Perhaps, but wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until the hearing before jumping to such conclusions? Nobody knows anything about this woman, she has a clean slate. I don't believe you should automatically disqualify her because we don't yet know what she is all about. How is this obvious? Why does she not deserve any more (or less) scrutiny than other Supreme Court Justices who have had similar credentials? And the argument, "because she is a friend of Bush", won't hack it. Is it really that necessary to make such a characterization? Gee, I can't find anything particularly wrong with this person at this point in time, so I'll just say that she's ugly. Does everything have to be all "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" with you? Take some Zoloft or something.
if you are going to make the argument that she is bad because she has too little experience, and i believe you are, then of course it means something what the others have done. if the others with no experience as a judge were great, then cant we admit that lack of experience is not necessarily a negaive? for all i know it is a positive.
So is your beef with her that she has worked with Bush for the past few years or that she hasn't been a judge? Seems like you're willing to cast her aside because she as counsel to the President. I'm in agreement with martin. Why not wait to pass judgement until after she has testified. If she doesn't do well, I'm all for voting against her. Would you rather he renominate Bork? He has loads of judicial credentials. Or he could have renominated Pickering or Estrada and send the Senate back into the Judical filibuster tizzy they were in for years.
Crony Meirs is getting her reward for helping Bush purge his National Guard record of embarrassing documents that showed he was grounded and skipped out. Bush is appointing a personal friend in case he'll have to stand before the Court. Meirs once called Bush "the most brilliant man I know." I think that tells you right there she's not long on brains.
Bush is bound an determined to appoint a judge who is going to change the direction of the Supreme Court from the Democratic years. That is as it should be. There are, indeed, dozens of (seemingly) more qualified candidates, but those would be met with stiff opposition from the liberals in Congress who are itching to get into a fight with the Adminisatration. Fat slob Kennedy and his ilk are already catching up on their sleep in preparation for a filibuster, but this pick has them taking a wait and see attitude. You are showing your liberal colors, Red. It's a little early to be bashing the pick, don't you think? At least you're consistent.
Learn a new word. Be smarter. per·haps adv. Maybe; possibly. Anyway, it is the truth that she has no credentials as a judge. Was I lyin'?
I have no logical problem with that. Of course, it presumes that the previous judges with no judicial experience can be considered great. And that each of them were also close personal friends and long-time employees of the president. Kind of a stretch, don't you think? Actually, I never said she was "bad", I said "perhaps she was less qualified" than judges with decades on the bench.
Bush has elevated himself to the most powerful position on earth. You, meanwhile, are posting on an internet message board in the middle of a workday. Who's the brilliant one here? Yokels like you crack me up. You are lower than whale dung on the totem pole of life, yet you take wiseass shots at the President of the U.S. I guess, in some inconceivable (to me, at least) way, it makes you feel more like a man. :dis: I laugh at your faux smug pretentiousness. :hihi:
