Please read and write your opinion about this layman-justice for life!

[elf]

elf (621 posts) Tue Oct-04-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. I'm highly suspicious!!!!
1) she adores W

2) she has no "official" records from her past (we know, what she
did for W in case of his Duty and not serving his time!!!!

3) W knows exactly whom he called for this!!!!
she was never married, no children, absolutely devoted to her job!
and graduated from a very traditional University!!!!

That must not be a bad sign, but it's like catholic priests
preaching about family planning and not using condoms, without
never being in bed with a woman.

How in the world can a lawyer interpreted the law of the land (for LIFETIME!!!!!)without experience on the bench for some time, or live a life in the way, where the average American have to go trough their entire life???

Isn't she a person who interprets situations only from a theoretical point of view(Please excuse my English, I'm German!)


Please read, what Pat Buchanan wrote (!!!!!!)



http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444

[napi21]

1. It's too soon for ME to answer you.

I agree she has no experience in being married or raising children, but I haven't heard anything about her life. I don't think it's fair to say a single person has no life experiences, and that's what we all learn from.

I'd like to know what her childhood family was like. What sort of men did she date, besides a SC justice that I did hear about.

I suspect there are lots of stories that will be revealed over the next few weeks. It's too soon to damn her right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Elf not to defend the appointment, ther are way too

many alarm bells, but this is not unprecedented or unconstitutional.. you may want to brush up on history and remember Earl Warren was not a judge either, and he proved to be a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.

So her lack of experience is not a discualifier perse.

(mind you in my view there are many others, but that is another ball of wax)

[saltpoint]

3. Strictly from a Constituional viewpoint, no judicial or even legal

experience is required.

From my point of view, though, a more thoughtful nominee might have done the country some good, and I blame Bush squarely (and Rove and others who apparently advise him) for playing politics with democracy.

This administration is cementing its legacy as as bad or worse than the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Richard M. Nixon. The Bush administration will be the huge pinata of American historians.

Hell. Even Franklin Pierce looks like a gleaming success next to Dubya's gang of corrupt fools.

[serryjw]

4. She has never even presented arguments in front of SCOTUS

no she is not qualified. On Charlie Rose the question was asked; If she is qualified whom isn't? THE AMBULENCE CHASER?