What matters most about the SCOTUS nomination

[pecksniff]

Is that it should put a stop to this Christian conservative revolution in the Court.

 

[butters]

what matters most is that they have integrity, morality, decency, intelligence, empathy and a sense of humility as a public servant; they must be super-learned in the requirements of their job and they do not permit politics or religion or bias of any kind to interfere with decisions that must be made about rulings of law.

 

[YDB95]

It alone will not put a stop to that. But putting someone younger on the Court who will be around for a while is a good first step that way.

 

[pecksniff]

and they do not permit politics or religion or bias of any kind to interfere with decisions that must be made about rulings of law.

That is not, I think, possible.

 

[PaxNurgle]

what matters most is that they have integrity, morality, decency, intelligence, empathy and a sense of humility as a public servant; they must be super-learned in the requirements of their job and they do not permit politics or religion or bias of any kind to interfere with decisions that must be made about rulings of law.

This is the key, and something that the last administration utterly failed in when vetting his picks. I hope the current administration at least gets this right (if nothing else.) A justice should be non-partisan and non-biased, and not beholden to ideological extremes. Either "liberal" or" conservative." A Supreme Court justice, a really good one anyway, should be neither.

 

[pecksniff]

This is the key, and something that the last administration utterly failed in when vetting his picks. I hope the current administration at least gets this right (if nothing else.) A justice should be non-partisan and non-biased, and not beholden to ideological extremes. Either "liberal" or" conservative." A Supreme Court justice, a really good one anyway, should be neither.

It is not possible for anyone who pays attention to legal issues the way an appellate judge must, to be ideologically neutral.

 

[Chernosoth]

Laws have rhythm as part of the rhythm of history. At the beginning of a civilization, laws are specific, simple, and direct. Then laws become more abstract and complex, so lawyers are needed to interpret, argue, and write them. Finally, the civilization collapses. Much later, the next civilization starts with simple laws. Maybe the next justice will have some awareness of courts being full of unnecessary work that is created to keep lawyers and judges employed and wealthy, and how temporary that work is.

 

[pecksniff]

Laws have rhythm as part of the rhythm of history. At the beginning of a civilization, laws are specific, simple, and direct. Then laws become more abstract and complex, so lawyers are needed to interpret, argue, and write them. Finally, the civilization collapses. Much later, the next civilization starts with simple laws. Maybe the next justice will have some awareness of courts being full of unnecessary work that is created to keep lawyers and judges employed and wealthy, and how temporary that work is.

The collapse of a civilization is not inevitable. And the complexity of its legal system has never in all of history played a role in the collapse of a civilization.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Is that it should put a stop to this Christian conservative revolution in the Court.

According to the Declaration of Independence,(summary) “ What are the “unalienable rights” discussed so fervently in the Declaration of Independence? According to the writings of the forefathers and founders of our nation, these “Unalienable Rights” are the rights that are rightfully, permanently and non-negotiably handed down to us by the One God of our Creation referred to in the bible.”

 

[HisArpy]

It is not possible for anyone who pays attention to legal issues the way an appellate judge must, to be ideologically neutral.

True.

However, it is possible to put aside one's beliefs and rule on the basis of the law rather than personal opinion. The reason "the rules" are written down is so that everyone can see what is supposed to be done rather than making it up on the spot for each individual or situation.

The current problem with the D program is that they want to discard "the rules" in favor of making it up as they go along. In order to do that they need judges and justices who will adhere to that narrative because it gets them power and positions of authority they otherwise aren't entitled to.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

What matters is that they uphold the text of the constitution.

 

[ll74]

Perspective is a huge factor to me in a nomination. Not ideological, but rather different backgrounds when it comes to interpretation.

If you're deciding on a case that impacts a group of people, then understanding that perspective helps.

 

[HisArpy]

Perspective is a huge factor to me in a nomination. Not ideological, but rather different backgrounds when it comes to interpretation.

If you're deciding on a case that impacts a group of people, then understanding that perspective helps.

