LogFAQs > #910093470

CaptainHammer posted...

First thing he said was this is revenge from the Clintons. For a post that is supposed to be non partisan (it is obviously partisan but usually they're better at hiding it).

1) A grudge with the Clintons isn't necessarily partisan.

2) To be fair, the Clintons have a *lot* of reason to try to sabotage him -- he was involved in Bill's impeachment, among other incidents that hurt them. And the Clintons have the kind of clout to mount a campaign against him; which, of course, isn't to say that they did it, just that that it's not as far out of the realm of possibility as people want to suggest.

CaptainHammer posted...

Of course he's not qualified even beyond his repugnant views.

Again, among other *actual* indications of qualifications (you know, besides some internet guy with no understanding of law), the American Bar Association had confirmed he was qualified for the job. That's in addition to meeting every traditional qualification for the job. You can say that you have misgivings about his character or you don't trust his ruling, but when you pretend that he's not qualified you expose a ridiculous partisan bias utterly divorced from reality.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.