- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Supreme Court
Supreme CourtFollow
Shouldn't a supreme court nominee have to have prior experience as a judge to be nominated? I know this has happened before, I just don't understand it. I think you should have to be a lawyer to be a judge, and you should have to be a judge and sort of rise through the ranks to be on the supreme court. This just proves how political being a judge is, and how it really isn't about law.
On a side note, I know nothing about Miers other than she has no prior experience as a judge, and that she is a she. So, I really have no opinion about her as of yet.
You should check out DSD's thread for more info. 
It's probably better to not bring in a lawyer or judge. Think of the movie Gladiator where Marcus Aurelius tells Russell Crowe that Rome needs an outsider because it's become politically corrupt.
The outgoing justice is what's her name (O'Connor) is a racist idiot, who ruled in favor of affirmative action discrimination upon the basis of race with the caveat that it might have to be overturned in 10-20 years or something. Translation: This decision is guaranteed constitutionally fresh for 10 years until my stanky old know nothing token woman self retires.
The progressive liberals corrupted with their agenda, thereby establishing the precedent for other political philosophies to likewise conduct their own majoritarian tyranies.
There's nothing preventing it be a constitutional requirement that all public school teachers be certified priests if a majority votes for it. In this day and age anyway, the final appeal goes to the "Super Duper Supreme Court" of explosions in the street.
Of course it isn't about law. It's about the money and power of taking and controlling the money and lives of others. The government becomes more and more of a monstrous theft machine with every additional dollar bill printed and taxed.
But the founders were smart guys. It's political up and until confirmation. Then it's an "apolitical" lifetime agenda. On the docket: legislating and holding in contempt the degree of respect the common citizen has for lawyers and judges.
The outgoing justice is what's her name (O'Connor) is a racist idiot, who ruled in favor of affirmative action discrimination upon the basis of race with the caveat that it might have to be overturned in 10-20 years or something. Translation: This decision is guaranteed constitutionally fresh for 10 years until my stanky old know nothing token woman self retires.
The progressive liberals corrupted with their agenda, thereby establishing the precedent for other political philosophies to likewise conduct their own majoritarian tyranies.
There's nothing preventing it be a constitutional requirement that all public school teachers be certified priests if a majority votes for it. In this day and age anyway, the final appeal goes to the "Super Duper Supreme Court" of explosions in the street.
Of course it isn't about law. It's about the money and power of taking and controlling the money and lives of others. The government becomes more and more of a monstrous theft machine with every additional dollar bill printed and taxed.
But the founders were smart guys. It's political up and until confirmation. Then it's an "apolitical" lifetime agenda. On the docket: legislating and holding in contempt the degree of respect the common citizen has for lawyers and judges.
MonxDoT wrote:
There's nothing preventing it be a constitutional requirement that all public school teachers be certified priests if a majority votes for it. In this day and age anyway, the final appeal goes to the "Super Duper Supreme Court" of explosions in the street.
TEH MORIL MAGORITIEE WORKNIG FOR YOU!!!!
FORE MOUR YEERS!!!! WRRRAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!
FORE MOUR YEERS!!!! WRRRAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Joph: Why do you hate America?
MonxDot: Why do you hate making any fu[i][/i]cking sense?
MonxDot: Why do you hate making any fu[i][/i]cking sense?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
MonxDot: Why do you hate making any fu[b][/b]cking sense?
Thank God. Here I just thought I was losing it.
I have absolutely no clue what he is trying to say.
Eh writing at work, train of thought constantly interrupted, so perhaps too much garnish on that post, but that was partly the point. ^_^
There's much that can be and will be said regarding "The Supreme Court". But the Constitution itself was written before anyone who had written the Constituion had any experience judging those Laws enumerated in the Constitution. The fact that experience as a lawyer or judge is an issue on this thread and in the press just goes to show the political machinations at work. And they are indeed political machinations just as are professional licenses, university degrees, etc. that have been bestowed by the recognition of His Majoritarian Beneficience.
You think *by far* the most brilliant mind on the Court, Antonin Scalia, would "rise through the ranks" today unimpeaded by the political judgement of politicians? Uh, no. Judges are elected. They are therefore not immune to politics. Their relatively longer terms of service, however, make them less beholden to short to politics.
At any rate the Founders thought that it should be the President who picks the nomination. Any and all requirements, such as age, were established in the constitution and I believe prior experience as a judge or lawyer is not among those. Case Closed. Get it this time? ^_^
There's much that can be and will be said regarding "The Supreme Court". But the Constitution itself was written before anyone who had written the Constituion had any experience judging those Laws enumerated in the Constitution. The fact that experience as a lawyer or judge is an issue on this thread and in the press just goes to show the political machinations at work. And they are indeed political machinations just as are professional licenses, university degrees, etc. that have been bestowed by the recognition of His Majoritarian Beneficience.
You think *by far* the most brilliant mind on the Court, Antonin Scalia, would "rise through the ranks" today unimpeaded by the political judgement of politicians? Uh, no. Judges are elected. They are therefore not immune to politics. Their relatively longer terms of service, however, make them less beholden to short to politics.
At any rate the Founders thought that it should be the President who picks the nomination. Any and all requirements, such as age, were established in the constitution and I believe prior experience as a judge or lawyer is not among those. Case Closed. Get it this time? ^_^
<(^_^)-T
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Case Closed. Get it this time? ^_^
Quote:
You think *by far* the most brilliant mind on the Court, Antonin Scalia...
*cries*
Edit: Oops, must have been -really- upset, heh
Edited, Mon Oct 3 18:01:10 2005 by Katarine
Edited, Mon Oct 3 18:01:10 2005 by Katarine
Quote:
<(^_^)-T
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
Freakin sweet!
Jophiel wrote:
<(^_^)-T
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
OMG Supreme Court Kirby w/ Gavel!!!
LOLBIFRONS
That actually made me laugh out loud.
Recent Visitors: 182
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (182)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Supreme Court
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC