Post Left Wing looniness here

OUBubba said:
Per the guy who we both thinks is pretty damn smart, there were no scores shared or requested with the white folks for the last three vacancies. If that is the case then something is rotten in Denmark.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't get my point. There must be some information that the scores are not very good in this case. Why ask for the scores for the white people, that is racist BTW, if they were good to stellar? What would be the point? If the point with this nominee is to prove lack of qualification, that is why it would be brought up, not because of nefarious racism, bless your heart.
 
WorsterMan said:
Radical SCOTUS nominee KBJ and the Biden admin. will not disclose her LSAT score? No, that would be racist!

IMHO, her score must be very poor or failing 1 or more times or they would put it out there!!

No total shame in that . .. I have 2 friends that failed Texas Bar Exam before passing, so what. They are successful now.

I STRONGLY suspect B. Kavanaugh and Amy C. Barrett LSAT scores were offered / disclosed up front or were DEMANDED up-front by radical Libs, Dems, Bubba & Seattle Husker .... why not KBJ - LSAT score???
Click to expand...
Meh...LSAT scores are over-rated. Too many of the privileged kids did all the prep courses on mummy and daddy's dime and scored over a 170 but aren't worth a damn as lawyers and I know many who were in the 148-153 range who have turned out to be pretty damned good.

And as useless as the test is at determining abilities as an attorney, this is not a hill worth even battling for.
 
mb227 said:
Meh...LSAT scores are over-rated. Too many of the privileged kids did all the prep courses on mummy and daddy's dime and scored over a 170 but aren't worth a damn as lawyers and I know many who were in the 148-153 range who have turned out to be pretty damned good.

And as useless as the test is at determining abilities as an attorney, this is not a hill worth even battling for.
Click to expand...
So, it is racist!!
 
horninchicago said:
Maybe that infers that the LSATs in question for them was not an issue. Maybe it is here, thus the concealing of the score?
Click to expand...

Who decides whether it's an issue? The senators decide that. If it's an issue, then we should raise it consistently. They all conceal their scores, because LSAT scores are private information. Concealment is the default. It would take an affirmative act by the test taker to make them public.

In reality, nobody cares. That's why the issue has never been raised. Nobody's vote is going to sway one way or the other based on her LSAT. Would Ted Cruz vote for her if she got a 180 (highest score)? Would Mazie Hirono vote against her if she got a 120 (lowest score)? No. Nobody cares how she did on a test she took 30 years ago. Honestly, it's a bit of a ******** test anyway, and I say that as someone who did reasonably well on the LSAT. It's not much more relevant to the practice of law than your high score at Pac-Man is to flying a plane.

Garmel said:
IT'S RACISM!!!!!!
Click to expand...

It's not racism. But is it fair to ask her for something that we don't ask of others applying for the same position? No.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Who decides whether it's an issue? The senators decide that. If it's an issue, then we should raise it consistently. They all conceal their scores, because LSAT scores are private information. Concealment is the default. It would take an affirmative act by the test taker to make them public.

In reality, nobody cares. That's why the issue has never been raised. Nobody's vote is going to sway one way or the other based on her LSAT. Would Ted Cruz vote for her if she got a 180 (highest score)? Would Mazie Hirono vote against her if she got a 120 (lowest score)? No. Nobody cares how she did on a test she took 30 years ago. Honestly, it's a bit of a ******** test anyway, and I say that as someone who did reasonably well on the LSAT. It's not much more relevant to the practice of law than your high score at Pac-Man is to flying a plane.



It's not racism. But is it fair to ask her for something that we don't ask of others applying for the same position? No.
Click to expand...
Haha, was a party back in the 80s an issue?

The whole process is a sham and theater, bad theater at that. You are correct. They know their votes, right down party lines, unless a RINO can try for points in the media against a Republican nominee.
 
horninchicago said:
So, it is racist!!
Click to expand...
LOL...no. I've known plenty of non-POC who did not score well, myself included. I didn't waste money on the classes and I can tell you the test does nothing to prepare even for law school itself.

People are putting too much upon the fact that the nominee went to Harvard. They forget that there are graduates even from Harvard or Yale that cannot function in the real world of law and make ****** attorneys. Meanwhile, I have known some who went to Texas Southern due to it being cheap and have made really good careers for themselves.
 
Here is the thing. It is stupid. However, if it was a nominee who was a conservative, and the Dems thought the score was low and brought it up, the media and left would not then be saying it is stupid/racist/whatever to ask about it. So, do I care if she scored the lowest score? No. She can't seem to answer basic questions otherwise from what I have see. That is what concerns.

But, again, the standard is always different for the nominee based on what letter follows the name of the president who nominated the person.

This is why it is an issue for some of us here, I imagine.

It is the likes of the likes of the dearly departed LOL!!!! husker who make an issue of stupid things about conservatives but then say an LSAT score has no bearing whatsoever and is just racist. Excuse me, highest court in the land, and we are looking at a person who can't discuss Dred Scott and may have scored low on an LSAT? It wold be a major issue if it was an (R).
 
It is her admitted ignorance of Dred Scott
Her unwillingness to define what a woman is
Her unwillingness to say when life begins
Her clear leniency toward sex offenders
Her lying about her support of CRT

And that is from day one
 
Horn6721 said:
It is her admitted ignorance of Dred Scott
Her unwillingness to define what a woman is
Her unwillingness to say when life begins
Her clear leniency toward sex offenders
Her lying about her support of CRT

And that is from day one
Click to expand...
Yawn. Dems will all vote Yay. Hell, maybe throw in a Yay or two from som e RINOs.

