Hall of Shame

Discussion in 'FirearmsTalk Support and Suggestions' started by opaww, Jul 3, 2009.

  1. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Anyone think a Hall of shame section where we once a month post a person group or origination that has acted shamefully toward our Constitution, Bill of Rights and/or gun ownership will be listed along with a write up of how they are qualifies for the Hall of Shame?

    This should be voted on by supporting members and the one with the most votes will get posted.
     
  2. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    Great idea - it would also play an important roll in the upcoming elections as a reminder of all the scumbags that should be voted out of office and why. People tend to forget, this way there will be a permanent record which can be used as a referrence.
     

  3. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    To nominate someone for the Hall of Shame it would go something like this.

    Obama

    Because he is among the worst presidents in history, with his ever increasing attempts to circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Forcing socialists’ agendas, socializing our very industry. Ect

    Then when we have 5 names for the month we vote by poll as to who should be the Hall of Shame awardee. Or have nominates open for say 5 days and then vote on who it is.
     
  4. jng2985

    jng2985 New Member

    150
    0
    0
    If obama is 1 and rightfully so..

    I choose Sonia Sotomayor, for being a racist and having the majority of her rulings over turned.

    link.. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html

    Every thing I would type here is better laid out out in this article..
    Article/reasons:
    Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
    Rick Moran
    If senators vote on Sonia Sotomayor's track record, they might want to look at the 60% reversal rate when her decisions reach the Supreme Court.

    Writing at The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen offers a reason:

    Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

    Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)


    The Ricci case is likely to increase that percentage of reversals as most court watchers expect the Supreme Court to right the terrible wrong Sotomayor did the firefighters. The case is just one more indication that Sotomayor is not fit to sit on the court where many of her opinions have been tossed aside.

    Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times , thinks that the reversal rate may be a potent line of attack for the opposition:

    With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

    Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

    "Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.


    There is no chance Obama will withdraw her name (unless some personal trouble emerges) nor is it likely that she will be defeated on the floor of the senate.

    But the American people should be shown just what our president thinks of the Supreme Court to nominate such a candidate to sit in judgment on our most vital cases involving our principles and rights.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  5. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    How about Dick Cheney for shooting his hunting buddy in the face?
    ;) j/k, no sense in bringing up old stuff.
     
  6. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    Maybe some examples of why a person was nominated would be a better idea than just "opinion". (ie. Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Orin Hatch,Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Olympia Snowe & George Voinovich - all Republicans and all guilty of voting "aye for the nomination of staunch anti-gun, pro-UN small arms ban, Harold Koh to the position of Legal Advisor for the State Dept.) It's hard to refute facts, whereas anyone can have an unsubstantiated opinion or personal dislike. Stating that Obama is the worst President, Sotomayer is a racist, or Cheney is a poor shot, while all are true IMO, are nothing more than personal opinion without examples to back up the accusations...facts are irrefutable and will reduce the rants and pissing matches will will undoubtedly ensue as Orangello demonstrated...:D
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  7. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    agreed, along with links that people can read.
     
  8. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    9
    38
    Funny idea.

    Maybe each month we have a thread for a couple weeks to get names, then a poll, followed by the Announced person?
     
  9. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Nomanation for Hall of Shame should look something like this

    Harold Hongju Koh

    Legal Advisor to the State Department

    Though there is a lot to say good and bad about this person I am nomanating him for The Hall of Shame because of his stance on the use of international laws to influence the judical cases in America.

    Harold Hongju Koh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Koh has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system. Arguing that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement"[27] Koh has traced the influence of decisions from foreign courts throughout the history of United States Supreme Court and the American court system.[28] Critics of this approach, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other commentators have observed that the “use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process."[29][30]

    Obama Supreme Court Candidate Harold Koh—Part 1 - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

    The Supreme Court has now divided into transnationalist and nationalist factions, which hold sharply divergent attitudes toward transnational law. The transnationalist faction—which includes Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and at times, Justice Kennedy—tends to follow an approach suggested by Justice Blackmun in the late 1980s: that U.S. courts must look beyond national interest to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and must “consider if there is a course that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.” In contrast, another group of Justices, which includes the new Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, seems committed to a more nationalist course.

    Obama Supreme Court Candidate Harold Koh—Part 2 - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

    Why should liberals care if Blackmun was an indecisive, unsophisticated craftsman, unconcerned about dressing up his humane impulses in legal reasoning? "I'd rather have Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe to get to the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning," says Harold Koh of Yale, a former Blackmun clerk.

    Let us not forget that Koh was one of 5 choices for nomination to the supreme court to replace the out going supreme court justice which Sonia Sotomayor ended up as the administrations choice. Along with Koh’s very anti-gun stance he is now in place for nomination for the next spot to open in the supreme court
     
  10. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    Do I even need to post links if I nominate Eric Holder? :eek:
     
  11. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    112
    0
    0
    Great idea if we can get folks to only post supportable facts with links to references. There are a great many politicians who routinely vote in a manner that tends to cripple the Bill of Rights.

    Then again, I think "we the people" need to vote every incumbent out of office during the next few election cycles. The days of "career" politicians really needs to end.
     
  12. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    I'm in, nuf said. :)
     
  13. ACES 6

    ACES 6 New Member

    191
    0
    0
    Me too. I'm all about it. Especially if we nominate Sotomayor...
     
  14. hunter Joe

    hunter Joe New Member

    2,361
    1
    0
    I really like Opaww's format. It's not enough just to throw names out there, we need to educate each other on those that do dastardly deeds. My hats is again off to you Senior Opaww, although I'd rather be hunt'n. Joe
     
  15. bb1

    bb1 New Member

    13
    0
    0
    Not Dick Cheney

    Vice President Cheney should not be made a member of this list. For one thing, the guy he shot was a Lawyer. He wasn't my Lawyer. He is Dick Cheney.
     
  16. bb1

    bb1 New Member

    13
    0
    0
    Put John McCain on the list. Remember in 2001. The NRA wanted money to stop McCain? He said that gunshows should be banned. That was where Al Qaeda acquired weapons. I would rather fight Obama than worry when McCain was going to stab me in the back again
     
  17. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    Uncle Teddy is pretty much a given in my book. But, dredging up his misdeeds now does not serve a purpose (IMHO). He's dead, good riddance. I think our energies would be better spent on the living azz hats.
     
  18. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0
    I'd be up for this. Only trouble is, there's only one name that would really qualify for 'Hall of Shame' status (and the only one which might make the vaguest sense to you guys) and that rolled-gold honour would go to John Winston Howard for his truly disarming qualities :rolleyes:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. RIAC

    RIAC New Member

    1
    0
    0
    i thank that is an excellent idea and yes....we can then keep track to make sure we do not vote these hall of shamers into any office where they may do more harm than is already being done.:cool: