Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 08, 2019

"Would you appoint him [Obama] to the Supreme Court?" Colbert questioned. "Hell yes!" Biden responded. He then added, "I don't think he'd do it but he's fully qualified."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The opposite of success isn't failure; it is name dropping.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That would trigger so many people. :)

#1 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-09-08 01:40 PM | Reply

Would love to see it just to witness racist (R)tarded brains exploding.
Black out Brett is the "qualified" so most guys working the fry machine at McDonalds are too.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-08 03:22 PM | Reply

Really? After being slapped down by the Supreme Court over and over while he was president? I think the SC is best served with people who actually know the law.

"Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President"

www.cato.org

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-08 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's flailing.

#4 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-09-08 08:22 PM | Reply

Obama isn't qualified for the Food Court.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-08 10:09 PM | Reply

That will certainly own the (R)tards.

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-09 06:30 AM | Reply

""Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President""

No, the American people lost more to the Roberts Court than any court in history. The idea that Obama lost is ridiculous on its face. He had a right wing court from the first day of his Presidency. Really Goat, you are getting less intelligent as you age.

But, I totally agree with Biden. I'd love for Obama to be on our Supreme Court or back in the Senate. Wherever he lands it will be good for America. Great man shouldn't be retired at such a young age.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 08:41 AM | Reply

And Joke posts his entirely embarrassing statement about a great man. Proving his is aptly named Joke.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 08:44 AM | Reply

No, the American people lost more to the Roberts Court than any court in history. The idea that Obama lost is ridiculous on its face. He had a right wing court from the first day of his Presidency. Really Goat, you are getting less intelligent as you age.
But, I totally agree with Biden. I'd love for Obama to be on our Supreme Court or back in the Senate. Wherever he lands it will be good for America. Great man shouldn't be retired at such a young age.

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI

Did you even look at Goat's link?

I'll bet you didn't.

Obama got smacked down more than 10 times by unanimous 9-0 decisions.

Face it, you don't view the court as upholding law. You never have. It's there to delivery political victories for you and nothing more.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 09:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Obama would be bored out of his mind as a justice.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 09:12 AM | Reply

Hey, It wouldn't be the first time a former president has become a Justice on the Supreme Court. The only way that could happen would be for the Dems to win the next election, and that is looking increasingly remote. Keep Ruth healthy.

#11 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-09 11:45 AM | Reply

"Face it, you don't view the court as upholding law. You never have."

At least not since 2000. Before that I did. Not after. Later, Sandra Day Oconnor said she agreed with me.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 05:16 PM | Reply

Only if he dons his comfortable walking shoes and stands with Wisconsin teachers.. oh, wait.

#13 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-10 01:31 AM | Reply

Biden Suggest Appointing Barack Obama To The Supreme Court

Well. Biden just lost Jeff's vote.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-10 01:44 AM | Reply

like he ever had it.

#15 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-09-10 01:56 AM | Reply

Well. Biden just lost Jeff's vote.

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-09-10 01:44 AM | REPLY

Giggles. Ain't that the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-10 02:02 AM | Reply

I'd love to see Barack and Michelle appointed, for the sole purpose of watching rtards' heads explode. SCOTUS is a joke now anyways; might as well complete the punchline.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-10 01:28 PM | Reply

Damn, do we need a commie in the SC?

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-10 02:16 PM | Reply

It really doesn't matter. RBG will be off the court in short order and a conservative appointed in her place - I hope another like Thomas. Then, if Barry is appointed, he will be just as ineffective in a permanent minority on the court as he was as a president. Thanks to Trump, Barry's stain on this country is almost completely erased - other than the racial tension he promoted.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 08:54 PM | Reply

It really doesn't matter. RBG will be off the court in short order
#19 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-09-10 08:54 PM | FLAG: ghoulishly waiting for RGB's death.

Keeping it classy IRA-GHOULBERG.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-10 08:58 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Actually, I think it already happened. When every other message out of her mouth is stating "I'm still alive", it makes one wonder.

