"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect
of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in.
It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what
has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your
eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS.
Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments.

Roberts had to recuse himself from the case involving eminent domain,
because he was the judge who originally ruled for the guy trying to keep
his home. Had he heard the case, the outcome would have been different.

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Clinton appointed 341 federal judges.

http://tinyurl.com/382dq

Following data as of October, 2004:

Of the 849 total active federal judges, 201 have been appointed by the
current president, and 262 were appointed by former Republican presidents
going back to Nixon. In total, 55 percent are Republican appointees. The
remaining 45 percent were appointed by Democratic presidents stretching back
to Lyndon Johnson.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/...little-judges/

NOYB wrote:

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Wrong.

If a guy is going to barge in and stink up the NG with politics, it
might be a good idea to actually check facts rather than just blindly
regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's daily distortion.

It would be interesting to know how many of the judges are boaters.
That would be more important than whether they were appointed by a
democrat or a republican president. A judge that is a boater is more
likely to actually understand and appreciate some of the issues that
may come before his/her court relating to boating, the marine
environment, etc.

More boaters on the bench! :-)

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:46:07 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:


On 17 Sep 2006 00:20:30 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


It would be interesting to know how many of the judges are boaters.

I can state with some authority that one of the local Superior Court
Judges has a brand new 20' Gambler bass boat.

http://www.gamblerboats.com/Intimidator2000.html

I've gone fishing with him - that beast hauls some *major* butt.


There will not be a prize for the first smart ass comment.

No comment from me. I didn't know you achieved that 'rank'.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

What a weird post, weird point, lack of logic and total lack of
coherence. Its not a relevant point for this site, and this guy could
not reason his way out of a wet paper bag. I think the comment about
the effects of a diet of right wing blowhards was probably on the money
- severe indigestion from that diet may have caused this gaseous
discharge.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

Welcome to the fight, davee. In your two attempts at posting, you failed to
write anything at all in the first one, and failed to form a coherent
sentence in the second one. When you're ready, Mr. Paulson, to discuss
issues at the level of an adult with a working brain, I'm here to give you
smack down.

Carry on.




"davee" wrote in message
ups.com...
What a weird post, weird point, lack of logic and total lack of
coherence. Its not a relevant point for this site, and this guy could
not reason his way out of a wet paper bag. I think the comment about
the effects of a diet of right wing blowhards was probably on the money
- severe indigestion from that diet may have caused this gaseous
discharge.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out
of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.