jark831

Are you sure? I don't want to argue but I just kinda browsed your article history on huffpost and there seems to be a large amount of (1) clickbait and (2) headlines that tell you absolutely nothing.

I went to "Trump’s Lawyers Argue The President Is Too Important For State Court" and browsed through it. With regard to this quote: "President Donald Trump’s longtime lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, stood in state Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that Justice Jennifer Schecter didn’t have the authority to push forward a defamation suit brought against the president by sexual harassment accuser Summer Zervos."

why do you have to finish it up with "In other words, Trump is above the law." ? Why not give a little analysis as to the law and how state and federal courts might be different? It seems like you're spinning it into the idea that laws don't apply to the presidency without giving any support to that idea.

What about this headline - "Scenes From A Drunken Huddle Of Angry White Men" ....what is that supposed to convey? A reader literally has no idea what the point of that article is or what it's about...until you click on it.

what about this one - "All The Republicans At Roy Moore’s Party Had The Same Reaction"

there might be more, I only did a quick run through.

but could you care to explain as to why these articles and their contents don't amount to clicky headlines but are instead solidly reported stories?

yeah I came to this thread specifically to find an answer this exact question...the few posts above it and many posts below it have been answered

what's the point in doing an AMA like this if you won't answer the tough ones

[serious]

this is interesting. FWIW I am a lawyer, but I suppose that doesn't matter much for this discussion...but you really view your characterization as fair?

firstly, I'm surprised someone would equate appointing justices when there is a slot to fill with actually increasing the number of spaces on the court in order to increase the likelihood of getting what you want

secondly, what exactly are the qualifications of a SCOTUS justice to you?

Gorsuch went to Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford; he clerked for two SCOTUS justices as well as a DC COA judge; he spent 10+ years in private practice, and spent ~10 years as a federal judge

Kavanaugh was a double Yale grad; clerked for a SCOTUS judge, a 3rd circuit judge, and had a fellowship with the solicitor general; spent 8-10 years in private practice, and then spent 12 years as a federal judge

Barrett is less qualified, but still went to Notre Dame; clerked for the 7th Circuit and SCOTUS; spent some time in private practice; and spent a few years as a federal judge

if anything, Elena Kagan was the least qualified of the more recent appointees by far, and yet she has been a great justice so far.

I really wish SCOTUS could be less partisan, though I know that's essentially impossible.... but I'm surprised the term 'court packing' has somehow changed from largening the court to appointing likeminded justices....I'm wondering, have you done much research regarding FDR's New Deal programs and how they were regularly found unconstitutional? it's easy to say that the programs were designed to accomplish a certain goal, but I'm just curious as to whether you've actually researched the constitutionality of those programs and whether the court was making the right decisions in those cases... I personally start to get autocratic vibes from a president willing to increase the size of the Court just to get what he wants

interested in your thoughts

[serious]

yeah I can't really get on board with your defense of their response. I think it would be perfectly fine to give the answer given if the OP had asked about the tendencies of Trump and Biden to lie.... but the OP asked for the 'biggest lie' by each candidate....so instead, they responded by indicating that Biden lies like the average politician and gave an example of a single lie he has told....they then went onto say that Trump has made over 20,000 false statements.....but still didn't tell us his biggest lie.

so why would I want them to explain that Trump "lies orders of magnitude more than even a typical politician" when that wasn't the question asked?

like I said I'm totally on board with them, if prompted, finding and indicating that Trump lies more than Biden (assuming the numbers indicate that) ... but to me it's totally dishonest for a fact checker to avoid the question and answer an unasked question, with an obvious skew, no less

for clarification, I am equally opposed to obstruction by a republican-controlled Senate...and I think that Garland should've become a justice. I just personally view the idea of increasing the size of the court as worse than what either party has done so far.