Reading about that IO of WH, I notice that he has mood swings. At one time, he seems very much in control. After a few days, he goes berserk. Aren't these signs of being under addiction?
Folks, before you allow a nominee to the Supreme Court to be seated beside the other members, don't you think you must also examine the nominator if he exercises wise judgment when he makes decisions? If he does not then everything is a nightmare and it is best to rethink his decisions.
Just reading about his nominee, I saw a very immature fellow who, during last Thursday's hearing, acted as if he had been denied a lollipop. And so he was haranguing everyone.
The Supreme Court is a very sensitive institution that requires members who are MATURE, not easily rattled by circumstances, who are able to think broadly of the consequences of their decisions, and who need to be sensitive to other people's conditions, much more so of those people who would be affected by the decisions of the court.
But if choosing a member of the court just means a process without their sociological implications, then I think a very big problem would ensue: the country and the people will be considered guinea pigs to be experimented with.
Hence, regardless of the need to be progressive-minded, institutions are treated to be just structures to be manipulated without regard to their relevance to human existence.
For a country to progress, I think the people must be assured that the institutions in the country are run well by progressive and healthy minded officials.
Restore critical perspectives, please. Progress requires healthy minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment