Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
On a related point, given the Repub logjam on judicial appointments -- and given that Clinton is the only Dem president in 24 years -- how exactly did the Dems go about stuffing the court with all these wild-eyed pinko activits?

If you include Carter, many of whose appointments still sit, the DEMs have made appointments in 12 of 27.5 years, or roughly 43.6% of all sitting judges (assuming roughly equal appointments). Even a stupid corporate lawyer like me knows how to play the odds in various jurisdictions. The pinko decisions are not coming out of South Dakota.

eta: And the GOP has turned out to be really bad at judging candidates, so that percentage is probably even higher. Maybe that's the reason for the trend towards more conservative judges - we know they are going to turn on us once appointed.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh. this was meant to call for a response from the 3 (at least) lefties who claim to do litigation.

I don't claim such insanity, but you do have a good point here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm betting the people who have been in charge of putting together or executing a document inspection find it sort of odd that people would bring up the lack of 1970 era pay records as unusual.

Depends. Am I responding to the document request or propounding it?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you include Carter, many of whose appointments still sit, the DEMs have made appointments in 12 of 27.5 years, or roughly 43.6% of all sitting judges (assuming roughly equal appointments).

And all judges appointed by Clinton are "liberal activists"? Please. With their control of the Senate and their very aggressive tactic of preventing debate on appointments, the Repubs let all those liberal activists thru in the Clinton years? Again, please.

eta: Are you really assuming that an equal number of Carter and Bush I appointees remain on the bench? Maybe you should go back to cutting the deficit.

Even a stupid corporate lawyer like me knows how to play the odds in various jurisdictions. The pinko decisions are not coming out of South Dakota.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, a stupid corporate lawyer like you appears to forget that the President appoints the federal judges in all jurisdictions -- South Dakota included.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Perhaps. Unfortunately, a stupid corporate lawyer like you appears to forget that the President appoints the federal judges in all jurisdictions -- South Dakota included.

Understood. But the lefties tend to be on the costs and not in the heartland.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And all judges appointed by Clinton are "liberal activists"? Please. With their control of the Senate and their very aggressive tactic of preventing debate on appointments, the Repubs let all those liberal activists thru in the Clinton years? Again, please.

Dems controlled the senate most of those years didn't they?

the President appoints the federal judges in all jurisdictions -- South Dakota included.

Yes, based upon recommendation of the Senators from the state.
Liberal state get more liberal Judges, and less liberal states get less liberal judges.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So it turns out the destroyed microfilm in Denver was not the only place the President's Nat Guard records could be found.
So, in other words, there are at least two significant places that the admin didn't look before it told the world "we've shown you everything" a few months ago.

The article also mentions allegations that the records were tampered with back in '97 while W was running for Governor (and while Clinton was building the greatest military force in the world). No mention of any Russian submarine involvement though.

Bush Lied!

[Sidd Finch]

Just wondering -- how many troops did the Philippines actually have in Iraq, and what were they doing?


No matter what you think of the war, it's hard to understand how anyone could think that withdrawing troops because someone took a hostage (or even multiple hostages) is a good idea.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Just wondering -- how many troops did the Philippines actually have in Iraq, and what were they doing?


No matter what you think of the war, it's hard to understand how anyone could think that withdrawing troops because someone took a hostage (or even multiple hostages) is a good idea.

I heard 50. So 1 hostage is 2% of the total. It's equivalent to 4000 US soldiers hostage. We might leave too.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm betting the people who have been in charge of putting together or executing a document inspection find it sort of odd that people would bring up the lack of 1970 era pay records as unusual.

I'm betting the people who have ever done any kind of genealogical research of military records in America would find the absence unusual. There are still payroll records of the Civil War and American Revolution. For example, a large portion of the real estate of San Bruno is dedicated to the long term storage of naval records. And navy veterans, too, but those are kept in underground vaults per usual.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Just wondering -- how many troops did the Philippines actually have in Iraq, and what were they doing?

51.

They sent the offence and the defense, but left most of the special teams at home.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm betting the people who have ever done any kind of genealogical research of military records in America would find the absence unusual. There are still payroll records of the Civil War and American Revolution. For example, a large portion of the real estate of San Bruno is dedicated to the long term storage of naval records. And navy veterans, too, but those are kept in underground vaults per usual.

Yes. there are probably records of any general type going way back. Complete records for everyone, and for just the one guy you're interested in? please. you don't expect gaps? Sidd's the only honest one.

why do you think the government would do a better job of this than your corporate clients?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
51.

They sent the offence and the defense, but left most of the special teams at home.

Yes, I checked and saw that number too. From some of the stories -- the Philippines "scaling back" and "withdrawing more troops" you'd think they had more than a busload of people there.

Though compared with some other "coalition" members the force they sent was positively robust.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Yes, I checked and saw that number too. From some of the stories -- the Philippines "scaling back" and "withdrawing more troops" you'd think they had more than a busload of people there.

Though compared with some other "coalition" members the force they sent was positively robust.

True. I believe the Slovakians only sent a volleyball team.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Just wondering -- how many troops did the Philippines actually have in Iraq, and what were they doing?


No matter what you think of the war, it's hard to understand how anyone could think that withdrawing troops because someone took a hostage (or even multiple hostages) is a good idea.

50 or so, IIRC. With those numbers, it's a less bad idea. Of course, with only 50 why bother taking one hostage?

[yes, yes, STP; I think the roster limit is 45, so the taxi squad must have come along]