The Headline says "President Obama advised not to replace David Souter with judge"

Huh?

Oh yeah, this one makes a whole lotta sense and proves once again that our astute politicians are thinking about what is best for America at all times.

A sitting Supreme Court justice (David Souter) is retiring this year. One of nine of them.

The headline says " President Obama advised not to replace David Souter with judge".

You can read this story at :http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_dems_court_outsider_tell_bam_not_to_pick_fed_judge_for_justice_souters_job.html

-Bigmike

Let me see if I can fathom this logic. Not sure I understand where these wackos are coming from now.

This position they are talking about is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Of the United States of America.

In the top Federal court.

Where cases are decided that ultimately set policy, decide laws, and interpret the Constitution.

Of the United States of America.

Nope, I can't see where this person would need any judicial experience (Pay attention kids this is what is called "sarcasm. Can you say Sarcasm? I knew that you could"). Do you?

How about we call my mechanic, who struggles with weighty issues such as how to best fix my brakes to be on the Supreme court? Or maybe we could see if the guy who drives the trash truck in my area would like a cushy federal job? Maybe we call on the guy who maintains the grass at the school across the street from my house? All these people are fairly smart, have great jobs now, have to make a real living and have real decisions to make every day. All of them seem to fit the goofy opinions of these so called professional politicians (Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy to name two of them), and they seem to fit within the boundaries of their definitions of what they would like to see in the next appointed justice.

You know who they are right? Arlen Specter just changed parties from Republican to Democrat in order to be reelected and ride the Obama-Gravy train. Patrick Leahy is the liberal Democratic senator whose hobby is to be a fan of all things Batman. He was a bit player in the last Batman movie.

The two guys want a Supreme Court justice who has "done something other than wear a black robe for most of their lives." I don't necessarily disagree with that statement as their is plenty of precedence for this, in the nineteenth century and in common law from as early as 100 BC!!

Here is my question and is why I am concerned. With all that is happening in the world and in our country, do we really want to be guided in our collective Supreme Court judgments by people who have no real world experience at judging? I am not qualified to say definitively Yes or No , however it seems to me that if you have car repair to be done (and you cannot do it yourself), you call a mechanic. When you want to build a house do you call a plumber?

Lets see ...hmmmm. abortion case? Call the Gardner and have him decide. Immigration case? I know a fisherman in Alaska with an opinion. We have to decide the case on an enemy combatant, better call the DJ from the nightclub my kids go to.

These politicians would have you believe that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't need to be a judge. Or have experience as a judge. Or have a background similar to a judge.

And we are supposed to think politicians somehow understand what we need as a country. In the next breath they intimate that Hillary Clinton would be a great appointment. I am flummoxed. What planet are these guys from?

Right. OK.

Heck why not? We got the guy from the mailroom elected as the CEO didn't we?

The story gets goofier and goofier every day.

Thankx for reading my rant !

bigmike

Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post.