OT: A Michigan Man on the SCOTUS?
This should end well...
I logged in to type literally this.
Since we are simply reporting the facts we should mention that Joan Larsen is also on the short list.
In case you were not aware, she previously taught at the University of Michigan, though she received her JD from Northwestern.
Not knowing anything about his history of prior judgments or which way he leans for key issues, that would be very exciting. This post might be too political for this board.
He would be only the second who attended Michigan for undergrad and fourth for law school. Given the esteem of the law school, that's a remarkably low number. That how you ended your post could (likely) be true comments a sad state of affairs that it isn't possible to separate politics from appreciation for a (potential) accomplishment for the University.
Aside from HLS, YLS and Columbia, MLS is actually among the top feeders for SCOTUS judges, even with just three current alums having served on the highest bench. Believe we're tied for fourth place. For the record, I think an MLS prof was also on Trump's list of candidate judges.
Joan Larsen. I took her crim pro class.
I don’t find it a sad state of affairs that people might prefer to evaluate whether or not it would actually be a positive accomplishment before appreciating said accomplishment.
if, to give a non-political example an engineer from Michigan was responsible for some significantly bad engineering event (maybe he was the head of engineering for some large firm and signed off on a design that resulted in many deaths?) would you want to appreciate the accomplishment for the University of that engineer holding such an important position?
Or, does anything the Unabomber did make you appreciate his M degree? Why use a hypothetically bad engineer when we have a really bad human being?
I thought people might be thinking ai was hyperbolic in comparing a Supreme Court justice to the Unabomber
Conservative or liberal, I would rather have him be a Michigan man than not. Go Blue!
^or her of course! Really wish the board would allow comments to be edited.
We have Ann Coulter! Rather have her?
Your post wasn't political, but discussions about SCOTUS appointments is inherently political
A Michigan grad possibly becoming a member of the Supreme Court is a worthy thread topic on this site. You never know, there could be a huge 5 star recruit who wants to study law someday. Having an alumn on the Supreme Court gives you a huge advantage.
The issue however is that there are some people out there that can't control themselves when a topic that has anything political to it comes up. Its only a matter of time before someone comes in here on there high horse thinking now is the time to try and convert people to there line of thinking.
Given the current toxic political climate any discussion of bringing the court even farther to the right is not appropriate for this board.
All conservatives are not Trump. All Republicans are not Trump.
I agree... but in this case, why would the president (or anyone for that matter) nominate someone inherently not like himself (and therefore not have the same values)?
What about discussion of bringing it to the left? Is that allowed?
I really want to give social commentary on the ironical behavior of people today with social and political leanings, but I feel it would do nothing but incite.
So I'll just say that it is always socially acceptable to discuss a more leftward lean.
The problem is that there are certain parts of the government that are not doing their job right now. We are getting exactly what I expected from the POTUS, he told us who he was. But there are other branches of government that are supposed to be checking his worst impulses and there aren’t. There are very conservative GOP members of Congress that are screaming that from the rooftops and being ignored. That is the issue with the current SC vacancy. If this is simply a POTUS “yes man” we really do have a problem. It really isn’t a right/left issue anymore, it is kind of more a “survival of this republic” issue now.
Of course it is!
Boohoo !
Boohoo !
You don't get to decide what is political and what isn't. Brian decides what is political. The criteria are:
A) Does Brian and his minions agree with it?
- If "Yes", then it is not political
- If "No", then it is political. Commence deletion.
"Wah wah wah"
FTFY. It's his site, man.
Yes. with a functioning comment mechanism. Which I am using to comment. Any questions?
No questions here I understand your chosen method of whining.
Love it or leave it.
If you don't like it, you can Git out!
That winner always does the trick
There are plenty of sites where you can espouse your opinion on what is political vs. not and exactly what you think on those particular topics. This is not one of them because the site owner and moderators (and I'd bet a majority of the users) prefer it that way. Move along
My point is not where politics do or don't belong, just the obvious double standard. Debate the presence of double standard if you like (you will lose). Otherwise, move along.
