"whit", did you mean 'Whig'? (like in Whig Party member)
Riffing off of the rube's own post:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
It doesn't matter; it should always be the person who is best qualified to interpret the intent of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if they are male, female, whit, black or Asian.
We've got 3 now but that's too many. Men and women are equal in numbers but NOT in value. Men become the engineers and businessmen and scientists that create wealth and give us this amazing hi-tech world. They are the farmers who feed us and the plumbers and auto-repairmen and electricians who keep things working. Women are english teachers and social workers - silly useless occupations.
Same can be said with even more force regarding blacks. How many of them do useful work?
Justice dictates that the SC be all white men.
We've got 3 now but that's too many. Men and women are equal in numbers but NOT in value. Men become the engineers and businessmen and scientists that create wealth and give us this amazing hi-tech world. They are the farmers who feed us and the plumbers and auto-repairmen and electricians who keep things working. Women are english teachers and social workers - silly useless occupations.
Same can be said with even more force regarding blacks. How many of them do useful work?
Justice dictates that the SC be all white men.
Well, if women are 50% of the population, maybe 50%? I guess it shouldn't matter though. All we really want is a fair and unbiased Supreme Court, right?
If they're well qualified women, why not?Libs would love it if 4.5 members of the Supreme Court were women.
Libs would love it if 4.5 members of the Supreme Court were women.
You’re generous.Half a judge would have been the most precise way to replace Scalia.
So this will rule out any and all corporatists too, the most subsidized group in the US. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very negative.
In the interest of balance, we should have 9 women for a century or so.
Libs would love it if 4.5 members of the Supreme Court were women.
Can't argue that. I hate corporate welfare too. Obama and bush gave it to GM and the insurance companies and esp the banks.
In the interest of balance, we should have 9 women for a century or so.
There shouldn't even be one black on the SC. With all the welfare they get, their value to america is negative. Very negative.
We've got 3 now but that's too many. Men and women are equal in numbers but NOT in value. Men become the engineers and businessmen and scientists that create wealth and give us this amazing hi-tech world. They are the farmers who feed us and the plumbers and auto-repairmen and electricians who keep things working. Women are english teachers and social workers - silly useless occupations.
Same can be said with even more force regarding blacks. How many of them do useful work?
Justice dictates that the SC be all white men.