse than McCain. Some people cross party lines when certain candidates suck a whole lot of ass. As a voter, that's our right. As prominent members of the Democratic party, however, Obama and Clinton need to put their party above their squabbles, keep it clean, and keep the Democrats from looking like a bunch of bickering morons.
Oh, it's total hypocrisy. Listen to Michelle Obama -- she definitely wouldn't support the party if Hillary won the nomination. I'm really convinced that Revvum Wright has polluted her mind. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TOVHf9HPEJM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TOVHf9HPEJM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Michelle may want to think about her own big mouth and how she's not exactly serving as an assert to Barack. I feel that Barack shares many of Michelle's opinions (where do you think she gets them from....), but he hides them well behind his front
This would make some small sense if it was a tie or if they had used similarly desperate and negative attacks on each other. It isn't and they haven't. Only one candidate has blatantly misrepresented the other on various issues (including health care, abortion rights, Iraq and party loyalty), only one candidate has repeatedly questioned the other's readiness to be president and/or commander in chief (and has done so while suggesting the Republican candidate IS indisputably ready for both). That candidate is Hillary Clinton, and she has demonstrated again and again that she cares more about her personal career than she does about electing a Democrat in November. Why should Obama supporters (or anyone else for that matter) put a premium on electing a Democrat even if its not their guy when Hillary doesn't? It has been reported virtually EVERYWHERE over the last week that Hillary has one and only one path to the nomination and that that path requires convincing super-delegates -- and meanwhile a great lot of the nation -- that Obama CANNOT win and wouldn't be ready to be president if he did. Everybody knows Obama has a better than 90% chance at this point of being the Democratic nominee and Hillary's only way to stop him is to utterly destroy him. Not to prove she's just the better candidate -- that ship has sailed -- but to prove that he is utterly unacceptable. And so she is doing everything she can to make that case. Obama has done nothing at all comparable to that. In light of all that, it is passing stupid to suggest that Obama supporters should apply the same criteria to supporting a possible Clinton candidacy as Clinton supporters ought to apply to supporting Obama. But I don't expect you (or Deckard) to get that or agree. I've been making the same points for months now. You guys either have me on ignore or you're in willful denial of the facts.
p.s. to judoka... I'm all for following the rules. And if the insane fantasy world that Clinton lives in -- in which super-delegates are going to break for her contrary to the pledged delegate/popular vote results even when everyone knows they aren't -- somehow comes true, the rules are the rules and I'm fine with that. But please don't tell me with a straight face that Clinton favors playing by the rules in any case whatsoever except but they benefit her. Clinton is on video and audio tape saying, "It's clear that the results of the Michigan primary won't matter." But since she can't win without MI and FL, now she's saying that if they don't "matter" she will lead a credentials fight at the convention. It's worth noting, by the way, that if she said anything close to what she's saying now leading up to NH, she would have lost there and lost badly. And the race would have been over. She will do anything to win. These people don't care about the rules. They only care about winning. And if they can't have the nomination this time they'll do everything they can to weaken our nominee so she'll be able to run again in 2012. As a Democrat, I say **** that. As a Democrat, I say let's support any Democrat that gets the nomination without chaning the rules over and over such that they receive the benefits and without repeatedly saying the freaking Republican would be a better president than their Democratic rival. That leaves one candidate. And I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Never ever ever never.
I see a lot of stubborn, hard headed liberals in this thread who are unwilling to factor in the point that we have new information since Hillary made these statements. The fact that the race IS this close was not known back before we started. Given the new information, many feel it would truly be a shame for the people of Michigan and Florida to not have a vote. They're Americans just the same as the people of all the others states in the union, and deserve to have their vote counted. It seems like Obama is trying to pull a "gotcha" here.
