Please read basso's thread title again and you get your answer. Thumbs ultimately respects Basso's opinions.
If she's such a mediocre legal mind, why was she appointed the the Appeals court by Bush I? Are the 4 dessenting SC justices also mediocre legal minds? You're going to have to help us out here.
Civil unions comes to mind. If it doesn't affect other people, who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own sanctuary.
Why civil unions and not marriage? The SC has already resolved that the concept of "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.
I never said she wasn't bright, but compared to a wide range of Supreme Court candidates she is not on top of the charts. Major, I need to go back for some research -- because I could be wrong here -- but I recall that her Yale Law School dean rated her as mediocre in comparison to others on Obama's list.
T_J, sometimes you get way out there, but so do posters like mc mark and glynch. That doesn't mean I have any less respect for disparate opinions, yours or theirs.
Your credibility's out the window with junk like this. George hasn't posted a single sincere opinion here in years. It's all comic slaps at "libpigs" and troll junk like Obama getting blown by a crackhead. You might as well compare Ann Coulter to Paul Krugman. You have fallen off a cliff here, thumbs.
I never said I'm in anybody league. I just said I would certainly not be insulted by a comparison or categorization, and I wouldn't. As far as thoughtful and intelligent, I've had my moments and then I've had my "anti-moments." However, I think we all have, even Major.
Who are you addressing with the question, If it is meant for me, please re-phrase because I don't understand the context of the question. There is a lot of mediocrity that is "okay."
are you okay with a mediocre legal mind if they agree with your stances on issues like abortion etc.?
thumbs: Please post just one instance in which you have agreed with each of the top trolls here: George, texx and basso. I refuse to believe this is possible until you give examples.
Absolutely not. For example, I was opposed to the nomination of Clarence Thomas. I never believed he had the best legal mind available at the time. Now, before anybody jumps to the conclusion that, since Sotomayor is Hispanic and Thomas is an African-American, I oppose minority candidates. (Remember, I myself am Hispanic). Because they are in for life, I support the finest legal mind available. I want to be clear, though, that I am happiest with a strict constructionist with a superior legal mind.
Gotta love that liberal arrogance -- if they don't believe something, then NO ONE can believe something (unless that person is insane). A sign of immaturity.
Oh, Batman, you and Major are making me go back and do research. I am devoting much too much time to this thread. As it is, I won't be able to research Major's question until tonight. I thought I'd give a quick comment and leave. Give me some examples, and I'll agree or disagree.
