The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005. The reasons for the rejections vary, and include incompetence, inexperience, and impropriety. Most of the rejections, however, reflect in part, or even primarily, a difference between the President and the Senate over whether the nominated justice represents the right ideological choice.........
There's hospital visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, immigration, etc., etc.
To merit the Committee's rating of "Well Qualified," a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of "Well Qualified" is reserved for those found to merit the Committee's strongest affirmative endorsement.
Fascinating. A terrorist supporter here waxing on mature democratic politics?!
SF is one of those few people left who thinks he has reason to resent genocide and political oppression.
You can read French but you can't understand English?
ersi, your knowledge of history is deficient.
Is history English or does it belong to English? You seem to assume yes. That's what makes you incomprehensible. You are from a different planet, dude.
Quote from: ersi on 2017-04-19, 22:26:01Is history English or does it belong to English? You seem to assume yes. That's what makes you incomprehensible. You are from a different planet, dude.I can understand why you'd know next to nothing about the history between England, Scotland and Ireland. (As I suspect you can -if you'd try- understand why SF and I would know more...) What makes me "incomprehensible" to you is that I don't subscribe to your biases and I don't think ersi is the center of the universe!
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 23 queries.