The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
--- wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.
dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning? They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe
In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."
But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.
I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.
Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.
So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?
That whole system flat out sucks
The system is just fine. There are both horizontal (the legislative and executive branches) and vertical (competing claims to jurisdictional supremacy) checks on the judicial branch that continue to work well enough, though certainly not as optimally as some might prefer.
Following nomination, all SCOTUS nominees have to be confirmed by a majority in the Senate. This process has become nakedly partisan in a way that just wasn't the case until about thirty years ago. Antonin Scalia, paragon of the right's more constrained and "originalist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 98-0 in 1986. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paragon of the left's more expansive and "purposivist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 96-3 in 1993.
Jesus, my phone actually notified me about RBG's fall. She needs to stop fucking around!
Has any president appointed 3 SCOTUS judges in their first term?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm Posts: 31614 Location: Garbage Dump
simple schoolboy wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Then he probably shouldn’t be on the SC huh
Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.
Not the point but nice joke attempt
Would you care to elaborate on this?
Wasn't saying anything about his or my ideology. I was merely suggesting that if someone genuinely believes that every decision he makes will be based on "revenge" against one party, it seems strange that said person - if they cared at all about the integrity of our democracy - would be cool with someone that irrational being in a position to impact our laws and freedoms in this country.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am Posts: 19725 Location: Cumberland, RI
doug rr wrote:
how many managers did steinbrenner appoint?
"Yogi Berra, Lou Pinella, Bucky Dent, Billy Martin, Dallas Green, Dick Houser, Bill Virdon, Billy Martin, Scott Marrow, Billy Martin, Bob Lemmon, Billy Martin, Gene Michael, Buck Showalter, … uh, tut!, . . .George, you didn't hear that from me!"
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22437
96583UP wrote:
can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22437
no, this is exactly what this thread needs
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22437
why does this matter again?
i'm not being sarcastic i just don't care to do the google research myself this time
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
i'm not being sarcastic i just don't care to do the google research myself this time
Illegals get scared, dont answer, federal funding goes down for things like schools. Illegals do answer and here comes the Gestapo.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22437
gorsuch is an intellectual
kavanaugh is an errand boy
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
So I guess it wasn't you, but wasn't there somebody here who opposed incorporation once upon a time?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum