You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.

Latest

Greatest

Lobby

Journals

Options

Help

Reply #213: Again -- it is NOT a requirement that a SC nominee be a lawyer . . . [View All]

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-03-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #212

213. Again -- it is NOT a requirement that a SC nominee be a lawyer . . .

there is no such stipulation.

Try to focus on how much of our education today is corporate --

our universities are now corporate, for heavens sake!

This is merely discussion, which seems to be frightening the hell out of some here.

Why?

It is so impossible simply to think about something like this on a website without

major panic?

Nor is it "important to me that someone who isn't a lawyer or judge" be appointed --

THIS IS A DISCUSSION . . . HYPOTHETICAL!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.