continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

azriel wrote:Whats wrong with Shitterton ? How about these doozies as well ..........
Bell End....   Worcestershire
Brown Willy...  Cornwall
Nob End....   Lancashire
Scratchy Bottom..... Dorset,
Boggy Bottom, Minge Lane, Fanny Barks ( I kid you not,) Crotch Crescent in Oxford... ( I can produce photo's ! )
Oh the list is a long & winding road  What a lurid sense of humour us Brits have, & no doubt the Scots, Irish & Welsh too !

http://www.anglotopia.net/ultimate-list-of-funny-british-place-names/

And then we have oddly weird & yet sometimes sweet names for places Honestly, what are we like

http://mentalfloss.com/article/69445/43-charmingly-odd-british-town-names

http://britainexplorer.com/funny-place-names/

azriel wrote:Have you ? you should see a doctor about that

Mrs Figg wrote:wow how quick is that erosion?

Eldorion wrote:If you drive along the northern part of I-95 in Maryland, getting close to the border with Delaware, you a see a sign for this:



{{{Sadly it is not a single place but two different towns.}}}

When I met with Judge Gorsuch on Feb. 7, I sought to ascertain his potential to be an independent check on the president. The judge was clearly very smart, articulate and polite, with superb judicial demeanor. But over the course of an hour, he refused to answer even the most rudimentary questions.

I asked him whether an unambiguous Muslim ban would be constitutional. He refused to answer. I asked him if he agreed with conservative lawyers who say the president has abused executive power. He refused to answer. I asked him whether he thought the president’s comments on voter fraud would undermine our democracy. He refused to answer. I asked him about landmark cases like Citizens United and Bush v. Gore. He refused to answer. Since he claims to be an originalist, I asked him about his view of what the framers intended with the Emoluments Clause in our Constitution.

He refused to answer any of these questions. He told me he couldn’t give me his view of any case, past or present, or any constitutional principle, because it might bias him. This blanket excuse frustrates any examination of what kind of judge the nominee will be. As the conservative icon Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote, “Proof that a justice’s mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias.”

He told me he couldn’t give me his view of any case, past or present, or any constitutional principle, because it might bias him.

Bluebottle wrote:
All very understandable, I'd say. With the US as divided as it is you can't allow hidden agendas. Clarity in questions like this are more important than ever.

Since he claims to be an originalist, I asked him about his view of what the framers intended with the Emoluments Clause in our Constitution.

Proof that a justice’s mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias.