IF ONLY Obama would appoint Rachel Maddow to the SCOTUS...

Oh, sorry..........

calling someone else an extremist.


This toupee'd putz hangs regularly with Alex "juice boxes are a government plot to turn you gay and Obama controls tornadoes" Jones and he wants to say Maddow isn't mainstream?

The first filibuster didn't even occur until 1837.

Echos of Michele Bachmann.

Paul, that is. What alternative universe did he come from?

Bagger end area.

is only in the Senate because slave state education is underfunded and below standards acceptable to normal Americans.

That loud pop/slapping noise you just heard was 97,300,451 Republican assholes slamming shut in unison. The staccato pop/slapping sound still going is Ted Nugent's asshole.

as he said, it hasnt been used for that. If that's all they wanted it for, then why are they filibustering the reasonable nominees? Dont use it until it's clear the nominee is too radical. That's what it's intended for, but not what it's being used for.

Someone put this jackass out of his misery. Just add it to the 'shit Rand Paul says.'

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/st-my-rand-says-pauls-long-history-of-wacky-quotes.php

Where does he come up with this lunacy?

What a vivid imagination.

Who knew?

She doesn't even have a law degree, Paul, you idiot.

I'd say something witty like, "I'm happy to hear that Rand Paul sees me as a possible nominee for the high court. It would be an honor and a privilege if President Obama were to put me on a short list as suggested by Senator Paul"

Justice, than the extremest Rand Paul has of becoming President."

She has shown no interest in doing anything other than what she does.

If ever does decide to run for office, it will be fun to watch her kick their asses.

saying stupid or incorrect stuff. She's also likable and good natured, something repugs are not.

Plus she's a lesbian.

There are NO requirements for Supreme Court Jstice.

We already have examples of justices less qualified than Dorothy's friends in Oz.

Do you know the names of any such Justices (without law degrees) offhand?

Associate Justice James F. Byrnes, whose short tenure lasted from June 1941 to October 1942, was the last Justice without a law degree to be appointed; Stanley Forman Reed, who served on the Court from 1938 to 1957, was the last sitting Justice from such a background. In total, of the 112 justices appointed to the Court, 47 have had law degrees, an additional 18 attended some law school but did not receive a degree, and 47 received their legal education without any law school attendance.

Over the last 70 years, though, they've all had law degrees but they've never gone back and made it an official requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Educational_background

(though they all have been). In theory a professor of political science with expertise in Con Law could be considered (and would probably be just as qualified).

Several past members of the court (including Earl Warren & Rehnquist) had no judicial experience before being appointed to the court.

Bill Maher has him nailed exactly.

Wolf

She is a lot more intelligent and educated than most of the Tea Bag Republicans in Office combined

a sense of humor (again, more than most of the Tea Bag Republicans in Office combined)

They'd be fantastic and a helluva lot better than anyone the pukes could come up with

she could just run out and grab a law degree and then where would we be?

I think his toupee glue is fucking with his head...

Silicone caulk contains arsenic as an anti-mildew agent.

too bad .. no one will have the guts to nominate her

He's not wrong about the reason for the existence of the filibuster - the thing is that he and others have used it in a petty, demeaning manner in order to obstruct, impede, and damage the current administration in any way possible. My concern is that any changes in filibustering will come back to hurt us in the future, under republican administrations.

The line about Maddow and the one about Sharpton are absolutely frigging ridiculous, and I'm quite sure that Paul knows this. He's just attempting to spin it in the most outrageous way possible to get dittoheads and tea party nitwits raging and thumping their chests.

That having been said, let's flip the coin for a sec... imagine what sort of people someone like Dick Cheney would nominate. This is part of the reason why we need the filibuster to remain a strong tool. Read the Audacity of Hope - we came close to losing it under the Bush administration, and the consequences would have been disastrous.

Maybe the President should pick up the phone...

When the Constitution was written, people learned law mostly through apprenticeships. Law schools at places like Harvard, Yale and Columbia did not even exist until the mid-1800's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_in_the_United_States

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_have_to_be_a_lawyer

when she humiliated him.

He's missing a screw in his head.

I'm shocked one of them hasn't shown up yet to say "We get it, he's an asshole, but he's right about blah blah blah..."