Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Supreme Court Replacement  (Read 3142 times)

Offline Bodo

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Supreme Court Replacement
« on: May 24, 2009, 05:52:21 PM »
I read this today and I'm a bit shocked!

Quote
"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."

Obama also has said he wants someone who employs empathy, "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," when arriving at decisions that could influence the nation for decades

The way I understand the Constitution is that the Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court determines if they are Constitutional.   How does one "employ empathy" when your job is to apply the law?  Either it's legal or illegal.  There really is no grey area when it comes to the highest court of the land.

What am I missing here?

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15658
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2009, 06:39:14 PM »
you aren't missing anything.  i am in the middle of reading Liberty and Tyranny.  one of the points made in this book is that liberals use the courts to enhance the power of the federal government.  while the people might reject the increased power of the feds, and the states might reject their power being diminished, the courts can end up over ruling the will of the people. 

look how many times the supreme courts of states have overruled the will of the voters.  look at the history of supreme court rulings and how often then have taken what should have been state powers and made them federal powers.  if you are a "statist" you do not want the constitution to be the last word.  that limits your power.  you want the courts to be able to make law according to how they feel....to be progressive....and making law is exactly what they often do.
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Bodo

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2009, 01:06:08 PM »
Sotomayor is Obama's choice.

Even if I can over look this statement that she made: “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

I have an issue with her, at first glance.

Quote
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Again.  How can your upbringing change interpretation of the law?  The Law is the Law  :?

Offline reinbeau

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2009, 01:08:00 PM »
Yea, she sounds real impartial, doesn't she?  Her own racism won't cloud her interpretation of law, obviously.  :roll:

- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15658
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2009, 04:06:45 PM »
she will be confirmed.  the good thing is that she will not substantially change the balance of the court.
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Bee Happy

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Gender: Male
  • that's me - setting a phoenix free
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2009, 04:09:37 PM »
I hate to say it, but I think the balance of power was messed up in creating a supreme court who could "interpret" the laws, and declare laws limiting their power unconstitutional. I need a quick overview - how is the supreme court "balanced" (By Executive and Legislative branches)?
I just read the quote about latina vs white judicial perception. - the LAW is what declares us equal.
be happy and make others happy.

Offline Vibe

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2009, 06:26:00 PM »
I hate to say it, but I think the balance of power was messed up in creating a supreme court who could "interpret" the laws, and declare laws limiting their power unconstitutional. I need a quick overview - how is the supreme court "balanced" (By Executive and Legislative branches)?
I just read the quote about latina vs white judicial perception. - the LAW is what declares us equal.
I tend to agree. I would have rather have seen a Court whose job it was to challenge the Constitutionality of all actions of the Executive and Legislative branches before allowing the laws and directived to be enacted in the first place.
She was one of the judges on the 2nd Circuit who rulled that the promotions testing for firemen in Conneticut could be thrown out becasue none of the 17 african americans scored high enough for promotions. Which meant that the 18 or so white males and hispanic males that did score high enough still did not receive the promotions that they had worked hard to earn.
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -

Offline SgtMaj

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2009, 11:22:28 PM »
Many issues that come before the Supreme Court are not defined in law.  Just to name one example off the top of my head... the issue of when is a person considered alive... is it at conception, viability, or birth?  It's never been defined in law, but it is a key issue with regard to the legality of abortion.  Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases.  These and many more cases come before the Supreme Court so that they can interpret not only the constitutionality of the law, but also it's range and scope.

I think that's pretty much all you were missing.

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15658
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2009, 11:37:37 PM »
Quote
the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.



Quote
Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases

again, probably should have been left in the state, however, using the writings of the founders if not the specifics of the constitution, they should be able to figure out that property rights were pretty much sacred.  taking private property from one person and giving it to another private party is pretty wrong.
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline SgtMaj

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2009, 12:11:53 AM »
Quote
the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.

Well yes and no... While the issue of the legality of abortion of a non-person should have been a state issue...  the issue of when a person is considered a person and thus is granted the rights guaranteed to all people in the US (like the right to life which is among the "inalienable rights" of man written about in the declaration of independance) is not an issue to be determined by individual states and is a prime example of a judgement that would be aided by employing empathy, understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles (or at least the general concensus).

