User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 10:15:50 PM EDT
[#1]
My wife has been before Supreme Court judge RICHARD SANDERS several times with cases. And she thinks he is a flaming idiot. I guess she has had cases that she should have won but lost because he is unjust. She said he acts very liberal. My wife is very conservitive. Thats all I know. If you want more input ask and I'll see if she will post more details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 11:58:47 PM EDT
[#2]
RS_C,
Its things like that which make me wish they had to claim a side as judges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2004 4:42:13 AM EDT
[#3]
It would be nice to see the reasoning and perhaps a brief note on how they came up with those recommendations. I am not disputing it nor endorsing it. I just think it would be difficult to blindly follow that list without a little input on how they chose the names on it.
RS_Coyote, would it be too much to ask you to put in red or blue next to the names a number indicating any disputes with their selections based on individual posts in this thread, such as your wife's opinion? Please do ask if she could perhaps provide some examples of how she came to her conclusion. I know it's a lot to ask but it would be much appreciated. For example:
Of course, if R-32 chimes in that he doesn't like some district representatives hair color, no need to add that on the list, but if he says he thinks (s)he's not our friend and gives a little bit of reasoning, add it. (purely hypothetical example  ) Then we can read the posts to see if we agree with the dissent. If this is something you don't want to get into, do you mind if I edit your post to do this? I didn't want to just go in and do that without running it by you first. Thanks Jim edited to add: Perhaps we could use red for disagreement with their selection, and blue for people who provide examples in this thread that show it is a good choice? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2004 11:34:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Jim (JAFO) Please go ahead and take over this post. I have been Bear hunting and don't have the time. And I'm sure you will do a better job than I could. Thank You |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2004 9:09:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Okay, beginning now, if anyone has any comments to make about people on this list, please do so in this thread. I will add a red -1, -2, etc for each comment about a person that is negative. I will add a blue +1, +2, etc for comments reinforcing the WAC position on recommending each nominee. This is NOT scientific, and I will try not to add them without at least a logical explanation as to why someone thinks they are a good choice or bad. I did add a -1 next to Sanders on some pretty weak information from RS_Coyote's wife. I do not mean to offend in any way, but basically it's just saying she thinks he's liberal. Hopefully she can provide some examples as to how she came to this conclusion, but if not, no biggie. Just remember that this is only outsider opinion after the fact, and make your own decisions on whether to believe what is posted here or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2004 9:53:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Jim you put a good idea to work. But looks like we are a little late in the game. Any how I spoke with my wife some more about the issues she had with this judge. And basically because of her line of work she has the opinion she has. I'm not going into detail about what she does. But it has to do with insurance. And she has to go to court often.
So the bottom line is if their was a 2nd amendment issue/case before RICHARD SANDERS how would he rule? I don't know. And who is running against him? Is he the better of the two evils? Guess WAC thought so. I'm not into debating politics or candidates, this is one of my week areas. But I do try to figure out who the good guys are to vote for. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2004 6:09:22 PM EDT
[#7]
I understand about the line of work and not openly discussing it here. I just wanted to make it clear that the reasons weren't specific. I also understand that Liberal is Liberal. I question where they got the info from or who made the decision for them to add him to the list, since judges are supposedly non-partisan. I wonder if a WAC person knows him, or did they research his cases, or ??? (That's rhetorical, I know you can't answer that). It is pretty late in the game. Never too late for someone to chime in though if they bother looking it over and have any information to add. C'mon folks. Anyone have any opinions that are against or with the WAC opinions for selecting these people? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
