Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are appointing judges, not voting in a beauty contest. The best person for the job - period. This is not position where we placate people feelings with the best special interest, feel good candidate.
Would we dare do this in the NBA, or NFL? Would we demand that the Lakers play Filipino, Hispanic and women players? No, but somehow we would demand this of truly important positions in government, but not a freaking sports team.
So how do you propose we determine who the single most qualified person would be. Sudden death playoffs? Maybe we could call it August Madness and create little playoff charts. Or maybe put all the qualified candidates in a steel cage to duke it out--the last one alive becomes the new justice.
So, you would have been, or were, totally against the appointment of Clarence Thomas? How about some of the hacks that Bush appointed? Not just to the SC but to the Federal bench and the DOJ as well. And how about that Rumsfeld guy to run the DOD, best man for the job?
Praise the Lord! We finally have a democratic filibuster-proof Congress!!!
And I hope you'll be enjoying paying for all the "benefits" that you expect will come of that. There hasn't been one person anywhere who can tell us how we will dig ourselves out of this deficit hole the Administration has dug, and you are rejoicing that this bunch will have a free hand with whatever they want to do. Unbelievable.
I think in a majority female country, the fact that there is only one female SC Justice is a frigging joke... and the problem here is that they are not elected... they are appointed... so, yes, I think race, gender, etc. have to be considered when you are appointing judges to the highest bench. Obviously you will not choose someone unqualified based on these considerations (unless you are GHWB of course) but it should rightly be a consideration.
I agree completely, and I'm still amazed that it took so long for women to be legally entitled to the same pay that their male counterparts earn; I don't think people fully understand what a difference that will make in the lives of many women and their children.
IMHO, the days of the SCOTUS being the exclusive domain of white males
should be behind us, and the justices should reflect the diversity of the total population. Since President Obama has taught Constitutional Law, IMHO he is in a unique position in terms of selecting a capable and qualified
candidate. At this juncture in America's history, the make-up of the court
needs to be less ideological and more independent in their interpretations.
Since President Obama has taught Constitutional Law, IMHO he is in a unique position in terms of selecting a capable and qualified candidate. At this juncture in America's history, the make-up of the court needs to be less ideological and more independent in their interpretations.
Obama will select a candidate who will do with the Constitution what he envisions should be done - remake. He spoke a decade ago about the need for a changing Constitution that allows for 'situational' rulings. That's why he wants someone who will introduce 'empathy' into their deliberations, and not just rule on the law objectively.
Introduce empathy, and objectivity goes out the window. It will be time to take the blindfolds off Lady Justice. Justice will no longer be "blind".
NO more raising taxes
NO more massive spending
NO more illegal immigration
NO more infringements on privacy
NO more taking away our right to keep and bear arms
NO more criminalization of traditional values
And most importantly
NOBAMA!
Come on bro, you can't be serious.
Massive spending. Did you ever look at the extra $5 trillion Bush added to the deficit?
Illegal immigration. Do you know what McCain's policy was? Hint: Same as Obama's
No more infringements on privacy. Have you read the Patriot Act (which the GOP championed for years)?
No more taking away the right to bear arms. Who is taking your guns away? Oh, you must be talking about that rumor gun dealers have spread around to increase sales...and its working like gangbusters.
No more criminalization of criminal values? Example please. How about the GOP telling anyone who disagrees with them that they must "hate America?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unbelievable.
