Would you vote to confirm me as a judge?

[A18]

Vote

[Richard]

YES

[Ebowed]

Yes.  As long as you deal with social issues, not economic ones, you're fine.

[Beet]

LOL, you are one of the very last people I would consider confirming.

Edit: In light of bullmoose's comments, I should clarify that my vote would have absolutely nothing to do with anything about stacking the court, but much more fundamental objections.

[bullmoose88]

Yes.

I wouldn't agree with you all that often, but I'm not for stacking the court.

We need people of all views on there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

I wouldn't agree with you all that often, but I'm not for stacking the court.

We need people of all views on there.

some views we can do without, such as that people must own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote

[Gabu]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hell no

[opebo]

Well, let me pretend to be a senator and ask you one question:

Does the right to privacy cover abortion, sex acts, drug use, and all other private activity?

[A18]

The right to privacy covers most of those, but not the bill of rights or anything in the constitution.

[angus]

Vote

R/L yes.

If you were qualified by experience and education, and President Bush nominated you, then your positions on various specific issues would be irrelevant to me.  In that case, if I were on the senate judiciary committee, I would have no objections.  I'd say the same thing about anyone he nominated, provided that person has the appropriate academic and experiential training.  Whether you are business-friendly or enviro-friendly, whether you put freedom ahead of security, or vice-versa, whether you're gay or straight, or black or green or purple or blue or white or brown or red, whether you're catholic, protestant, shia, sunni, orthodox jew, reform jew, hindu, zoroastrian, aethist, or whatever should have no bearing, imho, on your ability to be judgemental when called upon to be so.  Again, provided that you have the degree and the experience.

[Joe Republic]

I admit your knowledge of the constitution and the various subjects related to it are really impressive, but your social and economic views  tend to concern me a little.

By the way, I didn't vote because there wasn't an (I) option.

[angus]

I admit your knowledge of the constitution and the various subjects related to it are really impressive, but your social and economic views  tend to concern me a little.

By the way, I didn't vote because there wasn't an (I) option.

that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?  And it's because (1) the schools have stopped teaching critical thinking, and (2) the media plays it this way.  So, instead of asking, as Jimi Hendrix would, "Are you experienced?"  We ask questions like, "Do you like Joey on Friends?" and half the country says, "Well, if you like Joey then I like you" and the other half says, "Well, if you like Joey then you're fundamentally flawed and cannot be a judge."  What we should be asking is, I don't know and care how you feel about Friends, as you opinion of the show is irrelevant.  What is relevant is your ability, experience, and education.

I blame it on the schools, really.  And on the media.

[Joe Republic]

I admit your knowledge of the constitution and the various subjects related to it are really impressive, but your social and economic views  tend to concern me a little.

By the way, I didn't vote because there wasn't an (I) option.

that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?  And it's because (1) the schools have stopped teaching critical thinking, and (2) the media plays it this way.  So, instead of asking, as Jimi Hendrix would, "Are you experienced?"  We ask questions like, "Do you like Joey on Friends?" and half the country says, "Well, if you like Joey then I like you" and the other half says, "Well, if you like Joey then you're fundamentally flawed and cannot be a judge."  What we should be asking is, I don't know and care how you feel about Friends, as you opinion of the show is irrelevant.  What is relevant is your ability, experience, and education.

I blame it on the schools, really.  And on the media.

That may be so, and I realize that social and economic opinions shouldn't matter when its a Supreme Court Justice we're talking about.  But everybody has views on stuff, including the nine on the bench.  It's incredibly hard to remain neutral on, say, a tax bill if you happen to be strongly for or against it.  You only have to look at the Bush v. Gore 2000 verdict (including Ginsberg's classic dissent comment) to see how personal opinions interfere with supposedly neutral matters of constitutionality.

[opebo]

I admit your knowledge of the constitution and the various subjects related to it are really impressive, but your social and economic views  tend to concern me a little.

