He supports the NRA, that's qualification enough for me!
Just another uneducated deplorable birther
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel.
- Thread starter jbander
- Start date
Just another uneducated deplorable birther
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what training does it require to be a judge? knowing the constitution is all one needs. The ABA, lawyers, and congress just screw the rest of it up.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
judges do not argue motions
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ok, since you can't answer my first question, maybe you can answer this one........
what ARE the qualifications, in your opinion, of a federal judge?
Constitutionally there are none, you could be a federal judge
everyone who is not a left wing marxist socialist democrat is a hater,no it is you with the hate ,oh yes does playing victim make you feel good,you are saying i am a hater because i voted for TRUMP,
no you are the hater here.
I knew that remark would "light up" the ignorant!
You know nothing of what you claim.
:lol:
evince
Truthmatters
it is true
it was an American litmus test
if you voted for trump you had to IGNORE his racism and hate of women to see him as a good choice.
If you are able to ignore someones racism and hate of women to pick them over others you are a racist
non racists cant ignore that shit
IT IS AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES THAT PERSON FOR ANYTHING
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I SHOULD be a federal judge, but actual freedom terrifies people in to calling it anarchy.
so, since there are NO required qualifications, I guess nobody can be UN qualified, can they?
Agreed, I just prefer my judges to be educated in the law and experienced, but that’s just me.
Not being educated? Just how do you reach that conclusion?
Do you know my background?
If so, please enlighten us.
He supports the NRA, that's qualification enough for me!
Well, at least we agree you prove my point how the right doesn't care how unqualified he is.
In my opinion - an understanding of the law, the judgment to reasonably apply it, and a sane understanding of the constitution instead of a radical ideology about it which leads to destroying the constitution by misinterpreting it.
The right today is at war with the constitution, using the Federalist Society to create an army of radical ideologues to destroy the constitution. The ABA doesn't catch all the problems, but is pretty good at being right when it rates 'unqualified'.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
while I agree with you about the right being at war with the constitution, I have to say that so is the left. The ABA is an organization solely interested in job security, so their opposite opinion is all it takes for me to consider qualification.
there's only one way to understand the constitution, at it's face value and simple verbiage.
Well, I appreciate you agreeing about the right.
Unfortunately I can't return the favor about the left or the ABA (the ABA is not the left, either).
And I would suggest to you, that you are seriously in error in your statement about the constitution's 'face value' and 'simple verbiage'.
Unfortunately for that viewpoint, the constitution is the opposite. It's a bare framework that's VERY vague in all kinds of things, and does NOT answer thousands of detailed issues clearly, no matter how hard you look.
In fact, one of the best ways to spot the people who are lying about the constitution is to spot the ones who claim they're following the clear instructions in the constitution, the 'original intent' - the way the right does. They're just trying to stamp their agenda with legitimacy and attack any other viewpoint - which is equally or more valid - as tainted and incorrect.
In fact, the constitution has that vagueness - things like 'unspecified rights' that are not written but which exist - written right into it. The only correct interpretation of the constitution is the one that understands the 'spirit' of the document and does interpret it to recognize those 'unspecified rights' that are implied but not explicit. To say they don't exist is the one position that clearly violates the constitution's 'plain language' (see the 9th and 10th amendments which exactly protect unspecified rights).
That doesn't mean that anything anyone wants to make up is in the constitution.
It means that it is a more complex, less simple and clear document requiring expertise to interpret.
And unfortunately, the right takes advantage of that vagueness to push an agenda that is at odds with the intent of the constitution, and invent rights NOT implied, such as giving corporations constitutional rights the document did not intend.