South Carolina state Rep. Jonathon Hill is just an inquisitive guy who wants to be well-informed about state judicial candidates. That's the only reason he sent a questionnaire just crawling with completely unconstitutional questions to candidates for judgeships. In South Carolina, judges are elected by state legislators, so Hill, a bright young conservative who is 29 years old, thought he'd look into some important questions to help him decide who belongs on the bench. Here are a few things he wanted to know:
He didn't want to ask any leading questions, and as a Capitalist, obviously he is an expert in drafting surveys without leading, misleading, or inherent bias. Just ask Ayn Rand; a Capitalist can do anything.
"Bless his heart," indeed. And if by "he meant well," you mean "he meant well for the wingnut voters who are more interested in what magical sky fairy a potential judge candidate likes than how harsh a potential judge candidate will be on violent crime and white collar crime and all crime, then...yeah.
Meanwhile, we in Louisiana have a state government facing a $1.4 billion budget shortfall, so our magnanimous governor wants to shove that shortfall onto higher education and healthcare because somehow Louisiana isn't completely in the shitter in those two areas. If this gets any worse, my undergrad alma mater will be shut down in about a year, maybe two.
Republicans are clearly for smaller, less intrusive government. Unless it’s for someone they don't like, in which case you should criminalize every aspect of their lives.
As a lifelong resident of the Deep South, the phrase "bless your heart" is ingrained in me. It makes me giggle to use that phrase on customer service representatives from the Northeast, the West, and the Midwest. None of them understand that it essentially means "f*ck you."
<i>Should the Constitution be interpreted according to the original intent, or is it an evolving document with flexibility for the issues of today? Please explain. </i>
Hmmm . . . tough one. How about we look for an answer in, oh, I dunno, maybe here: &quot;The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution...&quot; --Article V, U.S. fucking Constitution.
Do you believe in the &ldquo;Supreme Being&rdquo; (SC Constitution, Article VI, Section 2)? What is the nature of this being? What is your personal relationship to this being? What relevance does this being have on the position of judge? Please be specific.
Nothing leading about that ... clearly &quot;no&quot; was an acceptable answer to the<strike> leading</strike> first question.
He didn&#039;t want to ask any leading questions, and as a Capitalist, obviously he is an expert in drafting surveys without leading, misleading, or inherent bias. Just ask Ayn Rand; a Capitalist can do anything.
&quot;Bless his heart,&quot; indeed. And if by &quot;he meant well,&quot; you mean &quot;he meant well for the wingnut voters who are more interested in what magical sky fairy a potential judge candidate likes than how harsh a potential judge candidate will be on violent crime and white collar crime and all crime, then...yeah.
Meanwhile, we in Louisiana have a state government facing a $1.4 billion budget shortfall, so our magnanimous governor wants to shove that shortfall onto higher education and healthcare because somehow Louisiana isn&#039;t completely in the shitter in those two areas. If this gets any worse, my undergrad alma mater will be shut down in about a year, maybe two.
Republicans are clearly for smaller, less intrusive government. Unless it&rsquo;s for someone they don&#039;t like, in which case you should criminalize every aspect of their lives.
Is it a hate crime to assault* such a nice young legislator simply because he is such a nice young legislator--or is that a hate crime?
*With votes, natch
Pope Frank: &quot;Who am I to judge?&quot;
Rep. Jonathon Hill: &quot;We&#039;ll judge you. By God.&quot;
True. True. False. Yes. Personal. No. No. Yes. All of the above. B. 93. and Yes.
I&#039;m qualified to be a South Carolina judge! And never had a single lesson.
He&#039;s just asking questions! Specific, leading, biased questions, but they&#039;re just questions!
As a lifelong resident of the Deep South, the phrase &quot;bless your heart&quot; is ingrained in me. It makes me giggle to use that phrase on customer service representatives from the Northeast, the West, and the Midwest. None of them understand that it essentially means &quot;f*ck you.&quot;
It&#039;s at times like this that North Carolina thinks of changing its name.
&ldquo;South Carolina does not have a state hate-crimes law.&rdquo;
What a surprise.
Funny that the people who bang on the Bible the most are the ones who know how it works the least.
Also funny is how it&#039;s mostly the same people.
<i>Should the Constitution be interpreted according to the original intent, or is it an evolving document with flexibility for the issues of today? Please explain. </i>
Hmmm . . . tough one. How about we look for an answer in, oh, I dunno, maybe here: &quot;The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution...&quot; --Article V, U.S. fucking Constitution.
Do you believe in the &ldquo;Supreme Being&rdquo; (SC Constitution, Article VI, Section 2)? What is the nature of this being? What is your personal relationship to this being? What relevance does this being have on the position of judge? Please be specific.
Nothing leading about that ... clearly &quot;no&quot; was an acceptable answer to the<strike> leading</strike> first question.
And he used Roman numerals, so we know they&#039;re authentic!
That one&#039;s easy: &quot;No, because God made woman to be our helpmate, not our employee. It says so right there in Genesis.&quot;
Hm. What part of Pennsylvania? I&#039;m told that pretty much everything between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh may as well be in the South.