I'd like to direct the BBS' attention to this lie posted below by Batman Jones. Sadly, when it comes to Obama, Batman has been telling quite a few fibs lately. Anyways, read the quote below from Batman Jones then read Mickey Kaus' article at Slate about the very first speech Obama ever heard at Trinity. Sorry to destroy your credibility here Batman, but these lies and rumors just can not be left alone to propagate. Article which proves the post above to be a lie: http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/ "White Man's Greed" Obama's very first service at Wright's church was ... controversial. By Mickey Kaus Updated Friday, March 28, 2008, at 3:35 PM ET On his radio show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt played excerpts of Barack Obama reading from his autobiography, Dreams of My Father. In one, Obama remembers a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright: [T]he pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope. "The painting depicts a harpist," Revernd Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Untill you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation. It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits." And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. ... [E.A.] Sounds ... controversial! Keep in mind: a) Obama isn't disapproving of this sermon. In the book he weeps at the end of it; b) Demonstrating that at least some blaming of "white greed" for the world's sins--which Obama now criticizes-- isn't an exceptional topic for Rev. Wright in a few wacky sermons ("the five dumbest things") that Obama may or may not have missed. It's at the quotidian core of the Afrocentric philosophy that Obama says drew him to the church; c) Indeed, in his big March 18th race speech Obama reads the passage from his book that describes his emotional reaction to this very sermon (his "first service at Trinity")--how it made "the story of a people" seem "black and more than black." d) This is also the sermon that gave Obama the title of his next book, The Audacity of Hope. e) The "profound mistake" of this sermon is not that Wright "spoke as if our society was static"--Obama's analysis on Feb. 18th. The problem is that "white folks' greed" is not the main cause of a "world in need." I'm not saying voters shouldn't cut Obama a lot of slack on Wright's anti-white fulminations. But the Senator should have spoken up publicly against the semi-paranoid "white greed" explanation a long time ago, no? And he could show a little humility. Again, this wasn't the occasion for him to be lecturing everyone else. ...
I'm not a Dem but you miss the point completely. If you cannot see the difference between individual voters voicing their opinion here and the very public extortion by these "large donors" who demand Pelosi change her stand, then I can't say much for you. You don't want to see the difference. Fine, we all have our moments of density. Or more likely, you are just as biased in your view as the Obama worshipers.
I'm pretty sick of this BS characterization too. I've been a Democrat all my life and a "good" one, as they say. I don't worship Obama, I don't think he walks on water. I think he's a freaking good candidate and would be a great president and so I support him. And I do think he's a different sort of politician because he doesn't push dishonest memes, like so many pols do. That's it. That doesn't make me a wide-eyed cultist and I resent the hell out of the suggestion, which is (of course) born directly of Clinton's necessary politics of hopelessness. It's a shame how cynical our society has become. JFK would be laughed off the modern stage as a pie in the sky dreamer and his supporters would be written off as a cult too. And MLK would be today's Jeremiah Wright. How awful that people are excited about politics again!
I'm really at a loss for which statement is the biggest joke out of those two. Talk about Obama-goggles.... no cred
Actually, in SDTX, the bankruptcy judges have a 7 year term. I learned that when I went to the investiture ceremony for one of our current judges.
I don't consider you an Obama-lover in the sense he can do no wrong. With the exception that you are a partisan Dem, we have similar views on this nomination: Mainly that it's anybody but Hillary (though I've felt this way a long time and you are a recent convert). For me on the GOP side, it was anybody but Rudy or Romney. Would you say that an unusual number of Obama's supporters put him too far up on a pedestal and aren't critical enough of the guy? Just curious. I'll repeat another point: You cannot equate what this "group of 20" has done with their letter to Pelosi with an elected Senator endorsing a candidate or individuals citizens who are anti-Hillary. People who do this are just as biased and whacked as anyone else.
Wait a minute. Isn't Pelosi supposedly neutral? Why don't she stay quiet like Gore or Dean and let the thing plays it out? I think it is right to call her out on that. As to whether these donors are threatening her, I think their future money are their money. It is not like they are withdrawing pledges they have already made.
So we have come to this? With all due respect Bats..and you know that I do respect you...I could not disagree with you more on this. There are only two things that Wright and MLK have in common: 1. They are African-American; 2. They are clergymen. That's about it. MLK was a positive element for change. Wright is anything but. MLK had legitimate beefs with government over the treatment of African-Americans. Wright makes up fantasies about HIV. MLK called for a better America. Wright says God D*#@ America. MLK was about peaceful protests. Wright is a rabble rouser. They share very few qualities. To attempt to equate MLK to Wright is not fair to Dr. King's legacy.
