...which begs the question, why that previous nomination?...what purpose did it serve?
Hell, even "Brownie" was better suited as a judge than Miers. Bush nominated her, but knew she wouldn't be suitable?.
I do agree, on the Pro-choice/pro-life angle, is this all that's troubling Democrats? (not that they have the capacity to organize at all to change well, anything, really). I do think that the whole issue is a matter of responsibility, it comes with choice, it HAS to be there. But I don't think the Supreme Court has provided any guidance as much as simply regulate. Education should take care of that, not the Judicial system.
yet ANOTHER Supreme Court nominee
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
by suggesting a woman ill-qualified, the issue of who is most qualified comes to the front... not the gender of the candidate.
This makes it harder for any unqualified demographic candidate to have a bearing because THEN he pulls someone who has more experience than any other justice in the last 50 years, easy. No one can say he didn't try to find a woman, not his fault most are ill-equipped for the position. The President even tried to find a woman to fill the vacancy, right?
and no one can honestly say they are more qualified than Alito, as far a tenure as a Justiceer of the American Court System.
Far too clever to be unintentional.
This makes it harder for any unqualified demographic candidate to have a bearing because THEN he pulls someone who has more experience than any other justice in the last 50 years, easy. No one can say he didn't try to find a woman, not his fault most are ill-equipped for the position. The President even tried to find a woman to fill the vacancy, right?
and no one can honestly say they are more qualified than Alito, as far a tenure as a Justiceer of the American Court System.Far too clever to be unintentional.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm