If it can not fit into a 15 second sound bite or into a sentance or two in a discount cigar forum it is likely the wrong solution.

teedubbya wrote:

Yes but you forget the Great Lawyer Shortage of 1963.

HockeyDad wrote:

Yes but you forget the Great Lawyer Shortage of 1963.

HockeyDad wrote:

Ahhh, yes...the ol' Storm of '63....almost pales in comparison to the Merger & Acquisitions of 1995!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Hmmmm, couldn't you have squeezed a little more derisive condescension in there? Yes, I think you COULD! I have faith in you.


😞

bloody spaniard wrote:

of course I can but I like to keep you wanting a lil bit more

teedubbya wrote:

I hear that's always been your philosophy with the womens too... 🙂

victor809 wrote:

of course. once they get a little vitamin T they always want some more

teedubbya wrote:

.... the sad part is you can only give them a little vitamin t, eh? :)

victor809 wrote:

Shiny! Embrace the future - vote for Rombie! 'Joss', by the way.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I voted Perot on an absentee ballot (early) in '92. Shortly after I mailed my ballot, he started in with the public paranoia about the RNC conspiracy to get to him through his daughter's wedding (or some such silliness.) I thought for years that I'd have voted differently had I waited for election day. Now, I'm glad I helped push the 'legitimacy' of a third party to 19% - And, I am convinced he'd have been a better president than Clinton was and better than GHWB II would have been. Loved Stockdale on the debate stage.

dstieger wrote:

Why are good judges/justices... "hard to come by"? We have an inexhaustible supply.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Robert don't forget. "VOTE EARLY and Often !"

jackconrad wrote:

I was raised in Cook County IL and that was the mantra that was thrown around every election cycle.

Early voted Monday, they insisted I show my ID, not my voter ID card. I said I thought US Government decided that was illegal, if I am here and want to vote I should be able to.
She flashed some sign at me with a picture of Uncle Sam on it with the statute saying to early vote you must show ID.
I told her she was screwing up my plans to vote "early and often!".
She almost refused me my ballot except for the round of laughter from folks around me saved my azz.

Im going back Tuesday and try again..... in Illinois you need to vote the other party twice at least to overcome the machine.

itsawaldo wrote:

Although Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince are insisting that voters should ignore their rulings when they head to the polls, and consider only whether these jurists have ever committed a crime, their critics and other legal scholars say otherwise -- i.e., that it is absolutely relevant to their retention that voters consider whether these justices are interpreting relevant law according to its original public meaning, or whether they are left-wing activists who ignore the law and impose their own personal moral philosophy on cases that come before them.

Below is the whole story from Sunshine News:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/three-justices-inventing-elements-crime-or-doing-best-legislative-screw-up?utm_source=constantcontact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110112 

critter2 wrote:

Although Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince are insisting that voters should ignore their rulings when they head to the polls, and consider only whether these jurists have ever committed a crime, their critics and other legal scholars say otherwise -- i.e., that it is absolutely relevant to their retention that voters consider whether these justices are interpreting relevant law according to its original public meaning, or whether they are left-wing activists who ignore the law and impose their own personal moral philosophy on cases that come before them.

Below is the whole story from Sunshine News:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/three-justices-inventing-elements-crime-or-doing-best-legislative-screw-up?utm_source=constantcontact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110112 

critter2 wrote:

Because even being a great lawyer doesn't mean one will be a decent judge- two totally different skill sets and aptitudes.

Good Justices are even harder to come by. They usually first serve quite a bit of time until appointed up from a trial court to an appellate court, where they usually serve for a while and refine their appellate court skills.

State supreme court justices are usually "the cream of the crop" from the already serving appellate court justices. By this point, we are down to far less than 1% of the judges and lower court justices.

rfenst wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of good appellate court justices just waiting in the wings for their "big break"!

HockeyDad wrote:

You would think, but that isn't the case. Waiting for that big break doesn't translate to being qualified.

rfenst wrote: