That is what you thought that post was saying?
To: imardmd1
That was my point with mentioning Palin.
We need to to take the law from the lawyers, they have a whole priesthood thing going, and most of them are incompetent and unqualified to be in their positions, that is why law in America is one of the most incompetent, corrupt, buffoonish, just plain ridiculously cartoonish, sectors of life and government in modern America.
42 posted on 6/27/2015, 9:13:26 AM by ansel12
Actually, no. What I thought is that you did not get the point, and that you thought Cruz or Palin as President would be able to wind up nominating a conservative Constitutional Supreme who was also a Protestant.
Here's the point for you to think through:
If the pool of capable lawyers and judges from whom appointees to the Supreme Court are to be selected are predominantely Catholics or Jews or agnostics or atheists or Muslims, the President--be it Ted Cruz or Sara Palin, or a buffoon--will not likely be able to find anyone for the Supreme Court from that pool who is not a Catholic, or Jew, or agnostic, or atheist, or Muslim.
Therefore the Supreme Court will consist of Catholics, Jews, agnostics, atheists, and/or Muslims, regardless of the religious preferences of whoever is President.
Whoever is nominated to the Supreme Court must have some prior experience in jurisprudence, so therefore you cannot be saying that Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin belong on the Supreme Court, could you?