No, you supplied what a partisan supporter of Obama told you. As usual with you, the truth is far from what you claim.
I think Michelle is one of the most positive thinking Americans I've ever seen. Her view of America as a nation & a society is exemplary, & one I would love to see other Americans emulate. She expressed her view of America in her speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. It was one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in my life. Your criticism is misdirected & undeserved.
Just following your lead in supplying nothing and proving nothing. In fact you refuse to even look into statements that refute you because you know that they would expose your extreme attempts to cover up for Obama. It doesn't matter anyway. Obama would never take such a job as it does not pay enough and would curtail his agenda to overthrow the US.
But I didn’t do that. I gave you a citation proving you wrong. Bloviating demonstrable bullshit doesn’t change that.
I make no such claim. There are a small number of leftist Democrats in Congress now who are trending toward more extremist views.While I do agree with some of their ideas for helping the working class, I am increasingly concerned about their rejection of compromise. The Republican rejection of compromise has contributed largely to the dysfunction of our government since 2010. If extremist Democrats take up that same philosophy of governance, it will only compound the problem. So, I'm a Democrat & a leftist, but I am opposed to extremism on both sides.
While I agree that having a legal background is helpful in terms of interpreting the Constitution, it is also valuable to have a diversified background, so one can make connections in cases that might elude those too wrapped up in legalese. All possibilities offer positives & negatives. There is no one absolute answer.
So basically with the above logic, Obama would be the worst choice. He's not a legal scholar/judge, but he's also not a layman who can disregard legalese.
I never said anything remotely like that. How on Earth do you draw such extreme conclusions? I don't want someone who hates America to be in a position of power in any capacity whatsoever. I want the opposite. I want people who love America & respect its history, its Constitution, its system of governance, & wants to work to improve the lives of average Americans, to be empowered. Who is it that you are identifying with in your post, that hates America, that you mistakenly feel I want to be on the Supreme Court?
Barack Obama is a PhD in law, with a concentration on Constitutional law. He studied law at Harvard University & taught law at the University of Chicago. How do you conclude Obama wasn't a legal scholar?
You said Michelle should be on the supremes. I pointed out her hate for America. You defended her hate for America.
Michelle doesn't "hate" America. She was the best First Lady in my lifetime. She presided over the most open, transparent White House of any First Lady ever. Under Malania today, it's back to being a closed, lifeless place.
Yes indeed a secret Muslim who is also not a citizen of the US is surely likely to be trying to overthrow the US.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-law-licenses/ My Dad eventually went to inactive/retired status as a law professor because paying the liability insurance and bar dues for something he was no longer using, was just plain silly. Its expensive, and being as he was not working for a private firm, nobody was sharing the cost.
You need to see the post #90 by btthegreat. Both the Obamas are still licensed attorneys, but when they became politicians & stopped their legal practice, they placed their licenses on "inactive" status. It was to allow them to avoid continuing paying expensive payments for fees & insurance required by practicing attorneys. They are still listed on the official state bar list of licensed attorneys in Illinois. All claims that the Obamas lost their licenses or were forced to give them up, are simply LIES put forth by their detractors.
Try finding her incredible speech at the 2016 Democratic convention. That will answer your question better than anything I can say here.
To quote a great philosopher, BS. If they both still had their license, they would hardly be trying to regain it as is reported by their tame media. A liberal post if I ever saw one. That is to say a lie.
Viewing the history of telling the truth by Snopes, I disregard this as just another lie by the Obamabots.
Then why do you continue to do so? Once again, you prove nothing with y our biased and hateful comments, only that you are totally devoted to trying to protect Obama from the truth.
In other words, you cannot support your statement but just hope that somewhere in her speech is something that you can claim does. Got it, a lie by proxy.
Then you claim to be 5 years old? Only way your post would have any validity at all with the last sentence being totally false.