Either way, she has been a stain on the court with her 100% party line votes. She was a big part of the court being too politicized and I will be happy to see her off of it. I don't like Roberts - but at least he seems impartial and dedicated to the law. RBG is dedicated to pushing a liberal agenda that the Dems can't enforce through elections so they turn to fascism in the courts.

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 09:09 PM | Reply

#21

Thanks for the breakdown, Ghoulberg.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-10 09:11 PM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Honest question for you - do you believe that RBG rules solely on the basis of the law without any bias for a liberal agenda?

#23 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 09:18 PM | Reply

"I'd love to see Barack and Michelle appointed, for the sole purpose of watching rtards' heads explode.

#17 | POSTED BY JOE "

Really? Your "simple things for simple minds" pleasure is more important to you than judicial expediency?

Wow.

I heard someone say you are a lawyer. Yeah. Right. A real lawyer would never put his simple minded partisan pleasures above the law.

#24 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-10 09:18 PM | Reply

do you believe that RBG rules solely on the basis of the law without any bias for a liberal agenda?

Do you think any of them are unbiased?

Name one, Iragoldgberg.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-10 09:24 PM | Reply

Name one, Iragoldgberg.
#25 | POSTED BY REDIAL

So that is you accepting that she is biased?

#26 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 09:53 PM | Reply

So that is you accepting that she is biased?

No, I'm asking you, Iragolderg, for an example of one that you think is not.

I have to work early, but I can wait for a bit.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-10 09:57 PM | Reply

Times up. Iragoldberg can't name an unbiased SCOTUS member.

Explains a lot.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-10 10:18 PM | Reply

"Times up. Iragoldberg can't name an unbiased SCOTUS member.
Explains a lot.

#28 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

How do you define unbiased? Roberts has voted with the liberal and conservative sides on different issues.

Also, it should be noted that the liberal justices vote together. The conservative ones are more likely to break ranks. So it could be said that the conservative justices are more unbiased than the liberal ones

www.usatoday.com

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-10 10:28 PM | Reply

How do you define unbiased?
#29 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Pretty sure he wanted to get Ghoulberg's opinion.

Not to deal with your trolling, partisan nonsense.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-10 10:41 PM | Reply

"No, I'm asking you, Iragolderg, for an example of one that you think is not.
I have to work early, but I can wait for a bit.
#27 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

I would say Robert and Kennedy (now off) are pretty down the middle - but are not unbiased.

I would define bias as reading something into a law which was not actually there - thereby trying to ascertain intent rather than just using the words as written. In this sense, if you just use the words as written - you don't have a liberal or conservative bias - you are simply deferring to the people that wrote the law with the idea that they actually knew what they were doing.

It is the liberal justices that are constantly reading into law things that are not stated. Which is why they think the 2nd amendment does not mean what it clearly states but a right to an abortion is clearly covered without it being mentioned.

For me, I would prefer that we put the onus on the law-makers in Congress and away from the law interpreters on the court. Even though the court is swinging my way ideologically now, I would like to its powers vastly scaled back so that they are no longer legislating from the bench.

#31 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 10:45 PM | Reply

"How do you define unbiased?
#29 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
Pretty sure he wanted to get Ghoulberg's opinion.
Not to deal with your trolling, partisan nonsense.

#30 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

Who said he can't get it?

This is an open forum. If redial did want other input, he should email him.

And my point is valid. The conservatives are less biased than the liberals on the Supreme court.

Does being Redial's spokesperson pay well?

I find it quite odd that you find my stating a fact and backing it up with a credible source as "trolling". Perhaps you need to look up that word before you use it again.

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-10 10:45 PM | Reply

The conservatives are less biased than the liberals on the Supreme court.
#32 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Although this is clearly the case, the fact that Dems are trying to pack the court with biased ideologues is forcing the GOP to nominate justices only after passing a purity test. This defeats the purpose of the court. I wish the Dems would have picked competent justices that can rule impartially so the GOP would do the same - but, even a guy like Roberts won't be nominated now. To fix the problem, we need to scale back the power of the courts. Force legislators to write clear laws so the need to interpret is reduced.

