- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
Or maybe just that supreme court justices are OLD.
GasBandit
Staff member
They can, once dementia sets in.
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]
"I am the law."
GasBandit
Staff member
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]
A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]
A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]
So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.
GasBandit
Staff member
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]
A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]
So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.[/QUOTE]
Before his election to president, Obama hadn't even run so much as a lemonade stand in his life
But just because nominating/appointing lawyers with no judge experience has been done 40-some times (as stated above), why is that a good idea?
As a lawyer arguing a position, you need to advocate for your client. Sometimes you have the luxury of choosing clients with your viewpoint, but often not. And even then, there's going to be a few things you argue for that are NOT your own views. Being a judge is different. You generally do NOT get to choose what's presented in front of you, and thus your decision-making record shows a lot more about your individual position than your advocacy (as a lawyer, not extra-curricular activities) does. And she doesn't have a bench record, and thus what she believes herself has little evidence.
And then as above, why not take somebody with bench experience? There has to be vast differences between being a judge and arguing in front of them. Even if it's been done 40-some times, that doesn't mean it was a good decision those other 40-some times, even if the candidate worked out. I'd rather have somebody with bench experience to begin with.
Though if you want insanity, check out the proposal (by the official opposition) in Canada to have a requirement that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. Yes, disregard legal experience, best for the position, etc. Bilingual is the most important requirement in the opposition's opinion. (For the politically savvy, it's also a way to say "fuck you" to western Canada, where the VAST majority of people and jurists are NOT bilingual. Which is also true for the rest of the country, but especially out west).
They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]
But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]
A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]
So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.[/QUOTE]
Before his election to president, Obama hadn't even run so much as a lemonade stand in his life
[/QUOTE]And he still inspires more confidence in me when he opens his mouth then when Bush did... i mean the guy reminds me of a guy in highschool who i tricked into saying "I am stupid!" in english class when he had to make a sentence with "I am..." even though the word stupid means the same thing in our language and is pronounced the same.
If he was an absolute leader you guys would have been fucked (well ok, Cheney as the grey eminence might have worked too).
GasBandit
Staff member
You know who else inspired a lot of confidence in unsuspecting voters?
And there's a reason we don't have absolute leaders. In fact, we used to not even have absolute government... but that's kinda fallen by the wayside in recent decades.
I
Iaculus
You know who else inspired a lot of confidence in unsuspecting voters?[/QUOTE]
JFK?
No, wait, you're talking about Tony Blair, aren't you?
... Maggie Thatcher?
- Status