Comments for An Honest Brawl Over the Court »
Posted By Beau7890 6 months, 4 weeks 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 61
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks 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, 3 weeks 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.-
100%
deathray6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like the President, I believe that a judge should have a certain "empathy," which has been used by the opposition as a keyword to galvanize the right against any heretofore unnamed nominee the President might put forward.
Reply
It's why the sentencing function is given to the judge, while guilt or innocence is determined by the jury.
Appellate and supreme court judges should come from this tradition; after all, we're not just dealing with abstract points of law, we're dealing with human beings.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that judges of higher courts should have a sense of empathy, but would go further to say they should be able to weigh the more far-reaching consequences of their opinions on society and government. Some might call that "judicial activism"--I'd refer them to your point that both sides have politicized the bench, as well as the fact that law is not science--determining which precedents play a larger role in any particular case is subjective.
Reply
-
-
-
33%
Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
Beau7890Comment removed: Spam
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
-
33%
Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
83%
Dionys6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually. I suspect that it will be the conservative dogmatics who hypocritically criticize homosexuality (despite the Bible saying nothing about homosexuality in general) while embracing the death sentence, send money to the corporations while the poor starve and embrace the purveyors of Usury (Credit Card Companies) with open arms, that ask questions about a person's sexual preference.
Reply-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned21 Replies
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It won't be the same people asking the question in the same way, but yes, they'll probably ask Obama's nominee about gay marriage. You know how these things work--they've done this for decades now.
Reply
I doubt that'll be the determining factor in choosing the next justice, though.
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Jeboba6 months, 3 weeks 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, 3 weeks 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, 3 weeks 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, 3 weeks 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.-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
100%
Tangent0016 months, 3 weeks 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.
-
-
-
-
-
ProgressiveComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks 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
loading ...
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.