Just because you do not agree with "the standard" with which moderators edit and/or remove board posts does not make it a "double standard". So yes I will debate the presence of a double standard.
I can't figure out which term you apparently don't understand... "Debate", or "double standard"
If you believe that the stated and oft trumpeted policy of "no politics" being enforced against one brand of politics only (i.e. that which Brian et al ascribe to) is not a "double standard" than we really can't have much of a debate, can we?
I think it is you that doesn't understand the terms you are using.
First, your statement seems to apply that Brian (whom BTW, I doubt very much reads every stupid comment / thread on this board) "ascribes" to a certain brand of politics and then that he only enforces the no politics rule against that particular brand of politics -- um ok. Probably not the point you are trying to make, but the point you appear to be making nonetheless.
Second, you claim there is a double standard -- I call out that there is not a double standard just because you don't like the standard. You offer no evidence of said double standard, then claim that I don't understand the term.
You are correct - with logic like that, we really can't have much of a debate.
holy shit
Standard= no politics allowed
Double standard = two standards that are not stated in policy above. The two standards are:
1) We allow politics we agree with
2) We do not allow politics that we disagree with.
That is a double standard.
Well, actually the rule is "no politics doesn't apply to Brian" and, as noted, this post has been up for some time and not taken down even though this candidate is, I assume, not one Brian would be gung ho on. But as I've learned martyrdom flows evenly to everyone on the internet
"It would be great to see a Michigan Man on the SCOTUS instead of a damn Yalie or Harvard Homer."
Your implicit assumption is that it's a given that a "Michigan Man" on the Court is "great."
Regardless of where anybody falls on the ideological spectrum, who gives a shit what school a particular nominee matriculated from? This ain't the NFL—it's the judicial body whose decisions directly impact virtually every aspect of private and public life in the country, for good or ill.
Simply graduating from Michigan's Law School doesn't make anybody great.
Yeah, after all, Ann Coulter also graduated from UM Law.
False.
Being a Supreme Court nominee or justice is a great career accomplishment, regardless. We as graduates of the greatest university in the world love to take pride in many of our non-athlete graduates (Gerald Ford, James Earl Jones, astronauts, etc.). Nothing wrong with being excited for one of our own making it to the pinnacle of their profession.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I am betting you have a problem with the post for ideological reasons, ironic given your insistence that it doesn't matter where on the ideological spectrum you fall.
Who wrote that? Gerald Ford wasn't an athlete?
Child, please... Go ahead and google "straw man argument"
No one brags about Ford because of his athletic accomplishments.
I understand a straw man argument. My point was that looked like a quote due to the italics. Unless that was supposed to be sarcasm font. Unfortunately, I have no problem believing someone would actually say that and hope to be taken seriously.
I can't even count the number of times Michigan, and fellow fans, have talked about Ford being a center on Michigan.
That said, the comment wasn't a straw man at all. It wasn't trying to invalidate anything you said, just wondered who wrote something that contained such a false statement.
Yeah I don't see the straw man argument anywhere in there. It's just a partially well-formulated comment and partially trash. It does not seem to bring in and outside aspect contrary to the post that it replies to.
Sorry about the italics. That was unintentional.
Ford would be an obscure 1950s era interior lineman if not for his political (non-athlete) career. That's all I was saying. We take pride in him as a university community because of his becoming president. The football career is a political footnote, a la Jack Kemp.
That's a fine overall point for a larger non-Michigan audience, so I understand where you're coming from there.
But you know you're going to get some flak when telling someone to google a straw man argument when you really need to do it yourself, right?
History lesson needed. Ford played on two National Championship football teams, was elected captain, and selected as an All American. He was hardly "obscure." Oh, and he played from 1932-1935 so you had that very wrong as well. Getting your facts wrong severely impairs the credibility of your opinions.