From Senator Kerry,
in the 2004 Presidential Debates, one more notable expression:
What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen -- the future of things that matter to you in terms of civil rights; what kind of Justice Department you'll have; whether we'll enforce the law; will we have equal opportunity; will women's rights be protected; will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards; will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
That was from the Senator, the Candiate, the former US military officer -- respected by whom was of his crew, as I saw the account to have been (in a very well done documentary, aired of PBS, I recall not the name of it, though may it have been this ) -- Mr. John Kerry.
In the more: Some discussion.
I'll find a pointless argument, probably, with many a person markably "liberal", about abortion.
Regardless and in more, this department, said of justice, I trust but very little.
The fact that we now have yay-many-thousands of people, as prisoners in Guantanomo (sp) bay, and how many will just love to hate us, when they are finally released to their homes and families? and their families have what, for keeping up in sustenance, and what, their communities, for work? and our administration has what justification for keeping them, besides the ineptitudes made of this administration? and what is even happening, of congressional investigation about that military that remains as ours?
and how are we to resolve this, now? and can we even ask GWB about this, and expect him to come up with anything, without consulting his advisers and rhetorical ultimata, learned, as of an actor, first?
and the judges -- again, I may find some disagreement, about them, of this audience, though would there be any cause for my to lend an ear. I know not much of the selected judges, but I would just as well that they would all be voted through.
I regard the foremost issue as being one of congressional policy and the sanctity of the filibuster. That is, innately, a separate issue beside the selection of justices.
As for the judges, the propoposed justices, I might side with anyone, to say: If there is nobody, whom one would more prefer, for the spots, then one should vote them through. We might rely on the litigators, any lawyers, to make their cases, well and solidly, with confidence and broadly informed consideration, before any jury and before any judge or judicial panel. We need not politick, in what may be thought "grave excess", upon the reasonable selection of Supreme Court Justices -- and I know some of "the stakes", supposed. You cannot exactly "un-appoint" a Supreme Court justice.
Anyhow, I opt to not carelessly involve myself, about the justices, in any further or more, or about the congresspersons of California, whom -- in utter most -- I know of, frankly, in none. (There has been more in my day than "get acquainted with the Caly federal legislature", though may I have to non-formally schedule some time, for some study for such, anyhow.)