Wow, can't wait to see the outrage tomorrow.

While you're sitting back waiting for people to take the bait, go take a look at the thread you started a week ago about intending to take your wise old mothers advice to dial down the constant argumentative bullshit you spout on a daily basis.

I heard on the radio he had narrowed it down to two that were judges already. But I cannot recall their names. I should research them. 

I will be honest and say there's a part of me who hopes he nominates someone the religious red will hate so that all the people who threw him in our faces because of "all those Supreme Court positions" will shut up, but as I do favor a conservative judge over a loose constructionist, that desire is only half hearted.

I believe the troll only reads alt-right rumours and those rumours, if implemented, will fit right into her warped beliefs.

I think the "humdinger" is the sound her tin foil hat makes when it's on too tight.

I hope the Democratic senators prove themselves to be better than the Republican senators by giving whoever it is a fair hearing. Particularly, if it is a respected judge they have already confirmed and praised in a previous hearing like in the case of Garland.

Your post does confuse me. In some posts, you seem annoyed by the "hysteria" that you think Peas are demonstrating, but in posts like this you are predicting outrage that hasn't even happened which kind of seems like a way of encouraging it. It makes me a little hesitant to respond to the posts as I don't want to argue with anyone just for the sake of arguing. Forgive me if I am reading your comments incorrectly - this is just the impresssion I am getting.

Your post has me a bit confused........wouldn't all candidates under consideration already be a judge and for want of a better word " promoted" to the supreme court. Or have I got this wrong and one can select/appoint a non legal person as a judge and also to the supreme court?
I'm asking purely out of interest.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that it will be a white, conservative male. And unless it is some ridiculous pick from the KKK, I think we can call it even. Replacing a white conservative male with a white conservative male. No matter who the pick is, I think Justice Roberts is a voice of reason--so at this point, I'm not gonna get worked up.

But I'll bet you anything, in the vetting process, the nominee was asked if he will support Trump no matter what. Seems to be a theme...

And im going to agree with others that Lauren seems a little desperate to get a rise out of people. It's sad. 

I personally hope that the Democrats stop any attempt to hold a hearing for the open Justice.

Sometimes you do just have to reap what you sow.

actually I do think there are bigger things coming from him. Good or bad I don't know but I think this is just the beginning and by the time we get to those bigger things, we as a nation are going to be so exhausted that we may not be able to put up a fight if a fight is necessary. I also think that sometimes people forget he is a business man, not so much a politician so he makes decisions based on that experience. Not defending or blasting him, just pointing out that his decision making process is very different than what we have seen in the White House.

Thanks. I'm even more   now as to how someone can legally define the specifics of a law if they have no experience of the law to be able to interpret what it means.

Dear God, do you think she has a Twitter account???

 

Actually, prior judicial experience is not a requirement. In fact, some of the biggest names in SC history were never judges before being appointed.

supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

Thank you