Deciding that this appointee has to be a woman therefore reducing the pool to 30% of those available.
Why can't he just pick the best candidate?
Why?
ohio has yer back. No information or facts, but a bush-bot until the end.
PS: I used your double post so I could give two answers.
But I am cut to the quick that you called me a bushbot (it's SO clever and meaningful........and original too, and it hurts so bad.......especially that 15th time you said it. Ouch. Painful).
But don't you fret your little head off. I'll recover from it, and learn to go on, and try to be just like you.
Thanks for the really wonderful conversation, dearest Eaker. You're a doll.
It has gone on since forever. FOREVER.
We have never had closed borders, only immigration control that has failed because the normal gates of entry are ignored for pathways woven from thousands of feet and vehicles sneaking in...dangerous to national security in today's world, most especially.
Hitlery took of the immigration problem superficially, in an attempt to joust President Bush and future presidential hopefuls on the republican side into putting their feet into their mouths in an effort to keep her from getting out front on this issue. Which of course, she was never going to do and will not do.
Why?
Because it is one good way to lose control of her base.
And why will republicans continue to shy from it...because we have a massive hispanic population and it might result in losing the house and senate down the road.
Is that worth it? Is it?
Our President is working on the border situation, and he is doing so from a rational standpoint, with the full understanding that NOTHING is going to keep a man or woman from slipping into the USA if it means a job wherein they can feed their family. Period.
Were I in the congress or senate, I would be working overtime to encourage businesses and enterprises to build in Mexico, I would be offering incentives to Fox to keep the borders tight on his side, I would be for intiating some kind of lasers that would completely cover the borders and I would be doing the same with the Canadian borders.
Our President was the governor of Texas. He knows full well the pressure of illegal immigration. And he also knows that there is not to much that can be done to keep a person seeking to feed their family from taking immense risks to get to a place where that can happen.
Improving Mexico...and fast...and taking control of their natural oil...oh yes takinng it by way of repayment in return for economic build-up is exactly what I would be doing, were I king.
A minor disagreement in principle. There is no "best candidate". I mean, each of us has a candidate we probably like the best, but the notion that there are only a few great candidates in a country of 280 million people seems constrictive.
For example, they found 9 justices when our entire country had, what, maybe 20 million people? Were 8 of them idiots? (OK, maybe so).
My point: If we could find 9 well-qualified candidates amongst 20 million people, there should be over 100 fine picks now in our country of 280 million people.
Frankly, I think there are THOUSANDS of people who could be well-qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I don't think it is like being a major league pitcher. You have to be able to read. You need a good knowledge of law, how it is written, how it is discerned. You need to know the constitution, something that should be attainable with a few dozen good books on the subject.
Every time the supreme court makes a decision, thousands of us ordinary americans read the opinions and pronounce them good or bad. We could all be wrong, we could all be clueless. I'm not saying that having smarter people is bad, or that there couldn't theoretically be a perfect candidate out there.
I remember Bush I bravely arguing that Clarence Thomas was the absolutely best qualified person for the Supreme Court. How many conservatives really thought he was the best conservative available? I remember (maybe incorrectly) a lot of argument on that point on BOTH sides of the aisle. But he seems to have turned out OK.
My purpose here is not to engage the larger question, just to raise the issue of whether "best" is an attainable goal.
After all, I don't think we are all convinced the Roberts was the "best" pick. And seemingly solid judges have become horrible supreme court justices. Others have pleasantly surprised.
I may well be wrong. I don't think there is one "best" president either, and if there is I am certain we will never ever come close to picking that person to be president.