Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You've not recanted or even restated that position. You've even started another thread that demonstrates very clearly that you still do not understand the separation of power and the checks and balances that Articles I-II of the United States Constitution clearly define.

I'm not taking the bait on the changing of the subject with the Bush as a democrat scenario because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand which is: you stated that the method of selecting a Supreme Court Judge is stupid, and flies in the very face of checks and balances as the method that is currently used. You are still stating political when they're judicial.

The posit of the Bush scenario shows you still don't understand the foundation of the discussion of separation of powers and the checks and balances stated in the US Constitution. If you are seriously making this a What If? It may be a discussion, but it's simple and one dimensional since it doesn't matter as to what the partisan politics, they have some bearing maybe, but not all bearing. That's about as far as that discussion can go.

Back to selecting Justices post#13, how is it stupid? post#15 How is it that they are representing partisan politics?

Originally Posted by Willravel

If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond.