Litmus tests for judicial appointments? LMAO!
It isn't hard to see through the demagoguery any time judicial appointees come up before the Congress: if a Republican't is Prez, the Democraps try to pin a mean spirited, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-poor, racist label on the appointee; if a Democrap's the Prez, the Republican'ts try to pin a abortion-like-it's New Year's Eve, scrap the Constitution via the courts label on the same. Opinions on the most inconsequential -- Coke or Pepsi?...less filling vs tastes great -- become points of debate and contention.
Political poppycock.
I and the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party are of one mind on the issue of judicial appointments: Judge Harry Stone. Y'know, the Night Court dude. If there must be a litmus test, then any judicial appointee I forward for consideration will have to meet the following criteria:
- does the appointee have a sense of humor (aka, is he/she funny)?
- is he/she able to ajudicate and chew gum at the same time?
- is he/she willing to render opinions baseed on existing Constitutional law, and not on the basis of level-playing field touchy-feelyism, or social engineering?
- is he/she willing to tell Senator Pompouss Leahy he's an empty-headed blowhard and indicative of the very things he claims to decry, followed by doing a magic trick on him and either (a) granting him a brain or (b) forcing him to speak nothing but truth for one entire year?
- will he/she place remote-controlled Fart Machines strategically in the court room, activating the audible function each and every time an attorney begins dissertating intellectual dysentery?
Radical-sounding, you say? Maybe so: but my litmus test wasn't used in the seating of the current array of clowns who make up the 9th Short Circuit Court of Appeals in San Freakcisco. One need only look there to see where the current-day politically-motivated litmus test has brought us.