[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

"Legislation from the bench" is the talking point being discussed. It is a silly statement, akin to me saying "breathing from a human being". In other words, it is obvious that high court judges MAKE LAW....not by writing it, but by their interpretation of it.

See my last post - what you just said is akin to saying "When a foreign leader comes to the United States and speaks, it is obvious that the interpreter MAKES SPEECHES, not by deciding what is being said, but by translating it into English".

I don't know where some get the idea that judges are automatons, but it surely seems true. As a matter of fact, judges can be the most political people on the planet, as they usually rise through the ranks based on party affiliation.

That's because it's not the Supreme Court's job to decide what the law is, it is their job to interpret what the law is, so yeah, if we could computerize it we would, but it isn't always clear so we do need someone who can think to figure out what was intended, especially since Congress writes laws that conflict with one another and conflict with the Constitution on occasion. But the Court isn't supposed to make NEW stuff up, they're just supposed to try to figure out what the hell Congress was talking about when it said something and then tell the rest of us their understanding of it.

Although I am certain that many here cannot understand nuance, they DO end up making law - or at least interpreting it which ends up being the SAME THING.

When you said that I heard, "When a foreign leader comes to the United States and makes a speech, the interpreter DOES end up making a speech, or at least translating it to English, which ends up being the SAME THING", which is a pretty silly thing to say.

Words have nuance. There is no SCIENCE in law. You and I can disagree on the meaning of ONE WORD or a SENTENCE. Now, take MILLIONS OF WORDS and let's interpret the meaning. That is what judges and lawyers do.

Yes, lawyers do use the word of the law to get around the intent sometimes, but most of us know what was intended if we look at it with an honest heart. Judges have a tough job figuring out what Congress intended, they shouldn't make it any tougher by trying to invent new stuff along the way, which isn't their job.

Once again, we would not need people to do it if it was that easy. But I suppose perhaps we could get 9 "easy" buttons from Staples for the bench holders.

The job of the Supreme Court is made much easier by just sticking to their job, which I think most of them do.

As to the current pick, I know nothing about her except that she was originally appointed to high court by BUSH. I'm honestly not even going to listen to all the pros or cons because I know where it all comes from...usually corporate media. I did hear that she is VERY pro-business, having made numerous decisions which affirm that corporations are people and have similar rights. That would put her firmly in the mainstream, although against my own personal beliefs. Then again, I'm not under the impression that the appointment has to satisfy you or I or anyone else except perhaps the Senate.

This is a whole different topic, but if we can't have corporations which are legal entities, who the hell is someone supposed to sue if they are damaged by a corporation, 100,000 share holders ???? Who is supposed to back a warranty, 100,000 share holders ???? Who is supposed to enter into a contract with a labor union, 100,000 share holders ????