I don't care about a judges gender, race, childhood stories or family background. Those things are superficial when it comes to being able to look at a case and make a ruling based on what the law actually says.
A judge who believes that our rights come from God, not from the bench, will be a good judge.
17 comments:
Oh Daniel, you sad little fool. Do you really want to go there? All right, whatever. I'll play: Whose version of God? Yours, I assume?
Unless, you have (arrived) and have the perfect understanding of God, it will always be a flawed person and even if the person could meet the expectations based on your perspective of GOD or even a traditional group perspective of GOD, you will be dissapointed and will only be able to shout hurray for the team win as if it mattered in the bigger scheme of things.
All things work together for good...even if pharoh is in charge.
There is an inherent imputation of the dignity of Man within the faith of Christians. Most notably, Protestants. I would aver, however, that one need not be Christian to assert the argument that Man is by his nature unassailably endowed with certain inalienable rights. That does not mean that I disagree with the notion that Man is his own master except before his God.
.
Rights from God? Which God is that you speak? The God that supports torture, racism, bigotry and hatred? Let us know, I excited to hear your response.
Daniel, your view is more in alignment with what's called a theocracy, and if that's your taste, you may want to consider moving to Iran, a theocracy where you'll be pleased to know that they're merciless in deporting "illegal aliens." So you'd have the law-from-God thing, and you've have a government that shares your hatred of illegal immigration. For a Miglavian, that sounds like Home Sweet Home.
Sheesh, make a reference to the Declaration of Independence and the anonyloonies freak out and start yammering about theocracy.
We can now add "master of statutory interpretation" to Daniel's vast resume.
Innominatus (is that your real name?), Daniel did not mention or allude to the Declaration of Independence, he asserted that "a judge who believes that our rights come from God, not from the bench, will be a good judge," which I think makes him fair game for the "theocracy" charge. Maybe you should read threads more carefully before you start yammering about things that people never said.
It is a matter of pure speculation as to whether our rights come from God or not. In the United States our rights come from the Constitution as set forth by the framers of the Constitution some 215 or so years ago. One thing is for certain, though. Our rights damn sure do NOT come from looney-tunes activist judges, as much as those judges, as well as the various and sundry anonymouses posting here, would like us to believe.
And Anon 12:26, You would do well to remember the inquisitions back in the 15th century when torture, bigotry, racism, and intolerance were all conducted by the Roman Catholic Church in the name of "God", when in actuality it was conducted in the most part by King Philip of France and abetted by the Pope at that time, Constantine, who was nothing more than Philip's puppet. They burned Jacques DeMolay and other leaders of the Knights Templar at the stake in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral primarily because they would not tell Philip and Constantine where the wealth of the Knights Templar was hidden. And it still has not been uncovered. The inquisition was done for no other reason than pure greed - by the Church.
Granted, this was all 500 years ago, but it was still done by the Church.
Let's just cut the "activist judges" bullshit right now. The bottom line is: For right-wingers, liberal judges are "activist" judges. For left-wingers, conservative judges are "activist" judges. It's a bullshit label that doesn't mean anything.
I would assume that Daniel's post is directed at Obama's short list for Supreme Court nomination.
His pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is just another example of Obama the politician.
Just a few quotes from this judge:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Speaking with potential law clerks, saying that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She added: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...”
It's amazing to contrast the caliber of current leaders with that of the founding fathers. The framers of the Constitution were cognizant that we are all born with inalienable "Natural Rights" at birth. Rights that can not be taken away by government or even given away.
The Bill of Rights does not attempt to enumerate what rights we enjoy but is rather a valiant attempt to restrict the normal tendency of those in power to usurp those rights.
Is it really too much to ask that a Supreme Court Judge acknowledge the separation of powers that have served us so well for so long? Is it too much to ask for a judge that is not a sexist and a racist?
Bobkatt, you’re showing your weak hand in this judicial nomination debate by doing what the talking heads are doing: selecting a couple out-of-context quotes from Sotomayor, and pretty much ignoring the bulk of her actual jurisprudence work over several decades.
I submit that her vast body of judicial work, does not back up the picture you and those talking heads are trying to create of her. Luckily, I have confidence that the majority of American people understand this. And to be sure, as I told Lars Larson today, we need to keep one thing in context when it comes to “conservative” criticism of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees: Obama could nominate a ham sandwich to the Court, and “conservatives” would come out fighting it for one reason or the other, simply because it is an Obama nominee. (Larson denied this was true, by the way. But when I then asked him what candidate he WOULD support, he predictably couldn’t name a single name.)
Bobkatt, if you want to put forth an argument that actually accounts for her entire body of judicial work (and not just cherry-pick 1 out of 113 cases, as Larson has chosen to do), then someone other than other choir members might be inclined to listen to you. Because absent that more broad analysis, your argument is just politics as usual. And it will be seen as such by a majority of Americans, and will be ignored.
Oh, and you referenced “Obama the politician” above. In some ways, you make a good point there. After all, with this pick for Supreme Court, Obama has smartly created a veritable minefield for “conservatives” to walk through. In other words, in addition to picking a solid judge, Obama has given us the added benefit of ensuring that Republicans have plenty of rope with which to hang themselves as they criticize the first female, Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.
(Unrelated trivia: Lars Larson also said today that Sotomayor was NOT the first Hispanic nominee. He claims Benjamin Cardoza was. And once again, Larson was talking out of his ass, as he often seems to do. Cardoza didn’t have a single cell of Hispanic blood in him. Where does Larson get this crap? Does he just make it up as he goes along?)
Accusing a politician of being "a politician" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard anyone here say, and that's a high bar to clear. OF COURSE HE'S A POLITICIAN, ASSHOLE! They ALL are. What the hell's the matter with you? NO ONE who is elected to ANYTHING in this country can say that they aren't a politician. By definition they are politicians. Jesus!
Anon 11:22: If anyone can be considered an "activist judge", it is that judge that overturns the will of the people that voted in the majority against an issue that said judge was against. It has nothing to do with "liberal" or conservative". The "activist judge" is one that will set policies that are contrary to what the voting public wants. He doesn't have to be "liberal" Or "conservative to do that. The "activist judge" believes that he know better what the people want and/or need than what they voted in the majority for. An "activist judge" does not interpret law, he sets law and policy, a practice that, in my opinion, should get him hauled before the State Bar Association. Sotomayer said that the Appellate Courts "set policy". Even you cannot deny that she said that, but that she later said that maybe she shouldn't have said it. That in itself show that she believes in "judicial activism", whether you like it or not.
Stevie- I hope you are right because this nominee appears to be a done deal.
I don't listen to the talking heads much and rarely Lars Larson. The info I got came from the internet in response to Daniel's post. The gist of the situation is that I am looking for a judge that is objective and willing to interpret the Constitution as written rather than interject their feelings and prejudices.
Maybe these comments she made are not indicative of her actual decision making but you have to admit that you might have a problem with a judge that is quoted as saying "I believe that God will direct my decisions appropriately", regardless of their voting history.
Scottiebill and Bobkat,
Were those who were seeking to overturn Oregon's Death With Dignity law banking on the court being full of "activist judges"?
When Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Thomas threw out Florida's election process, were they being "activist judges"?
When the Supreme Court granted corporations "personhood" status, were they being "activist judges"?
Kai-In as much as I know about those cases, which is not too much, yes. I disagree with the cases cited. States have all jurisdiction not enumerated in the Constitution. You have listed only a few of the many cases of overstepping the authority granted to the Federal Government.
Post a Comment