Unless I'm mistaken, Sotomayor is the only, or one of a very few, judges to have a ruling overturned by a unanimous ruling from the Supremes. And we all know how rare unanimous decisions are.
Doh! That wouldn't look good on a resume.
Quote:
Sotomayor has a record of being rebuffed by the high court. Of the six decisions she was a part of that came before the high court, five were reversed. In the sixth, the court disagreed with Sotomayor’s reasoning.
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
That's the oath a Supreme Court justice takes. It has no room for "empathy" or "life experiences". In point of fact, it says they aren't to be used. That justice shall be impartial. Obama and Sotomayor don't believe that.
I think this says best what most people believe justice should be:
Quote:
Our ideal of judging was perhaps best explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is done — not manufactured. Andrew McCarthy in National Review
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
The judge is like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is done — not manufactured.
While that view is a good analogy to the role of judges...it is an overly simplistic view of the role of a JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT. If the LAW were clear...the Supremes would not be hearing the case. So it is their role to look at ALL the facts...and try to find how OLD law and Constitutional principles may be applied to NEW situations that have never been dealt with before. The difference between activist justices and traditional ones is how much leeway each gives in calling the "strike zone".
Of course it's overly simplistic, but the point still holds that the judge should be impartial to those before them. There should be no "Jordan Rules" as there was in the NBA.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
I'm thinking... of running for a judgeship sumwhere.
wouldn't you vote for me?
I mean, hey, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life...
__________________
We are not primarily on earth to see through one another, but to see one another through
Some people are like slinkies: not really good for anything... but you can't help laughing when you push them down the stairs
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.
__________________
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the state governments extends over the individual states"
-George Washington
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.
__________________
We are not primarily on earth to see through one another, but to see one another through
Some people are like slinkies: not really good for anything... but you can't help laughing when you push them down the stairs
Do not the Supreme Courts justices interpret the the law? As an example, polygamy was a belief of the early Mormon Church.
Quote:
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
__________________
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor
CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
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.
__________________
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the state governments extends over the individual states"
-George Washington
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".
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