By the way, I didn't vote because there wasn't an (I) option.

that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?  And it's because (1) the schools have stopped teaching critical thinking, and (2) the media plays it this way.  So, instead of asking, as Jimi Hendrix would, "Are you experienced?"  We ask questions like, "Do you like Joey on Friends?" and half the country says, "Well, if you like Joey then I like you" and the other half says, "Well, if you like Joey then you're fundamentally flawed and cannot be a judge."  What we should be asking is, I don't know and care how you feel about Friends, as you opinion of the show is irrelevant.  What is relevant is your ability, experience, and education.

I blame it on the schools, really.  And on the media.

How ridiculous.  Politics is all about getting people who agree with you into positions of power. 

In order to cause your preferred governmental policy to come to fruition.  Those who disagree with you are your political enemies.  Their capabilities or character are completely irrelevant. 

[angus]

In order to cause your preferred governmental policy to come to fruition.  Those who disagree with you are your political enemies.  Their capabilities or character are completely irrelevant. 

see what I mean boys and girls??

you don't hold these people responsible for being ignorant, do you opebo?  Their teachers are you and me and everyone who is about 15-20 years out of school right now.  You get that, don't you?  See, these people take you seriously when you post some BS like that.  I'm not saying I don't do irresponsible things like that either, so I'm not being a hypocrite, but I can't imagine that the average person would want to think it has really come to this.  That the blind justice and the greater good of mankind are no longer values which our government should hold.  That Jefferson and his colleagues shouldn't be rolling over in the dirt.  If so, we're in for a horrifying next hundred or so years.

[opebo]

In order to cause your preferred governmental policy to come to fruition.  Those who disagree with you are your political enemies.  Their capabilities or character are completely irrelevant. 

see what I mean boys and girls??

you don't hold these people responsible for being ignorant, do you opebo?

I don't follow.  Ignorant of what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you just teasing me?  Because my post was not BS, and was intended in all seriousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it has 'come to this'.  The other side are ideologically opposed to what I consider Freedom.  Does that have something to do with Jefferson?  I don't know.  But it is not merely a passing fancy such as liking or not liking Friends.  It is serious stuff - life and death stuff. 

[angus]

even the most casual viewer of King of the Hill could tell you that asians love a good metaphor.  You spend most of your time with Thai whores and you can't say that?  You're like that English diplotmat in Africa that Sean Connery has to slap around a bit and cure him of some venereal disease.  "Good God Man!  Don't you think you should at least learn something about the people you're g?!"  Of course it's not a goddamned Friends episode!

No I'm talking about these senators are old enough to presumably know all this, but are willing to--well, they want to be reelected.  anyway, you can't hold that against them--but the fact that in only the past couple of decades the pressure to standoff this way (based on hypothetical How Would You Vote? questions!) stems from that Hamiltonian "beast".  Actually, I'm surprised a old-school elitist such as yourself would be mystified by any of this.  Certainly I'm not teasing you.  I've always taken you seriously.  But I don't mind using you as an example.  Yes, I think you know your perceived freedoms stem from the document you don't mind taking for granted when a million other smaller documents fly in your direction relieving you of the burden of practical thought.  That's not the point either.

I'm saying that as long as it's convenient, either side will play that card about Constructionism.  Right now the GOP has the upper moral hand, as it's easier to sell the democrats as obstructionists than look for the truly most qualified jurists,  Of course the Dems would play that card if they had it.  Anyway I still am swayed by the argument that it should still, ultimately, be the President's call, no matter who picks whom.  This one happens to disagree with you on some issues which happen to be fashionable to discuss among the proletariat (though I suspect on some other key issues his advisors are on exactly the same frequency as you.)  But I'm also just saying that, like Escherichia Coli, which is a bacterium that is so successful it can live in such disparate environments as on a refridgerator door, in the dirt, on your son's saliva, or on the fringes of the gastrointestinal tract of man, you choose to board this bandwagon, even though you know better.  Microbiologists call these organisms Opportunists.   They come in all sizes.