Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/public/wp-config.php on line 27
Who Will It Be? — Why Now?
On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Who Will It Be?

There are a lot of names floating around about the Supreme Court nominee with Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the US Court of Appeals on most lists. She has too much in common with Alito to make me comfortable – Catholic, Princeton, Yale law.

I would like them to look at some of the talented people on state courts, like Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince of the Florida Supreme Court or Justice Paula A. Nakayama of the Hawaii Supreme Court.

[snark]Since Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-Never-Never-Land) managed to finagle his way to the position of ranking member, another name occurred to me: Margaret Cho.

There’s no requirement that a Justice must have a law degree, and the entertainment value of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III contemplating the possible elevation of Ms Cho to the Supreme Court, would be worth the price of admission. I could easily see a movie deal out of those hearings.

If the Shrubbery can nominate Harriet Miers, why not Margaret Cho? [/snark]


1 hipparchia { 05.05.09 at 11:52 pm }

you are a truly evil person, bryan.

hipparchia´s last blog post..

2 Kryten42 { 05.05.09 at 11:58 pm }

I nominate… Bryan Dumka! 😈

Who seconds that?


3 Bryan { 05.06.09 at 12:15 am }

My only concern is if his head explodes, Hipparchia. That would be such a downer.

Unfortunately I wasn’t raised in a hippie peace and love environment, like Margaret, Kryten, so I would spend all my time not leaping over the table. Margaret deals with hecklers and can be devastating, besides she likes the spotlight, so at least one of the people in the room would be happy.

To help understand Sessions, all of his statements end with “G-d bless America” and they generally begin with either “This might offend some people but” or “I’m not a bigot but”. He is a smoother, better dressed George Wallace or “Bull” Connor.

4 Kryten42 { 05.06.09 at 12:48 am }

Yes… so? And, your point is? 😉 😛

I still say, you’d be better than just about anyone else there, or being nominated. You ate the very least, know what the phrase ‘Laws of the United States of America’ mean. I haven’t heard of congress officially amending the Constitution to add the word ‘Biblical’ or ‘Christian’ at the front of that phrase yet, but to listen to most of the current Justices and the GOP morons, it seams to be taken as a done deal.

Of course, when any of the rightwingnut hypocrites (including those secretly affiliated) mention ‘Bible’ or ‘Christian’ their definition of those words are definitely a unique interpretation and vastly different to what anyone rational and honest take them to mean.

5 Bryan { 05.06.09 at 1:10 am }

To amend the US Constitution requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress and agreement by three-fourths of the states. That’s why we have only had a couple of dozen amendments, and the first ten, the Bill of Rights, were passed almost immediately after the Constitution. We aren’t into mucking around with things, especially after the mess that was Prohibition.

Nobody ever bothers to ask if G-d has any real interest in hanging around with the perverts who seem to get elected to Congress. They don’t seem terribly interested in obeying any sort, kind, or type of law. Not exactly the sort of raw material for a believer.

I admit that going to work in a bathrobe appeals to me, but I would like a selection of colors, and I insist on a hat. How does anyone know you’re important without a good hat. I wouldn’t like wearing a lamb on my head like British judges, but a good hat sets the tone.

6 fallenmonk { 05.06.09 at 9:26 am }

Cho would be fun but another nominee that would be a hoot would be Al Gore. That could make some heads explode as well.

fallenmonk´s last blog post..Nature’s Little Rule Book – 1st Rule

7 Steve Bates { 05.06.09 at 12:31 pm }

Bryan, how would you like a wizard’s pointed hat, and a robe with silver moons and stars appliqued onto it? If the entire Court were compelled to wear those, they might be laughed out of court, as at least five of them richly deserve.

I find it difficult to believe that a Court comprising so many Catholic members… I can’t remember the number, but it’s surely easily a majority already… could possibly judge objectively in freedom-of-religion cases.

[Update: there are already five Catholics, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito… the usual conservative bloc. Tell me the Pope isn’t manipulating the U.S. Supreme Court; go on, tell me.]

8 Bryan { 05.06.09 at 12:58 pm }

While Al would give them a righteous stomping, as he certainly learned how to do watching his father, he would look at the job as a distraction from his calling, the environment.

As you know, Fallenmonk, when you spend time working in the fields during the Summer, you either learn to love the land or hate it, and it lasts a lifetime.

The reality is, Steve, about the only people who see the Supreme Court at work are lawyers, and there is no need to impress them. The only “window” to the Court is by transcripts, and now audio recordings. They are still functioning as a radio show, so costumes aren’t very important. The artists are free to to use all of the “license” at their disposal to visualize what is happening.

Hey, Rehnquist started this, so I think we should go with it. About half the time, baggy pants and floppy shoes would be more in the spirit of what they are doing than black robes.

9 Moi { 05.06.09 at 9:31 pm }

Midge Rendell!! 😀

Moi´s last blog post..PA Act 62 Goes into Effect July 1

10 Bryan { 05.06.09 at 10:06 pm }

Why not, she has trial court experience.

11 Kryten42 { 05.08.09 at 5:04 am }

Oh? An experienced appointee to the Supreme Court? Hmmmm. That could be considered… novel, judging [sic] by current standards. Nahhhhh… What am I thinking! It’s the USA. It’ll never happen. 😈

12 Bryan { 05.08.09 at 1:22 pm }

I don’t know who started the rumor that the law should be administered by academics who have no connection to the real world, but that seems to be the conventional wisdom in the Village.

Studies have shown that “lower” animals can determine what’s fair, and it might be nice to see a little more of that “primitive” concept in court decisions.