Something unpredictable always happens with the
SC (Supreme Court) whoever nominates them.
They are no longer beholding.
SC (Supreme Court) whoever nominates them.
They are no longer beholding.
Bush can't face reality
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Well I for one am appreciative the Supreme Court nominees do not get "elected" and have to campaign for votes from the people. Elections bring out the ugliness and insult simmering beneath the surface of public discourse.
After watching the political antics being displayed over the last two Bush nominees, I am grateful these justices do not have to be subjected to any more posturing and acting out before the media than they have. We should have the Judicial Query Awards and give out a tiny gold gavel or in most cases let's call it a mallet - to the winner of the interrogators for the title of: Who has been most offensive. The traditional scales would not be appropriate in this case.
The committee to "interview" both the most recent justices merely used their Q&A sessions to campaign for their own initiatives, rather than extract those of the justices. It was like a free political campaign for the cameras.
The justices of the Supreme Court are to weigh issues without bias, and because they are favored by one or the other party does not indicate that is how they will vote - to satisfy their benefactors. As how Justice should be, not as we witness so many times with the local judiciary who clearly are on the bench to "serve" an interest.
Much as the politically minded public would like it so.
Thus it is why once the title has been awarded, they are free men and women to decide as they see fit - for the rest of their lives while able. As JimMoyer states: They are no longer beholden - except to the rule of law as set before them. Amen.
After watching the political antics being displayed over the last two Bush nominees, I am grateful these justices do not have to be subjected to any more posturing and acting out before the media than they have. We should have the Judicial Query Awards and give out a tiny gold gavel or in most cases let's call it a mallet - to the winner of the interrogators for the title of: Who has been most offensive. The traditional scales would not be appropriate in this case.
The committee to "interview" both the most recent justices merely used their Q&A sessions to campaign for their own initiatives, rather than extract those of the justices. It was like a free political campaign for the cameras.
The justices of the Supreme Court are to weigh issues without bias, and because they are favored by one or the other party does not indicate that is how they will vote - to satisfy their benefactors. As how Justice should be, not as we witness so many times with the local judiciary who clearly are on the bench to "serve" an interest.
Much as the politically minded public would like it so.
Thus it is why once the title has been awarded, they are free men and women to decide as they see fit - for the rest of their lives while able. As JimMoyer states: They are no longer beholden - except to the rule of law as set before them. Amen.
pastafarian said:
It reminds me of a joke....
On a flight to America, an Israeli and a Palestinian are coincidentally booked beside each other on the plane. After the flight takes off and the uneasiness has worn off the Israeli removes his shoes. The Palestinian politely, asks "excuse me, I want to get a coke, do you mind moving?"
The Israeli says "Don't get up, I will get it for you."
The moment the Israeli is out of sight the Palestinian takes the shoes of the Israeli and spits in each one. The Israeli returns with a large coke and takes his seat. The Palestinian thanks him and enjoys some coke and they both settle in for the flight. Once they arrive in America they prepare to leave the plane and the Israeli slips his shoes back and notices his shoes full of spit. He turns to the Palestinian and remarks “how much longer must our people do this to each other, this spitting in shoes, this peeing in cokes?”
Funny? I think so....
You raise a good point, Jay. I think there's a good case to made that partisan "horse-race" politics does real damage to the system by shifting the focus from policy to team loyalty, especially at election time.
Certainly there are many Republicans who feel no loyalty to the current Bush administration, Liberals who are disgusted with what their party has become and Conservatives who lost a party they could support after Mackay shanked Orchard and the Tories fell in the CRAP.
As to the constant whining by conservatives in the US that liberals are "snobs" because they don't believe Rush Limbaugh is a journalist, that Scott McLellan is always truthful, or that believing in the literal interpretation of Genesis makes one a moral authority. Whine away. :roll:
Every camp has people who believe things that are just plain silly.
jimmoyer, I was under the imperssion that US conservatives liked the judges I mentioned (and Roberts,too) because they tend to support either the Originalist or one of the Literalist schools of Constituional law, whereas liberals were more likely to be Modernists or Instrumentalists.
Admittedly, I haven't followed the judgements rendered by any of the members of the Supreme Court to see if they hold to these patterns, or whether their judgements reflect the voice of their personal beliefs or vocal lobby groups, rather than a judicial philosophy.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what the motivation for an isolated judgement is, because even though it may run counter to the way a justice feels about that particular issue, it sets a precedent that will insure how decisions on future related issues will look.
Certainly there are many Republicans who feel no loyalty to the current Bush administration, Liberals who are disgusted with what their party has become and Conservatives who lost a party they could support after Mackay shanked Orchard and the Tories fell in the CRAP.
As to the constant whining by conservatives in the US that liberals are "snobs" because they don't believe Rush Limbaugh is a journalist, that Scott McLellan is always truthful, or that believing in the literal interpretation of Genesis makes one a moral authority. Whine away. :roll:
Every camp has people who believe things that are just plain silly.
jimmoyer, I was under the imperssion that US conservatives liked the judges I mentioned (and Roberts,too) because they tend to support either the Originalist or one of the Literalist schools of Constituional law, whereas liberals were more likely to be Modernists or Instrumentalists.
Admittedly, I haven't followed the judgements rendered by any of the members of the Supreme Court to see if they hold to these patterns, or whether their judgements reflect the voice of their personal beliefs or vocal lobby groups, rather than a judicial philosophy.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what the motivation for an isolated judgement is, because even though it may run counter to the way a justice feels about that particular issue, it sets a precedent that will insure how decisions on future related issues will look.
Alito has a great track record in terms of freedom of speech and he has notably followed case precedent on other issues. There has been very little (2 or 3 cases I believe) where he was the voice of dissent.
I think the Democrats went to far with this one, there is a difference being hard core and a difference intepreting the Constitution for the benefit of the people. Even if he is against abortion, that doesn't mean he will vote in favor of repealing the law. Abortion is election rhetoric, nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole.
I think the Democrats went to far with this one, there is a difference being hard core and a difference intepreting the Constitution for the benefit of the people. Even if he is against abortion, that doesn't mean he will vote in favor of repealing the law. Abortion is election rhetoric, nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole.
Only 2 of the current justices are democratic appointees and they are hard core. 7 are republican appointees and two of these have drifted further to the left in some cases than the liberal hard core. Another Kennedy is more likely to vote with the left than the right. Thomas had his confirmation hearings not been so personally damaging to his character, which has left him embittered, likely would have drifted leftwards.
What this translates to is that republicans have to nominate 2 judges to get one conservative. So it is more than likely that either Roberts or Alito or both will drift enough to the left to balance the court or if both bolt to bias it for the left.
Conservatives are well aware of this trend and for them the supreme court picks are like throwing the dice.
What this translates to is that republicans have to nominate 2 judges to get one conservative. So it is more than likely that either Roberts or Alito or both will drift enough to the left to balance the court or if both bolt to bias it for the left.
Conservatives are well aware of this trend and for them the supreme court picks are like throwing the dice.