Tuesday, October 04, 2005

No surprises

Bush:

"I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said. "She'll have more experience. She'll have been a judge, but nevertheless the philosophy won't change, and that's important to me."
Only an under-evolved, criminally incurious, perennial frat-boy would think that not changing in 20 years is a good thing.

2 Comments:

At 12:30 PM, Anonymous Ace said...

You said:

"Only an under-evolved, criminally incurious, perennial frat-boy would think that not changing in 20 years is a good thing."

So, what is worse:

a. being the person who thinks not changing in 20 years is a good thing or

b. being the person who doesn't change in 20 years.

Be careful about picking (a) because I can offer into evidence as examples of (b) people such as Newt Gingrich, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Rush Limbaugh. That quartet spans the political spectrum in terms of unchanging opinions and positions while simultaneously making the case for it being populated with some really unsavory humanoids.

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger Ellen Marsh said...

I had the same thought about Bush's praise for Mier's lack of change in 20 years. I would hope that someone would grow and evolve in 20 years and not be stuck in 1985. Personal evolution is based on learning; continued learning is crucial for someone making critical judgements that affect the whole nation.

How can a lawyer be successful without continuing education? Isn't continuing ed required by most state bars?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home