An Honest Brawl Over the Court »
Posted By Beau7890 6 months ago in Political NewsThe coming battle over President Obama's first Supreme Court nomination could be an enlightening debate over what direction the court should take. But it could also be a nasty and hypocritical fight that obscures more issues than it clarifies.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
480 Views Share Story 61 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Beau7890
Truth rests on the mathematical reeds of the infinite and everything moves forward by order of the eagle riding pillion, while the genius of vegetable ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 61 (view all)
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the article:
Reply
Liberals, who (in my view, correctly) opposed Roberts and Alito on philosophical grounds, should thus not be hypocritical themselves and deny the conservatives' right to challenge a nominee's philosophy. On the contrary, liberals should welcome a real debate -- and win it.
But this also means that such matters as a nominee's sexual preference should not be a consideration and that an authentic debate would involve ideas, not slogans -- notably "judicial activism," "legislating from the bench" and "strict constructionism."-
100%
deathray6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, from the article, and something everyone along the ideological spectrum should finally acknowledge:
Reply
"Today, judicial activism is far more the habit of conservative justices than liberals."
also:
"To pretend that these judicial fights are about anything other than the court's philosophical direction is a form of willful dishonesty. "
We need to recognize, finally, that both sides have politicized the bench to the extent that judicial precedent is used to further ideological positions, and thereby, political bias. -
33%
Klarissa6 months ago
-
-
75%
Jeboba6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When the repugs were in control, ANY opposition by the left to their nominees was blasted. But now that they are in the minority, they want us to play fair? what bull$hit! Poor babies can dish it out but cant take it? I think Obama should nominate an ultra progressive and we should jam it up the collective arses of the GOP! after all, that's what they did to us. Payback is hell and in this case, very deliscious!
Reply-
71%
antibrainwasher6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well said, and I couldn't agree more. The repugs have legislated their false superstitous morality based on greed and chutzpah and white tribalism, appointing activist judges so far right as to be borderline insane. Thomas is considered completely insane by even far right wing standards.
Reply
The only choice for balance is to appoint far left judges to balance it out, and to make life as miserable as possible for the catholic supreme court.
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I agree that the best way to change existing law is to write it (or amend the Constitution), law is not science--there may be several conflicting precedents that shed light on any particular case. The Supreme Court has final determination over which of those precedents is most important. I don't believe it's as easy as "this is constitutional" and "this isn't"--the Constitution itself is subject to different interepretations, and its language is 200 years old and doesn't always mean the same thing today as it did then.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're a nation of laws that don't always spell out what to do with individual cases. Judicial interpretation doesn't have to do with public opinion.
Reply
Law is not science; there are unique characteristics to every case that the Costitution doesn't always take into account. -
-
100%
Tangent0016 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of what the polls say at this time?"
Reply
Obviously both, since laws are passed by both public referendum and legislative deliberation, but can be overturned based on Constitutionality.
Yes, laws do depend on the zeitgeist, though i think there is a great deal less 'whim' than you seem to be suggesting.
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand your dislike of the term, Klarissa. I'm not a fan of it myself, as most people understand it differently than I think it was meant.
Reply
I think "empathy" in the way Obama said it means the ability to see how any ruling the Court makes on a particular case will affect average citizens.
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
More News
Fox News Politics
Lone GOP Supporter of House Health Care Bill Defends Vote
Obama Calls Passage of Election Law in Iraq a Milestone
Obama Predicts Senate Passage of Health Care Bill After 'Historic' House Vote
Obama Draws Criticism for Sitting Out Berlin Wall Anniversary
Lieberman Announces Senate Investigation Into Fort Hood Shooting
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.