posted
I've been reading through John Kerry's website, and I found one pledge that bugged me. He promised to only nominate Pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.
Now, what happened to all the righteous indignation and protest that prevented George W. Bush from saying anything about nominating Pro-life judges? Back then, it was all about how you shouldn't nominate judges based on their political affiliation, blah blah blah ...
But it's okay for a Democrat to use a political litmus test for judge selection, so long as it's the right kind of litmus test? Just sounds like the worst kind of hypocrisy ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a perfect (but boring) world, judges wouldn't have to rule on politically sensitive issues. Back in reality, it's incongruous to suggest that ANY nominating strategy can be divorced from politics. Blame both sides for suggesting otherwise.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
The one litmus test I care about is finding a candidate that will take money ONLY from individuals and ONLY in limited amounts (under $1000 per person!!!)
I would vote instantly for a candidate who would try to pass a law restricting lobbyists' access to members of Congress.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
One of my party platforms will be to accept money, advice, and gifts from anyone who cares to send them my way, with the condition that I won't know who gave what. I also promise to share the banquet leftovers with Internet forum users who are nice to me.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