Historic!!!
 
Horn6721 said:
It is her admitted ignorance of Dred Scott
Her unwillingness to define what a woman is
Her unwillingness to say when life begins
Her clear leniency toward sex offenders
Her lying about her support of CRT

And that is from day one
Click to expand...
THOSE are reasons to oppose.

The release or non-release of an LSAT is not.
 
mb227 said:
THOSE are reasons to oppose.

The release or non-release of an LSAT is not.
Click to expand...
Naturally, instead of focusing and reporting on those issues, the media and left will focus on an R or Rs asking about an LSAT score.

THAT is what the problem is here.

Meanwhile, they all still say Kavanaugh raped Blasey-Ford.
 
horninchicago said:
Haha, was a party back in the 80s an issue?

The whole process is a sham and theater, bad theater at that. You are correct. They know their votes, right down party lines, unless a RINO can try for points in the media against a Republican nominee.
Click to expand...

If Kavanaugh had actually raped Christine Blasey Ford, the party in the '80s would have been relevant, because raping someone reflects on that person's character. LSAT score (good or bad) does not.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If Kavanaugh had actually raped Christine Blasey Ford, the party in the '80s would have been relevant, because raping someone reflects on that person's character. LSAT score does not.
Click to expand...
Even after it was all quickly debunked, which should have been evident by how long Feinstein sat on the supposed letter, it was and is still an issue for the left.

Read my comments about the score. It is the hypocrisy on it that is the issue here.
 
mb227 said:
LOL...no. I've known plenty of non-POC who did not score well, myself included. I didn't waste money on the classes and I can tell you the test does nothing to prepare even for law school itself.

People are putting too much upon the fact that the nominee went to Harvard. They forget that there are graduates even from Harvard or Yale that cannot function in the real world of law and make ****** attorneys. Meanwhile, I have known some who went to Texas Southern due to it being cheap and have made really good careers for themselves.
Click to expand...

Very true. How well you do on the LSAT is driven heavily by whether or not you took a prep course because the questions and exercises are weird. A lot of the course is focused on teaching you the language of the test and strategies to solve the stupid "games," and it has virtually nothing to do with law practice or study. And again, I did fairly well, but I'd never brag about it. I did well on something stupid and only did well because I could afford to take a course.

And yes, going to a fancy law school has virtually no bearing on the quality of the lawyer. One of the better lawyers I faced was a black dude who went to TSU. He worked for a crappy, ghetto insurer that consistently offered garbage, so he was almost always in court. Well, if you're always in court and are reasonably hardworking and conscientious, eventually you get good at it. I faced several from Harvard (and yes, UT) who weren't as good
 
WorsterMan said:
Radical SCOTUS nominee KBJ and the Biden admin. will not disclose her LSAT score? No, that would be racist!

IMHO, her score must be very poor or failing 1 or more times or they would put it out there!!

No total shame in that . .. I have 2 friends that failed Texas Bar Exam before passing, so what. They are successful now.

I STRONGLY suspect B. Kavanaugh and Amy C. Barrett LSAT scores were offered / disclosed up front or were DEMANDED up-front by radical Libs, Dems, Bubba & Seattle Husker .... why not KBJ - LSAT score???
Click to expand...
A. Tucker Carlson, the sock puppet of hornfans, is asking about it. Here's the Genesis for the subject on this forum.
B. This appears to be an issue on which we almost all agree. That **** don't happen often. We should run to this kind of topic, pop open a tall cold one and sing boomer sooner, or whatever other fun song you guys can think of.
C. My dear old dad passed the Texas Bar cold. One of his prouder moments.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Very true. How well you do on the LSAT is driven heavily by whether or not you took a prep course because the questions and exercises are weird. A lot of the course is focused on teaching you the language of the test and strategies to solve the stupid "games," and it has virtually nothing to do with law practice or study. And again, I did fairly well, but I'd never brag about it. I did well on something stupid and only did well because I could afford to take a course.

And yes, going to a fancy law school has virtually no bearing on the quality of the lawyer. One of the better lawyers I faced was a black dude who went to TSU. He worked for a crappy, ghetto insurer that consistently offered garbage, so he was almost always in court. Well, if you're always in court and are reasonably hardworking and conscientious, eventually you get good at it. I faced several from Harvard (and yes, UT) who weren't as good
Click to expand...
True. Sometimes the "best" lawyers make great writers and judges but ineffective trial attorneys. My dad almost flunked out of law school his first semester. He was an ill-prepared Indian kid from the oil fields of Bowlegs, Ok. He rallied. He lost one jury trial in his career and he was defending a used car salesman. Apparently, he knew how to communicate to a jury.
 
So, anyway, back to the rest of the train wreck that disqualifies, or should, this nominee. But, by Gawd, SHE is black, so good for the pedophiles out there!

Thank the good lord Killary wasn't elected. Can y'all imagine the makeup of the Court with that hack in office?
 
I'm at work and cannot view the hearings.

So what questions has the nominee refused / declined to answer today so far?

What softball questions have the Dems asked to put her and her answers in a favorable light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top