Democrats versus Republicans

[craigimass]

Wouldn't matter who it was....the key is the "richness of experience".

If you are one of the many white men who have that, then you can bring that to bear. If you are a guy like GW who was born to wealthy and influential parents and drank your way through life, then I would submit you would have less wisdom to bring to the court.

So, yes, that statement could be true.
A wise white man who rose from the trailer parks to be #1 in his class and had multitudes of diverse experiences would be VASTLY superior to the daughter of a rap star who was raised in Beverly Hills with a silver spoon and never got out of those circles much.

I guess it's a question of whether one thinks true wisdom comes automatically at birth, or whether it is the sum total of their experiences and hardships, trials and tribulations. We all know that steel forged by fire is superior to that which is not.

[jackdale]

Do not the Supreme Courts justices interpret the the law? As an example, polygamy was a belief of the early Mormon Church.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice.

This "thin of the wedge" could easy bring the right to life into a conflict with a freedom of religion. Who makes that call? Only a Supreme Court can do so. It therefore, places one right above another.

If freedom of religion cannot be unfettered, what about other rights?

Just asking (the lines are not out). See this link - item d

Jack

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

uhhh, bubba, do you understand what a judge does?

Uh, one thing they don't do is bring up talking points which only existed for the past 10 years - when somehow our country made it through the 230 years before that lacking such "slogans".

Truly amazing, eh?

Dittos my friends, dittos.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

Chris

uhhh, bubba, do you understand what a judge does?
A judge applies current law, without regard to the defendant or the accuser. period.

A judge adjudicates without regard to life experiences, time of day, fashion sense or length of hair. Just apply the law as written.
I don't care where they (judges, defendants or accusers) grew up, the color of their skin, whether they're pointers or setters, what god they pray to, or if they pray at all. just apply the damn law as written.
I don't care if the judge likes the law or not. Just apply it. Changing the law via a court decision ain't a part of the job description.
Legislating from the bench is not, nor should be tolerated. period.

So tell us craig, which of those is wrong?

Or, better yet, tell us what part of the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection under the Law, you disagree with. And why it's a "talking point".

[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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[PBzeer]

That's wise of you craig, don't bother to ascertain the facts, just take a position without the bother.

Legislating from the bench is when, for instance, a judge goes beyond the decision, and imposes a legislative, or, more precisely, a tax funded solution, rather than requiring the appropriate legislature to do it. Which is what should be done.

I realize you can't be bothered with actually having any knowledge of what you're talking about, but as the record shows, as a lower court judge, Sotomayor was not in a position of ultimate authority. There was always the Supreme Court to correct her decisions, as they have done numerous times. So while she may be qualified for her present position, that doesn't make her qualified for her nominated one.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

There was always the Supreme Court to correct her decisions, as they have done numerous times. So while she may be qualified for her present position, that doesn't make her qualified for her nominated one.

To my understanding, the Supremes are hardly ever unanimous on any decision, meaning they too self-correct.

Plus, even after Supreme decisions...those you might consider "wrong" (really no such thing since it is simply interpretation...some say wrong, some say right), there might be another case which brings up the same type of issue again, allowing them to "legislate" again.

Now if only we can find King Solomon (maybe through a DNA search), we'll have the perfect candidate. I think he might be a white male too...although he is jewish, so might not make the cut. Those dang "life experiences" might get in the way.

Of course, his 700 wives and 300 mistresses might work against him in the Senate (or actually, if he would so kind as to share, that would probably get him confirmed quickly).

[erps]

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.

Should they decide cases on their political views?

[PBzeer]

Until Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy went after Bork, the confirmation process was a matter of judicial qualification. Which is how Bork became a verb in the English language.

Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward; Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight. Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, not on his judicial qualifications, but on a misrepresentation of his public record.

[wind_magic]

Judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is a long standing point of contention, it isn't a new argument, it has been fought since the Republic was founded. Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should only strike down laws that are obviously unconstitutional, that they should make minor very specific rulings, and that they should defer to the legislature and uphold laws created by the legislature at ever opportunity. Judicial activism is obviously the opposite of that.

Judges are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to interpret law - HUGE difference.

Think of it like when a foreign leader comes to the United States, that young interpreter who is speaking for him, they aren't really supposed to be making stuff up, they're just supposed to be interpreting what is being said so that everybody can understand it, clarifying it so that there isn't any mistake or miscommunication. One of the people is making the decisions and originating the message, the other one is providing an interpretation for those who may not understand what was intended, but it is not the interpreters job to change the intent.

There really isn't much room for subtlety there, though I am sure that some would like to make it seem vague so that they will have wiggle room to do whatever they please when it pleases them. Who can blame them, I suppose, if you can't get your way in one branch of government, move on to the next one.