COMMENTS:
*Precilla
I have one good reason: Her controversial rulings include an opinion that a distributor who failed to conduct a background check on a salesman was not liable for the rape of a woman by that salesman. SO, no ability to sue for damages. Add that to her continued dissents on the Texas Supreme court, already one of the most right wings courts around.
Remember they are following the law. Is there a law that says companies must run background checks? We don't have all of the information. They aren't ruling on what they personally think is right or wrong.
She has been the judge who has dissented more than any other on the Texas Supreme Court. I believe she was in the majority on that one. Add to that her whacked out dissents on the environment, civil rights and others.
Clearly qualified for the job, no doubt. My issue with her is her faith. It's a great thing to have (I spend days wishing I still had mine), but I, along with several million other people, are afraid that her faith might intrude on her judicial impartiality (read Judge Roy Moore, for a fair example). There's a line, in the Bill of Rights, I believe, which calls for the "separation of church and state". It's a phrase I hold near and dear, not because I don't believe in the existence of a Deity, but because of the one question that immediately springs to mind on this issue.
Whose Deity do we exalt above all others? Does the nod go to Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, or any of roughly nine billion OTHER candidates? And how do we appease those who feel that the designated Top God was wrongly placed On High? When you can answer that question, then you're free to establish your own country and do whatever you like.
Now, back to the Judge. Supremely qualified. Now, If she's willing to put it in writing that all of her decisions will be based solely on canon law, without a HINT of religious influence, then I'll personally put in a word for her nomination. Not that it's needed. Georgia has two GOP senators, so they'll be first in line to vote her up.
That hasn't been her history though. Overwhelmingly pro-business, anti-consumer, and anti civil rights. And in the minority more than any judge on the Texas supreme court. An extremist. Exactly why the fillibuster has been there. To force a president to nominate moderate judges. The republicans want to nominate conservative activist judges. See... it is ok to be activist if you are conservative. They will regret it if they use the nuclear option. Also, Republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees - not all by fillibuster, some by holding them up in committee. Their reason: too extreme, activist. Exactly the same reason as the Democrats now. A moderate judiciary is in the best interest of America.
Well, ceeejjj, is this a "bait ballot?"
If you really can't see what is wrong wih Judge Owens, you aren't really trying.
Owens is to the federal judiciary what Hitler was for the Nazis: a friend with only a "few" faults? The woman is a neo-fascist. If we are going to confirm this species of pond scum, then why not put David Duke in charge of the NAACP?
I know, I know: poorly reasoned connections...
Well it's early morning here in the Rockies, and I have to get some sleep.
Good night, ceeejjj (or morning here).
Read you later
|
