Yes, it's another debate post...

Someone finally asked Bush about who he would choose to put on the Supreme court if given the chance. He said he'd pick someone whose personal opinion wouldn't interfere with their interpretation of the law. The example he gave was that he wouldn't pick anyone who refused to allow the pledge in schools because of the words 'under God' - because that's not a matter of opinion?

He referenced the Dred Scott case which okayed slaves as personal property and said that wasn't a matter of opinion but a matter of law. I'm not entirely sure what he was trying to say there but I think his logic was off. The people who created law held, in their opinion, that slavery was okay and that blacks weren't human. Seems to me that saw is often about interpretation and opinion.

As I stated previously, I cannot even begin to understand how this man even functions in today's society with such a limited and dualistic perspective, let alone any grasp of the complexities that face national leaders. How can he NOT see that forcing people to state a belief in God is all about forcing your beliefs (i.e. opinion) on them? I am constantly flabbergasted at Bush's absolute refusal to acknowledge that there can be more than two sides to an issue.