Jump to content

Bush's Supreme Court Pick


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

I mean there is some permeability between religious influences and politics in the USA. Isn't allowing politics to dictate the composition of high courts bad enough, without that on top it indirectly bears the potential to induce some degree of a "de facto" confessionalism in a supposedly aconfessional state ?

I don't understand all this praising of checks and balance system, if at the first occasion, each side attempts to place pawns in the highest judiciary positions whose decisions may shape the juridical landscape of your country for years to come, even if the political leadership changes, what implies also a potential for future frictions. I just see partisan struggles everywhere, and I doubt this favorises the inner mechanics of the US. Isn't there any way to depoliticize all this and just let the most technically qualified people do their job regardless of other considerations ?

Yeah right... LOL

Come on Nomad, I know that you're not that naive..

Roe v Wade is BAD precedent, it's not law, it's judicial Fiat.

It is a state issue, not a federal one, even if Roe v wade were overturned tomorrow, it would have no effect on abortion, until the states decided to do it on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Roe v Wade be such an issue if it involved a women's right to have her gall bladder removed?

And by the way, Nomad is right to question the tendency to stack the courts in favor of one political party or another, it's antithetical to the very concept of jurus prudence. Aren't judges supposed to represent the most unbiased among us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Would Roe v Wade be such an issue if it involved a women's right to have her gall bladder removed?

And by the way, Nomad is right to question the tendency to stack the courts in favor of one political party or another, it's antithetical to the very concept of jurus prudence. Aren't judges supposed to represent the most unbiased among us?

Ya think, then how come the dem's stack the court with judicial activists, yet the republicans try to get actual constructionists on the bench, that understand the rule of law and the judicial branches place within it?

HMMMMM?

THe Dem's do indeed STACK the courts, but the Republicans do their best to put judges that have records for strict constructionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag sure made an easily understandable reference towards political parties, and their respective practices.

And if you tell me that those refrences are wrong. I will point you to San Francisco, where a cop killer got off free last year. The law punishes killers period, and has an even harsher penalty for police killers. Explain to me how he got off free were it not for the liberal judges and prosecutors. So like Jag said, conservatives don't stack the court, they put people in there who actually understand and FOLLOW the law, unlike the judicial system in SF, which is LIBERAL by the way. Which proves Jags point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Grizzle:

Would Roe v Wade be such an issue if it involved a women's right to have her gall bladder removed?


Now, don't be daft. Thats such a lame comparison. Unless of course she happened to have a gall blander that would grow up to be the next president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Would Roe v Wade be such an issue if it involved a women's right to have her gall bladder removed?

Now, don't be daft. Thats such a lame comparison. Unless of course she happened to have a gall blander that would grow up to be the next president.


Damn Derek, now you ruined it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Jag sure made an easily understandable reference towards political parties, and their respective practices.

And if you tell me that those refrences are wrong. I will point you to San Francisco, where a cop killer got off free last year. The law punishes killers period, and has an even harsher penalty for police killers. Explain to me how he got off free were it not for the liberal judges and prosecutors. So like Jag said, conservatives don't stack the court, they put people in there who actually understand and FOLLOW the law, unlike the judicial system in SF, which is LIBERAL by the way. Which proves Jags point.

We're talking about the Supreme Court.

Since states have both elected and appointed judges it's pretty hard to claim they're all liberal appointees. And unless every single murderer gets off scott free it's hard to claim an isolated case is a clear indication of liberal judicial activism. Unless of course it happens to suit one's predisposed idea that the court system is actually stacked with liberal activists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest argument against liberal judges is the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Those who seek to push their agenda through judicial fiat should not be on the court.

The only thing activist I'd like to see from a conservative SCOTUS is a reversal of decisions not based in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...