If you're deciding a controversy between parties, then perspective does nothing except to clarify WHY the controversy exists.

On the other hand, the law tells you who isn't following it.

For instance; let's take a group of minorities who are complaining that they're being discriminated against. So they sue the entity they say is doing this. The entity responds with "affirmative action."

Knowing the perspective does nothing except to clarify that minorities have been discriminated against and thus may have "enhanced feelings" about why they believe this is the case in the matter before the court.

That doesn't mean the judge gets to automatically rule in their favor. Nor should it add weight to either side of the scale.

What does determine the outcome is what the law says. In this example, the law invoked is "affirmative action" which allows certain parties to decide on the basis of minority status. As long as that party has abided by the rules set up in the law, they cannot be held to blame even if the complaining party has a history of discrimination by the entity being sued.

To do or say otherwise ignores the law in favor of the party with the loudest bullhorn and tallest soapbox.

 

[ll74]

If you're deciding a controversy between parties, then perspective does nothing except to clarify WHY the controversy exists.

On the other hand, the law tells you who isn't following it.

For instance; let's take a group of minorities who are complaining that they're being discriminated against. So they sue the entity they say is doing this. The entity responds with "affirmative action."

Knowing the perspective does nothing except to clarify that minorities have been discriminated against and thus may have "enhanced feelings" about why they believe this is the case in the matter before the court.

That doesn't mean the judge gets to automatically rule in their favor. Nor should it add weight to either side of the scale.

What does determine the outcome is what the law says. In this example, the law invoked is "affirmative action" which allows certain parties to decide on the basis of minority status. As long as that party has abided by the rules set up in the law, they cannot be held to blame even if the complaining party has a history of discrimination by the entity being sued.

To do or say otherwise ignores the law in favor of the party with the loudest bullhorn and tallest soapbox.

Interpreting the law, as political discourse fairly easily demonstrates, can differ based on perspective. Therefore perspective is an important part of the job.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Is that it should put a stop to this Christian conservative revolution in the Court.

Odd, Senile Joe sez it's most important that the next justice have a pussy and high melanin content.

 

[YDB95]

Odd, Senile Joe sez it's most important that the next justice have a pussy and high melanin content.

Then it's only fair to ask, is it acceptable that there has never been a justice who had both before?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Then it's only fair to ask, is it acceptable that there has never been a justice who had both before?

Of course it is. The SCOTUS isn't "Queen for a Day," after all.

 

[YDB95]

Of course it is. The SCOTUS isn't "Queen for a Day," after all.

Well, that certainly tells us about your point of view.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course it is. The SCOTUS isn't "Queen for a Day," after all.

Boy, you're really dating yourself, there.

 

[KeithD]

Then it's only fair to ask, is it acceptable that there has never been a justice who had both before?

It's quite fair when you add having far better professional credentials for the job than the last two picks had.

 

[Cubantripod]

It is not possible for anyone who pays attention to legal issues the way an appellate judge must, to be ideologically neutral.

Of course there are. Those judges don't get moved up.

 

[KeithD]

Of course there are. Those judges don't get moved up.

Kavanaugh got moved up precisely because, as a judge, he tried sitting on the case of a forced to-term pregnancy until too late for the legal abortion to be performed. His doing this was precisely what brought him into the light to be appointed to the Supreme Court and he did it to qualify for the appointment.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Well, that certainly tells us about your point of view.

That I prefer competence to racial and sexual bean-counting?

 

[ll74]

Interpreting the law, as political discourse fairly easily demonstrates, can differ based on perspective. Therefore perspective is an important part of the job.

Honestly, if perspective wasn't involved in the court system's interpretation of the law, then a lot of the bitching and moaning about rulings made by judges, specifically in regards to who nominated them, wouldn't occur much.

 

[phrodeau]

That I prefer competence to racial and sexual bean-counting?

Everybody does, including the SCOTUS in Grutter v. Bollinger.