Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webby
Why in a "democracy" do they insist on electing people who have nada experience of fuck all, but seem to be "friends of friends"? (Or son's of ex-presidents)
Roberts has nada track record, even as a judge in any capacity. He's a run of the mill lawyer.
There must be two kinda of "democracy", one for "special people" and another for all the rest. |
Not for a moment do I support the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, however, it is unfair to label him as a "run of the mill lawyer". As I understand it, he has a great legal mind. That does not however mean that he uses his mind objectively.
My problem with Roberts is that he has been given a fast-track to the Supreme Court in a manner which has allowed him to cloak his true political leanings. If the Congress is to vote on a person, the nominee should be willing to be forthcoming about their positions on issues of great constitutional interest to the American people, such as their position on abortion rights, gay marriage, and even sexual freedom (which greatly affects the adult industry).
When liberal judges are outspoken advocates for freedoms most Americans take for granted, they are labeled "activist" judges, yet when conservative judges use the court to benefit right wing causes, and are questioned upon it, there are cries of foul and "litmus test" on the right.
The Democrats did an appallingly bad job of raising the issue of Supreme Court nominations as a major election issue, even though it possibly cost them the 2000 election, and the court was known to be facing potential retirements. Hopefully they can do a better job in the confirmation hearings.
I cannot imagine anything worse than having both Roberts and Gonzalez on the Supreme Court (unless Dubya should get another nominee or two before his term in office is up).
ADG Webmaster