Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, heh.
*xcaitlinx*
post Oct 8 2005, 10:54 PM
Post #1





Guest






As you all probably already know, Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who has no judicial experience whatsoever to the Supreme Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_..._wh/bush_scotus

Discuss. I know that there's a lot to talk about...
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Oct 8 2005, 11:35 PM
Post #2





Guest






"Might as well put a baby on the surpreme court, at least the baby will have an opinion on abortion" - Carlos Mencia
 
Mulder
post Oct 9 2005, 03:45 PM
Post #3


i lost weight with Mulder!
*******

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 4,070
Joined: Jan 2005
Member No: 79,019



QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Oct 8 2005, 11:35 PM)
"Might as well put a baby on the surpreme court, at least the baby will have an opinion on abortion" - Carlos Mencia
*


haha. laugh.gif *falls over laughing*

but seriously. omg. i would rather have john roberts.

maybe hes just trying to appease everyone by picking a woman. but geez...there are better women.

just to make this clear, im a liberal.
 
yummy_delight
post Oct 9 2005, 09:22 PM
Post #4


Lauren loves YOU.
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,357
Joined: Jul 2004
Member No: 32,793



Cronyism. Cronyism. Cronyism.

But aside from nominating someone who was his buddy to the Supreme Court, I think Bush had bigger political motives for this one as well.

He picked someone neutral with no known opinions on highly controversial topics so that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would whine about his choice. He also chose a woman so the feminists wouldn't complain he was being sexist by replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with a man. Bush was just attempting to make everyone happy.

Of course there are better female candidates out there for Supreme Court Justice. But those women have served on the bench before and probably have documented opinions about topics like abortion that they have openly discussed. I think Bush was just tired of having everyone on his back and being on the defensive all the time, so he chose someone with a clean slate that he thought would cause the least amount of controversy.
 
*xcaitlinx*
post Oct 12 2005, 10:32 PM
Post #5





Guest






QUOTE(yummy_delight @ Oct 9 2005, 9:22 PM)
Cronyism. Cronyism. Cronyism.

But aside from nominating someone who was his buddy to the Supreme Court, I think Bush had bigger political motives for this one as well.

He picked someone neutral with no known opinions on highly controversial topics so that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would whine about his choice. He also chose a woman so the feminists wouldn't complain he was being sexist by replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with a man. Bush was just attempting to make everyone happy.

Of course there are better female candidates out there for Supreme Court Justice. But those women have served on the bench before and probably have documented opinions about topics like abortion that they have openly discussed. I think Bush was just tired of having everyone on his back and being on the defensive all the time, so he chose someone with a clean slate that he thought would cause the least amount of controversy.

*


someone NEUTRAL? bahahah! this lady literally said that she WORSHIPS George W. Bush and thinks that he is "the smartest person she has ever met". That has to tell you something right there. Did he like pick the first person he saw as his nominee? I mean in all seriousness, Bush needs to extend his circle of friends. The only reason why he picked her is clearly because she will vote in favor of Bush. (at this time--the one against abortion)
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: