From this past Friday's Saddleback Church forum, here's the pot nearly calling the kettle, uh, uh, uh, inexperienced. (h/t: Allahpundit)
On why he wouldn't have nominated Clarence Thomas to serve on the Supreme Court:
I don't think that he... uh... ah... uh, uh, uh, I don't think that he was an exp... a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation... setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.Stuttering aside, that's the same reason I would give as to why Obama's not fit to be President.
As I began doing a little homework on Clarence Thomas' experience, I found that The Wall Street Journal was already a step ahead of me in comparing their qualifications for high office:
"So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street."
|