Posted by Bill Martinelli [ 24.213.130.196 ] on October 18, 2005 at 09:40:49:

In Reply to: Miers posted by manualblock on October 17, 2005 at 19:55:54:

Since Reagan, the most publicized issue for choosing a new Supreme Court justice has stemmed from the appointees view on the Roe vs. Wade ruling. Surely there must be more issues to choosing a justice for the highest court in the land, no matter which side of the isle you sit on.

Maybe one of the most rudimentary requirements should be that you have prior experience as a judge before? What gives here, how does a person even recognize a thought that says hey, let’s nominate this fine lawyer for a justice seat on the supreme court. The JP at the Elvis chapel of love in Vegas could have more judiciary experience.

Replies:

• Re: Miers - manualblock 10:42:07 10/18/05 (5)
  • And the 41 other appointees that were confirmed without being a judge first.... - Mr Vinyl 11:13:01 10/18/05 (4)
    • Re: And the 41 other appointees that were confirmed without being a judge first.... - Bill Martinelli 12:45:55 10/18/05 (3)
      • Re: And the 41 other appointees that were confirmed without being a judge first.... - manualblock 14:43:54 10/18/05 (0)
      • Re: And the 41 other appointees that were confirmed without being a judge first.... - Mr Vinyl 13:35:29 10/18/05 (1)
        • Re: And the 41 other appointees that were confirmed without being a judge first.... - Bill Martinelli 15:07:17 10/18/05 (0)