I'm Just Sayin'
I'm willing to argue about appointing a legal-lightweight to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to argue about appointing a born-again evangelical to the court. But I'm not even willing to argue about a legal-lightweight born-again evangelical, particularly one who appears such a sycophant.
Democrats in the Senate should make nice noncommital noises long enough for the right-wing to finish fracturing, and then reject her. Deal with the problem of whomever he appoints next later. (He'll be even more of a lame-duck then, and if we're lucky, Karl will soon be indicted.)
Today, W. tried to mollify his base by talking about how important her religion is to her, and how that religion is one of the things that led him to pick her. Which, to my mind, as someone who is not an evangelical and therefore would not have been picked, seems dangerously close to an unconstitutional religious test (Article VI). I'm just sayin'. And a religious test that is graded by Pat Robertson and James Dobson isn't one I'm any more comfortable with.
However, if it's suddenly OK to be talking in detail about the nominee's religion, I do have a question. Can we discuss her eschatology, (not, as apparently she's fond of scatology)? Someone who may believe the endtimes are at hand could be in charge of deciding precedents meant to apply for decades if not centuries. That's kinda weird. Would we get to have the case reheard after the rapture, or what? If we're to believe that Harriet's religion is going to affect the way she decides cases, I'd like someone to ask about that.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that one ought to really believe that one's decisions will have lasting effects for generations of Americans before one is given the power to make decisions that will have lasting effects for generations of Americans.
I'm just sayin'.
Democrats in the Senate should make nice noncommital noises long enough for the right-wing to finish fracturing, and then reject her. Deal with the problem of whomever he appoints next later. (He'll be even more of a lame-duck then, and if we're lucky, Karl will soon be indicted.)
Today, W. tried to mollify his base by talking about how important her religion is to her, and how that religion is one of the things that led him to pick her. Which, to my mind, as someone who is not an evangelical and therefore would not have been picked, seems dangerously close to an unconstitutional religious test (Article VI). I'm just sayin'. And a religious test that is graded by Pat Robertson and James Dobson isn't one I'm any more comfortable with.
However, if it's suddenly OK to be talking in detail about the nominee's religion, I do have a question. Can we discuss her eschatology, (not, as apparently she's fond of scatology)? Someone who may believe the endtimes are at hand could be in charge of deciding precedents meant to apply for decades if not centuries. That's kinda weird. Would we get to have the case reheard after the rapture, or what? If we're to believe that Harriet's religion is going to affect the way she decides cases, I'd like someone to ask about that.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that one ought to really believe that one's decisions will have lasting effects for generations of Americans before one is given the power to make decisions that will have lasting effects for generations of Americans.
I'm just sayin'.
posted by Paul at 2:37 PM |
|
email this
