|
Author
|
Topic: First Hispanic Woman to Supreme Court
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
 
 
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by slowback67:
^+1 ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
lol +1 to madison? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Naaaa maaaaaan he beat me to typing LOL
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
I disagree to a certain degree. Justice IMO should be tempered with empathy. Not necessarily based on empathy. The reason being, is then you just become a recording and can easily be replaced by a good set of law books. Almost all areas of the judicial system are like this (ie. A judge declares a lesser fine despite the fact the book say $****.**). So while on a grander scale and of course should be used judiciously. Empathy IMO is what would make a successful judge in the supreme court.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
90FoX
FoX
Member # 1974
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by NiftyWhiteFifty:
I think we shouldn't lower our standards just to break down a long standing barrier. Yes it would be great for the hispanic community for a hispanic judge to be appointed but at what cost? I think her decisions are controversial and she would change the face of the supreme court, and not in a good way.
+2....NObama is all about redistribution of wealth....very scary ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I think she supports his views, everyone he appoints basically does.. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I hate to change the subject, but why everytime politics come up someone quickly brings in the anti-obama stuff....Do you guys honestly think that there was a better alternative?.....If so let hear it?....McCain and Palin?.....No, then who and how?......It is also funny that people are quick hate Obama, but are slow to take responsibility for who created this mess...Bush.
Think about your statement here......does it make sense?
NO!!
From what you quoted, where did you get the implication I was in agreement or in favor of anything bush did? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your a typical NObama worshiper
Posts: 5364 | From: Shooting Skeet | Registered: Oct 2002
| :
|
|
rmadison007
¯
Member # 8670
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
The 2nd amendment of the constitution was written in the context for the time in which it was written. Yes, it is a "supreme" law, but laws are based on interpretation and circumstance. I am almost certain that if we listed each judges interpretations in regards to each amendment of the constitution on a piece of paper you will find that there is no total consensus on the interpretations on each and that your interpretation might or might not be in the majority.
That fact she judges with empathy I believe humanizes her. Do I believe that she should judge emphatically? No....Do I believe that all the judges on the supreme court have not? No...Honestly i believe she is being judged harsher than most because she was appointed by President Obama.
Posts: 533 | Registered: Oct 2008
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
Let's get ready to ruuuuuuummmmbaaaaaal !
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
The 2nd amendment of the constitution was written in the context for the time in which it was written. Yes, it is a "supreme" law, but laws are based on interpretation and circumstance. I am almost certain that if we listed each judges interpretations in regards to each amendment of the constitution on a piece of paper you will find that there is no total consensus on the interpretations on each and that your interpretation might or might not be in the majority.
That fact she judges with empathy I believe humanizes her. Do I believe that she should judge emphatically? No....Do I believe that all the judges on the supreme court have not? No...Honestly i believe she is being judged harsher than most because she was appointed by President Obama.
In regards to the second amendment are we referring to the federal government's involvement in banning or at the state level. Because I think the controversy is at the state level as pertains to Sotomayer. As it was interpreted was the feds could not ban but it could be done at the state level.
per this
quote:
2nd Amendment states that it protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government.
So yes, it is open to interpretation. Is the state level considered the feds?
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
rmadison007
¯
Member # 8670
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by NiftyWhiteFifty:
I think we shouldn't lower our standards just to break down a long standing barrier. Yes it would be great for the hispanic community for a hispanic judge to be appointed but at what cost? I think her decisions are controversial and she would change the face of the supreme court, and not in a good way.
+2....NObama is all about redistribution of wealth....very scary I think she supports his views, everyone he appoints basically does..
I hate to change the subject, but why everytime politics come up someone quickly brings in the anti-obama stuff....Do you guys honestly think that there was a better alternative?.....If so let hear it?....McCain and Palin?.....No, then who and how?......It is also funny that people are quick hate Obama, but are slow to take responsibility for who created this mess...Bush.
Think about your statement here......does it make sense?
NO!!
From what you quoted, where did you get the implication I was in agreement or in favor of anything bush did?
Your a typical NObama worshiper
Well, then why the hate for Obama? Was there a better option?...I am just saying regardless of how we got where we are at, there is one thing we have right now...President Obama...Lets stop hating and give the man a chance to fix things....In four years if he doesn't I will be right there with you hating....But hating this early is ridiculous.
Posts: 533 | Registered: Oct 2008
| :
|
|
90FoX
FoX
Member # 1974
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
I disagree to a certain degree. Justice IMO should be tempered with empathy. Not necessarily based on empathy. The reason being, is then you just become a recording and can easily be replaced by a good set of law books. Almost all areas of the judicial system are like this (ie. A judge declares a lesser fine despite the fact the book say $****.**). So while on a grander scale and of course should be used judiciously. Empathy IMO is what would make a successful judge in the supreme court.
Okay. Let's agree to disagree...only at this moment until i can research sources ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 5364 | From: Shooting Skeet | Registered: Oct 2002
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
I disagree to a certain degree. Justice IMO should be tempered with empathy. Not necessarily based on empathy. The reason being, is then you just become a recording and can easily be replaced by a good set of law books. Almost all areas of the judicial system are like this (ie. A judge declares a lesser fine despite the fact the book say $****.**). So while on a grander scale and of course should be used judiciously. Empathy IMO is what would make a successful judge in the supreme court.
