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: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22437
just because one super dubious accuser appears to be false doesn't mean that the two more credible ones are
i don't want to rehash the whole last 60 days but it's not just the penis-related issues that make him an embarrassment to this country
it's his terrible haircut
_________________ 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 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
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
One of the sweet things that happened yesterday, was the NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan). One democrat ran against two republicans and won. Now NC has a liberal leaning supreme court.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35493
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
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."
_________________ "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
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
--- wrote:
B wrote:
NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)
I fail to see how this is in any way positive.
What's positive is that it backfired on them. They figured the racists hard working Americans that occupy most of my state were accidentally voting for liberal judges, so they labelled them so everyone would know who to vote for. But the first election saw two Republicans split the vote in a competition with a Democrat, so they elected a Democrat onto the court.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35493
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 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.
_________________ "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
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35493
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?
Getting the job is the political part, yes. Once they have the job it isn't supposed to be political anymore. Not overtly, at least.
_________________ "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
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 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