Supreme Court Candidate
This entry was posted
on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Took me a minute. Nice, I really like this one.
I can’t recall which Constitutional Article or Amendment covers that.
Oh, wait! IT’S NOT IN THERE.
Empathy = feel-good lawlessness. Good luck with that.
Disappointing. I always look forward to reading these each morning, in part because they’re both smart and — generally — without any political undertones.
Granted, this one is smart.
This one is very clever… You make my day every weekday
The opposite of empathy, Mordecai, is solipsism.
And can you refer me to the constitutional provision that declares textualism or original intent to be the theory of interpretation favored by the framers? Thanks in advance.
This is brilliant, the best one in a while.
@Mordecai: Thanks for that information. What exactly does the constitution say about the qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice? I can’t seem to find anything about it, other than that the President will nominate and appoint them and with the advice and consent of the Senate, which would seem to give the President the ability to use whatever qualifications he sees fit.
I love it.
It’s not dumb to want a justice with empathy. It’s dumb to suggest that empathy is in any way relevant as a qualification of a Supreme Court justice.
Courtoons © David E. Mills 2008-09: Daily legal cartoons and comics.