[sola_fide]

One doesn't need a law degree to understand the US Constitution. In fact, I'd say more laypeople have a better understanding of what it means than do lawyers.

Yes, I forgot how simple constitutional law was. Lord knows why all those silly people spend all the money and time attending law school.

Let me ask you this: using your rationale above why not nominate me. I guess I'm just as qualified as anyone. Better yet, let's nominate Laura Bush. I mean she's a woman - which seems to have been the main criterion here, and we think she'd vote the right way.

[OldFriend]

I notice those constitutional geniuses on the Court now that just affirmed KELO.

Very impressive, NOT.

[andyk]

Yes, I forgot how simple constitutional law was. Lord knows why all those silly people spend all the money and time attending law school.

I'm astounded that you're unable to understand the US Constitution. People do not attend law school in order to understand the US Constitution. If you think they do, then there's no surprise that we're not able to discuss this issue on the same level.

Let me ask you this: using your rationale above why not nominate me. I guess I'm just as qualified as anyone. Better yet, let's nominate Laura Bush. I mean she's a woman - which seems to have been the main criterion here, and we think she'd vote the right way.

Why not nominate you? Because you think only a subset of lawyers, ordained by their law schools are capable of understanding the US Constitution, and applying it to laws that are challenged. You clearly are not worthy of the court; it would be asinine to nominate you. You can take that "nominate a woman" BS elsewhere.

I cannot believe that you think I need a lawyer to tell me what the Constitution means. I guarantee you that a plumber understands the phrase "Congress shall make no law" a lot better than your liberal friends of the bar, who discover emanations and penumbras.

"Oh, mighty black robed thugs! Please tell us what our rights are!!"