(I almost never disagree with you) We don't need any more women on the court. Women are taking over everything and doing a lousy job. And we really don't need anymore conservative Catholics on the court presently. And there should not be such a thing as a Jewish seat. We need some Fundamentalists on the court!
14 comments
There should not be any such thing as Jewish seat? How about no such thing as an _insert_any_religion_here_ seat? Note you said "seat" not "person". Implying the spot itself is reserved for that religion, not just currently occupied by someone of that religion.
The UK is usually much better about avoiding instituting official religious privilege than we here in the USA (ironic given the UK has an explicit government religion and the USA isn't allowed to, but it's true that the UK does a better job of this than the US). But one exception is the fact that there's seats in the House of Lords that are explicitly Church seats that are only allowed to be held by clergy. Given the much more religious attitude of the US, we do NOT want seats explicitly set aside for religions. It would go very badly.
USA demographics:
Women (including girls): 50%
Supreme Court demographics:
Women: 3 of 9
As you can see Catholics and Jews are over represented, but keep in mind only one Catholic has ever been President. Women are under represented and so are Baptists (although in the case of Baptists one might consider that a good thing.) But what's the point in appointing someone just for demographics? None of the Presidents who appointed them were women, Catholic, Jewish or Baptist.
We need people on the court who don't discuss cases with their invisible friends. One thing any court should depend upon is the ability to fairly assess factual evidence. The fundies have already demonstrated their ability to ignore facts whenever they disagree with the bible. No, they're exactly what a court DOESN'T need.
(I almost never disagree with you) We don't need any more women on the court
I say we do need more women in the SCOTUS.
And considering the clusterfuck of late re. the one nominated by Donald Fart, you don't have the right to disagree when there's sufficient evidence that Wiggy drops him like a hotel towel with a skidmark on it: and just as quickly.
Because he agreed to nary 24 hours ago: and you don't have the right to disagree .
We need more '#MeToo' influence in more than just the SCOTUS.
The only situation when you don't need any more women on the court, is when there are no more women. Period.
But yes, you really don't need any more religious rightists on the court. It's a secular one, not a religious court, so religion has no place there.
@Titania
Yes, because the one nominated now is doing such WONDERS for your reputation! (paint blistering sarcasm! )
image
Even Doug Piranha felt that one!
And as even what the Piranha Brothers were based on: the Kray Twins would never think of harming women - despite their ultra-brutal reputation, I guess that leaves Dinsdale to nail the OP's head to the floor.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