Okay. Let's agree to disagree...only at this moment until i can research sources
lol...now you wanna research. Well when you go to traffic court, I bet you want that judge to rule with empathy. And if he doesn't he instantly becomes an asshole. Well a supreme court judge is the same judge just on a grander scale. So why would they not employ the right amount of empathy? No research needed for that answer.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
DIRTY SALLY
¯
Member # 7845
|
posted
43. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007
42. "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War
41. "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson
40. 3. "I think I was unprepared for war." –on the biggest regret of his presidency, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008
39. "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward
38. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." --presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 (Watch video clip)
37. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." --Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000 (Listen to audio clip)
36. "Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001
35. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." --as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
34. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." --on "Good Morning America," Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina
33. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
32. "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake." --on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006
31. "They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark.,For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." --Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001
29. "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner
28. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." --LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
Nov. 6, 2000
27. "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." --Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001
26. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio clip)
25. "People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002
24. "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." --after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004
23. "You forgot Poland." --to Sen. John Kerry during the first presidential debate, after Kerry failed to mention Poland's contributions to the Iraq war coalition, Miami, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004
22. "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to world leaders at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as those present looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
21. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." --State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false
20. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
19. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
18. "So what?" –President Bush, responding to a an ABC News correspondent who pointed out that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, Dec. 14, 2008
17. "Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004
16. "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." --Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002
15. "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." --to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004
14. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." --speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003
13. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." --Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003
12. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" --joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004 (Read more)
11. "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
10. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
9. "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." --on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007 (Watch video clip)
8. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the
7. "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006 (Read more; listen to audio clip; watch video clip)
6. "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 (Watch video clip)
5. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." --Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004 (Watch video clip)
4. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Watch video clip)
3. "You work three jobs? ... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (Listen to audio clip)
2. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 (Listen to audio clip; watch video clip)
1. "My answer is bring them on." --on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
~ ![[worship]](graemlins/worship.gif) these bush quotes
--------------------
---------
Savage Habits
instagram @2cheezen
Posts: 9145 | Registered: Aug 2007
| :
|
|
9cobra7
¯
Member # 2812
|
posted
This might help explain why either president you pick in an election really make a difference. Just an article I found and food for thought.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no
legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any
budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of
the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees..
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... is up to you
Posts: 2633 | From: usa | Registered: May 2003
| :
|
|
90FoX
FoX
Member # 1974
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
I disagree to a certain degree. Justice IMO should be tempered with empathy. Not necessarily based on empathy. The reason being, is then you just become a recording and can easily be replaced by a good set of law books. Almost all areas of the judicial system are like this (ie. A judge declares a lesser fine despite the fact the book say $****.**). So while on a grander scale and of course should be used judiciously. Empathy IMO is what would make a successful judge in the supreme court.
Okay. Let's agree to disagree...only at this moment until i can research sources
lol...now you wanna research. Well when you go to traffic court, I bet you want that judge to rule with empathy. And if he doesn't he instantly becomes an asshole. Well a supreme court judge is the same judge just on a grander scale. So why would they not employ the right amount of empathy? No research needed for that answer.
No I don't want to research. I want to research sources, meaning I want to find sources explaining what a judge is suppose to do to back up my position.
Also I don't like your explanation using a traffic court judge. I don't think it fits well here.
I'll be back! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 5364 | From: Shooting Skeet | Registered: Oct 2002
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by rmadison007:
So basically you guys are saying that she should not be confirmed because she has views and judgements on specific issues that you do not agree with. On the supreme court there will more than just her and her opinions. I believe the fact that she has these controversial views and opinions make her more realistic. what is the purpose of having a supreme court with judges who all rule the same way. There should be a balance of opinions within the supreme court. I respect her for making the decision she made because they are her decisions. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do i think she will change the supreme court? No. No one judge can change a supreme court. Since a few of you believe she should not be confirmed......who do you guys think would be better? and So if there are other judges on the supreme court now who also don't agree with the 2nd amendment, believe strongly in affirmative action, and make controversial decisions should they be removed and replaced?
The 2nd amendment isn't a "different view", it's in the constitution. The highest supreme law of the country. When you have people in government who are against the Constitution you have a big problem.
I don't want to hear any b.s. about interpreting it different ways, you cannot interpret the 2nd amendment any other way than what the creators intended it to mean!
The other issue is judges ruling with personal "empathy"...No judge should be judging with personal empathy to make certain parties happy. It's argued she is ruling with empathy.
A judge should be ruling using the rule of law and applying that law....
If you think these issues are "different views" then it will be pointless arguing or trying to explain the problems here....
I disagree to a certain degree. Justice IMO should be tempered with empathy. Not necessarily based on empathy. The reason being, is then you just become a recording and can easily be replaced by a good set of law books. Almost all areas of the judicial system are like this (ie. A judge declares a lesser fine despite the fact the book say $****.**). So while on a grander scale and of course should be used judiciously. Empathy IMO is what would make a successful judge in the supreme court.
Okay. Let's agree to disagree...only at this moment until i can research sources
lol...now you wanna research. Well when you go to traffic court, I bet you want that judge to rule with empathy. And if he doesn't he instantly becomes an asshole. Well a supreme court judge is the same judge just on a grander scale. So why would they not employ the right amount of empathy? No research needed for that answer.
No I don't want to research. I want to research sources, meaning I want to find sources explaining what a judge is suppose to do to back up my position.
Also I don't like your explanation using a traffic court judge. I don't think it fits well here.
I'll be back!
hahaha, why dont you like it? Because it does not support your model? They are a judge and they are interpreting a set list of laws dictated by a book that was set forth by a governing body. Not much different than a supreme judge. Also consider that to get to the supreme judges you have to escalate through the ranks of lower level courts. So along the lines people are interpreting. So I think it fits very well.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