Quote
Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases

again, probably should have been left in the state, however, using the writings of the founders if not the specifics of the constitution, they should be able to figure out that property rights were pretty much sacred.  taking private property from one person and giving it to another private party is pretty wrong.

Well clearly they came to the wrong decision in that case, but I don't think you can leave something like that up to the states when the state itself is a party to the case.  That would be like allowing a judge standing trial for a crime he committed to preside over his own trial.  It needs to at least be heard by an impartial court... not that it helped in this case.

Offline Vibe

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2009, 12:13:17 AM »
Quote
the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.
I don't recall that it has been heard on those grounds. Row v. Wase was decided as a Dr./Patient privacy issue. Has the "Partial Birth Abortion" issue even reached SCOTUS yet?
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -

Offline BeeHopper

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2009, 09:19:58 AM »
Sotomayor is Obama's choice.

Even if I can over look this statement that she made: “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

I have an issue with her, at first glance.

Quote
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Again.  How can your upbringing change interpretation of the law?  The Law is the Law  :?


If that remark does not sink her, I don't know what will. She's just another narcissistic individual ( just like Obama ).

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15658
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2009, 10:37:28 AM »
i don't think she will be sunk.

we have a chance to  change some of the balance of power with the next local and congressional elections.  we need to focus there.
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Vibe

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2009, 01:11:52 PM »
i don't think she will be sunk.

we have a chance to  change some of the balance of power with the next local and congressional elections.  we need to focus there.
And let your Senators and Reps know that you are focusing upon that. I'm pretty surethat mine know that I have never and will never vote for them...but it still doesn't hurt to let them know it on a regular basis.
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -

Offline SgtMaj

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2009, 10:00:27 PM »
And let your Senators and Reps know that you are focusing upon that. I'm pretty surethat mine know that I have never and will never vote for them...but it still doesn't hurt to let them know it on a regular basis.

Really?  Ensuring that your representatives always write you off and never give you any consideration doesn't hurt?  I mean, what good could it possibly do you to let someone know that you would never vote for them?  Even if you wouldn't, I would at least let them think that I might if they were to go my way on an issue.  Otherwise you're giving them no motivation to vote your way.

Offline dragonfly

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 468
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2009, 11:23:56 PM »

If that remark does not sink her, I don't know what will. She's just another narcissistic individual ( just like Obama ).

Liberals don't sink. They have a high ratio of hot air relative to  mass. ;)

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15658
  • Gender: Female
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2009, 01:09:09 AM »
 :-D

i always thought it was the adipose tissue between their ears, but the hot air thing works.............
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Vibe

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2009, 01:25:05 AM »
:-D

i always thought it was the adipose tissue between their ears, but the hot air thing works.............
It certainly helps explain the "survival at Chappaquiddick".
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -

Offline blckoakbees

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2009, 05:45:13 AM »
I am reading this and it sounds like a bunch of sound bites.  Let's look at the facts.  The lady's educational background it super.  She was appointed to the Federal bench by the First President Bush and her opinions are not radical or inconsistent with the standard interpretations of the law.  The writer has taken the firefighter discrimination case out of context.  If you read the decision you will find, she was one of a panel and they were redirecting it to the lower court for further actions.  There had been a history of discrimination in the department and the test was continuing that history.

I hate the extreme politicism when it comes to judges.  Her record is a good one. Spin doctors of radical conservative groups are not the best source of information on the courts or judges. President Bush's appointed this judge to the Federal Bench. she is just being promoted to the Supreme Court. Would a male judge be attacked like this?

Offline indypartridge

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Supreme Court Replacement
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2009, 08:44:51 AM »
Would a male judge be attacked like this?
Absolutely. One word: Bork

Want a Hispanic male example? Remember when Bush II nominated Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals? The Libs went ballistic, despite his unanimous "well qualified" recommendation from the ABA.

By the way, (conservative) Ken Starr had a number of very complimentary things to say about Sotomayor, among them: "And her record as a judge, from everything that I've seen, is a very fine record."

 

anything