Guessing Game on Next US Supreme Court Candidate
- Thread starter Nascar_James
- Start date
Not really...they aren't cowards who get others to do their killing for them, after all.
He's not stupid, he's got a mental disability due to excessive drug and alcohol use. That means he's more fecked up than an Irish poet on St. Patrick's day.
When did understanding imply agreement?
I sometimes aspire to be a cunning linguist. Most of the time I just lay around with my tongue hanging out and see what comes on it though.
My mother said that to me once. I was learning how to print and she said, "That's a good i, dear." I've taken great pride in my mis-shapen eyes ever since, but manage to keep myopia in check by wearing corrective lenses.
unclepercy said:
oh common!! He is YOUR leader and you don't know ??? :wink: :roll:
but here goes: underestimate taken to the "mis" degree??? :wink:
Re: RE: Guessing Game on Next
Does that mean you understand the bushtongue??? :wink:
Andygal said:
Does that mean you understand the bushtongue??? :wink:
I speak three languages fluently, and words of 2 more, as well as toddler speak, and I can't understand that man!
RE: Guessing Game on Next
I don't think anybody except Bush really understands his bizarre form of English, if indeed it can be considered a form of English at all. It may be a dialect of gibberish.
I speak English, a bit of French, some Spanish, and a smattering of Japanese. Oh and a few words of Portuguese.
I don't think anybody except Bush really understands his bizarre form of English, if indeed it can be considered a form of English at all. It may be a dialect of gibberish.
I speak English, a bit of French, some Spanish, and a smattering of Japanese. Oh and a few words of Portuguese.
Joking aside, the President no doubt will need to make a real important decision here. Considering this candidate will very likely shift the balance either way on the bench, it is of the utmost importance that the nominee have substantial judicial experience as well as extensive knowledge of the US constitution.
In addition, it would well be within the Presidents best interest that he nominate someone the likes of Thomas or Scalia, both exceptional Supreme Court Justices. The Democrats will always disagree with the candidate the President picks, no surprise there. However there should be no reason both the Democrats and the Republicans have to disagree on the candidate.
In addition, it would well be within the Presidents best interest that he nominate someone the likes of Thomas or Scalia, both exceptional Supreme Court Justices. The Democrats will always disagree with the candidate the President picks, no surprise there. However there should be no reason both the Democrats and the Republicans have to disagree on the candidate.
Whether to resign or wait for impeachment.
Yup. Any candidate with real experience in those two things would send Bush to the Hague in leg irons. I'm all for that.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown would be an excellent candidate. She is both a woman and a visible minority. I can assure that Republicans will not object to her appointment.
isn't this a prejudicial way of picking the candidate??? What happened to picking a candidate (male or female. black , white , yellow or green, ) on their CREDENTIALS , CAPABILITY. EXPERIENCE and other IMPORTANT requirements???
Ocean Breeze said:
Well Ocean, I agree with you that we should pick the most qualified candidate. However if several candidates are equally qualified, then we need to consider other factors.
Example, since Sandra Day O'Connor has retired, we are left with only one woman on the bench (Ruth Ginsburg). We also have only one visible minority (Clarence Thomas). So it would be nice if the next candidate was either a woman or a visible minority or both. It is obviously not a requirement as we should always select the most qualified candidate, however it would be nice.