Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
GD....interesting analogy. What would the board have done then? All you can do is look at the qualifications of the individual. No one has a crystal ball (example: David Souter, the worst justice on the court, IMO).
|
Perhaps my final question should have better been, "Having left Disney and applying for the CEO postition of your entertainment company, would you vote to approve him." There's no crystal ball necessary, we know Alito's track record.
Quote:
|
To dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you is to eliminate debate. I find that disturbing.
|
But that's why 99 other people vote. That's where the debate is. What disturbs me is the Republicans saying that Dean was "politicking" by encouraging others to vote the way he was voting. Umm, isn't that the point of the Senate debates? Aren't the Senators obligated to vote the way they feel is right and attempt to convince others of the same?
As an individual, were my vote to count, I could not in good conscience vote for someone who's interpretation of the Constitution is so fundamentally different from mine. I'm not talking about a case or two, or a disagreement on a phrase here and there. I'm talking about a complete disconnect between how I think the document should be applied and how they do.