Quote:
Originally Posted by Precious_b
Thought that was a cold response...
I was of the mindset that whoever holds some office in the seat of government most always have a spouse. If the office holder does his job in accords with law and such, it doesn't matter anything about the spouse. And when it came up with Clarence (I think it was WTF) I thought it one-sided to only bring up just one specific person on a narrow accusation. *I* think other spouses and their actions from present and past should be used to balance the point.
But I didn't know (someone please supply the source) that old Clarence used his position to facilitate actions for use wife, i'd like to hear about it.
|
... Thank you for the responce there, Preceus.
I was gonna responde with something similar to what
you stated, and you saved me the trouble.
1blackman1 has a good point, but it's Clarence's opinion
that MATTERS - NOT his wife's... And it's HIS decision
how to vote. ... And maybe they DO share the same view.
Are we really to believe that NONE of the other Judges
in history NEVER listened to the opinion of a spouse
on any issue??
Ya know, here in America I was at least hoping that we
could trust the Supreme Justices - for Honesty and Integrity -
MORE than we can trust the corrupt FBI/DOJ lately.
#### Salty