Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I don't find it ironic at all that someone as brilliant as you is still arguing a point I conceded days ago. (Post 91, back on Thursday).
The executive and legislative choosing the leadership of the judicial branch IS checks and balances. How many times must I concede this point before people pay attention?
|
You've missed the point AGAIN. I read what you wrote, left-handed apology (for lack of a better term) that it was. I'm focused on the "good idea" aspect of your comments, specific the fact that you think that it's not a good idea.
You've admitted that checks and balances do exists. And for that I thank you. But that is a minor part of the whole. Why do you insist that the way federal judges are chosen is a bad idea? Please, there is an audience lurking in this thread waiting to hear you expound on your rationale. We have none up to this point. This one point goes all the way back to Post #2. It's the premise for me posting in this thread to begin with.
Explain, please.