May 28, 200917 yr But a judge shouldn't act based on their life experiences. A judge should rule based on the law and only the law. Being able to relate to one or more of the parties should have no bearing on the final outcome of a case. If that were 100% the case, would civil rights have occurred? School integration? Women and blacks getting to vote? The law was the law, you see, by your standard. There was no precedent to say that a law was being broken, nor a constitutional right being violated. Yet, those challenges were fought, and eventually they became law. I don't believe for a minute that anyone wants a judge that doesn't act based upon their life experiences. What people want are judges who's life experiences and subsequent decisions mirror their own beliefs, which are shaped by life experiences.
May 28, 200917 yr I don't believe for a minute that anyone wants a judge that doesn't act based upon their life experiences. What people want are judges who's life experiences and subsequent decisions mirror their own beliefs, which are shaped by life experiences. I agree.
May 28, 200917 yr If that were 100% the case, would civil rights have occurred? School integration? Women and blacks getting to vote? The law was the law, you see, by your standard. There was no precedent to say that a law was being broken, nor a constitutional right being violated. Yet, those challenges were fought, and eventually they became law. I don't believe for a minute that anyone wants a judge that doesn't act based upon their life experiences. What people want are judges who's life experiences and subsequent decisions mirror their own beliefs, which are shaped by life experiences. I agree. Me, too.
May 28, 200917 yr Abortion rights advocates are not comfortable with this nominee. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
May 28, 200917 yr A site called SCOTUSblog says that the 60% reversal rate is lower than the reversal rate for the last 5 years. In 2008, the court reversed 75% of its cases.
May 28, 200917 yr Reversal rate should not have anything to do with anything. First, the Supreme Court only grants cert to cases they think there is a problem with in the first place. Its not like the COA where there is an automatic right of appeal, so if you are in front of the Supremes chances are things may be going another direction. Second, getting reversed doesn't mean that you wrote a poor opinion, it just means that the Court, at that time, saw your opinion differently. In the recent case of Arizona v. Gant, for instance, the Supremes ruled that a case decided 40 years ago has been interpreted incorrectly by thousands of courts on a fourth amendment issue, and that they were just now getting around to telling everyone that.
May 28, 200917 yr If that were 100% the case, would civil rights have occurred? School integration? Women and blacks getting to vote? The law was the law, you see, by your standard. There was no precedent to say that a law was being broken, nor a constitutional right being violated. Yet, those challenges were fought, and eventually they became law. I don't believe for a minute that anyone wants a judge that doesn't act based upon their life experiences. What people want are judges who's life experiences and subsequent decisions mirror their own beliefs, which are shaped by life experiences. Of course they would have since they were all based on violations of the constitution, not on "feelings". All Tell didn't say laws shouldn't be overturned, simply that the reason should be based on law.
May 28, 200917 yr Abortion rights advocates are not comfortable with this nominee. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30974345 I find it humorous that every president says that abortion is not a litmus test for a nominee for them, yet this pro-choice group says it absolutely should be. I don't think we will ever see another supreme court nominee that someone doesn't object to.
May 28, 200917 yr Anti 2nd amendment http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/05/28/sotomayors-anti-gun-crusade/ From article: Sotomayor “is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states,” warns Former Ohio secretary of state and gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell. http://secondamendmentmarch.com/ Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
May 28, 200917 yr Anti 2nd amendment http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/05/28/sotomayors-anti-gun-crusade/ From article: http://secondamendmentmarch.com/ Is she anti-2nd amendment or does she believe that the Bill of Rights is only enforceable at the Fed level and not at the state level?
May 28, 200917 yr http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30974345 I find it humorous that every president says that abortion is not a litmus test for a nominee for them, yet this pro-choice group says it absolutely should be. I don't think we will ever see another supreme court nominee that someone doesn't object to. I don't know that we've ever had one in the first place.
May 28, 200917 yr Is she anti-2nd amendment or does she believe that the Bill of Rights is only enforceable at the Fed level and not at the state level? If it is the latter, then she really IS loony. The Bill of Rights is enforceable by citizens at the state level through operation of the 14th Amendment.
May 28, 200917 yr Of course they would have since they were all based on violations of the constitution, not on "feelings". All Tell didn't say laws shouldn't be overturned, simply that the reason should be based on law. They weren't considered violations of the constitution until ruled so, correct? That means until it was determined that they were violations, they weren't violations. Someone "felt" they were violations...someone interpreted them as vioaltions, WELL after the Constitution was written.
May 28, 200917 yr Question: For those in favor of the selection... Why do you think she is the best choice?
May 28, 200917 yr Question: For those in favor of the selection... Why do you think she is the best choice? How does one even determine whether a judge is the best choice?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.