#33 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 10:51 PM | Reply

SCOTUS conservative justices are absolutely less biased than liberal justices.

With the really impactful cases there is never any doubt as to where Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are going to fall. Yet, there's always some uncertainty on the other side and that's where the debate is usually at.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-10 10:56 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Currently the wild card is Roberts - and that is only because he doesn't follow a consistent legal procedure. I think he is biased in the sense that his goal is to have a balanced court - which should not be his goal.

Regardless, we won't even get another Roberts at this point. I think the GOP was burned by how the Dems went after a guy like Kavanaugh (far from a far right wing guy). They foolishly thought the Dems would be more accepting of a center-right justice. With the way that went down, I doubt they will ever nominate another justice unless that justice makes Scalia look like a progressive. It it is going to be a straight party line vote regardless, might as well appoint the one that gives you the most political advantage.

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-10 11:02 PM | Reply

The conservatives are less biased than the liberals on the Supreme court.
#32 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

What are you basing your opinion on?

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 12:54 AM | Reply

"What are you basing your opinion on?

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-09-11 12:54 AM "

Not an opinion. I posted a link upthread. It's in the post you got pissy about me answering redial.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 12:58 AM | Reply

Not an opinion. I posted a link upthread.
#37 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

The statement, "The conservatives are less biased than the liberals on the Supreme court." is an opinion.

The article you linked, which I just read, showed that statistically, judges appointed by democrats tended to vote more similarly. It was addressing Trump's appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Showing that they may end up being more moderate than people fear.

But. It doesn't discuss any of the actual cases. I was wondering what they were voting on, the content of the bills, perhaps it would expose their biases.

Or perhaps the content of the bills prove they were justified in their decisions.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 03:04 AM | Reply

""The conservatives are less biased than the liberals on the Supreme court." is an opinion."

No, it's a fact. The conservative judges are more likely to vote with the liberals than the liberals are to vote with the conservatives proving the conservative judges are more flexible and less biased.. The numbers prove that. It is an inarguable point. Deal with it.

#39 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 03:10 AM | Reply

Condistentcy is not evidence of bias.

Learn that.

#40 | Posted by bored at 2019-09-11 03:35 AM | Reply

Neither is consistancy.

#41 | Posted by bored at 2019-09-11 03:37 AM | Reply

The conservative judges are more likely to vote with the liberals than the liberals are to vote with the conservatives

The article you linked only supports that one sentence.

From there, you're open to draw your own conclusions.

Your conclusion to the information is it is "proving the conservative judges are more flexible and less biased.."

But, where does bias come into the equation?

Until you know what they were voting on, I'm not sure what flexibility has to do with anything. Statistics can provide only so much data, the rest is your interpretation.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 03:39 AM | Reply

"#42 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

The numbers are there Spin as you like and believe what you want to believe just like you did yesterday when you believed a 30 year old story and its numbers. And just as I said yesterday, TDS sure ----- up a person's head, even when proven wrong.

Bye now, denier.

#43 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 03:59 AM | Reply

believe what you want to believe just like you did yesterday when you believed a 30 year old story

I didn't originally post the article, but yes, you're right, when quoting it, I didn't realize it was an article about a 30 year old article. I immediately dropped it when you pointed it out.

The numbers are there Spin as you like and believe what you want to believe

There's no spin. I'm not questioning the numbers. I don't doubt the article in the slightest.

I already accepted that in #38.

But, it doesn't prove the judges simply voted on something because it favored the Democratic Party, or liberals.

It doesn't prove any bias.

Which is why you'd need to see the cases they voted on to show they blindly supported one party over the other, or one ideology over another.

Then you'd have a case for bias and I'd agree with you.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 04:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort