Obama and the Law.

Wikidbchofthewst · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
The article isn't crying out against diversity. It's addressing the issue of "Rule of Law" and the purpose of the SCOTUS.

Judges shouldn't be picked based upon what they've experienced in the past. I want a justice that rules with his/her brain using the US Constitution as the basis as opposed to a justice that rules with their heart based upon their past experiences.

But who says that judges with different experiences and backgrounds can't be unbiased? What makes you think he can't rule with his brain using the US Constitution, just because he was chosen for having a different background?

tipsgnob · Oct 30, 2008

I think Obama should appoint Hillary Clinton to the supreme court.

joepro · Oct 30, 2008

tipsgnob said:
I think Obama should appoint Hillary Clinton to the supreme court.

I wondered why, when she was running, that the subject of how meany people have died or ended up in jail after doing business with her and bill.

personal opinion: she's a fuckin snake in the grass.
I'd like to see a law past where both the bushs and clintons can't hold office for the next 100 yrs.
...and we can only elect someone with the last name of paul in 08: :cuss:

eatAstar · Oct 30, 2008

joepro said:
personal opinion: she's a fuckin snake in the grass.
I'd like to see a law past where both the bushs and clintons can't hold office for the next 100 yrs.
...and we can only elect someone with the last name of paul in 08:

haha amen, brother. a-fucken-men.

VTXDave · Oct 30, 2008

Wikidbchofthewst said:
But who says that judges with different experiences and backgrounds can't be unbiased? What makes you think he can't rule with his brain using the US Constitution, just because he was chosen for having a different background?

This does...

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

I don't want a SCOTUS that has empathy of any kind (and you shouldn't either) . I want a SCOTUS that strictly adheres to the document that sets this nation apart from all the rest...the one that defines who we are and where we came from.

The "Rule of Law" makes no distinction. The US Constitution is what it is...The Law of The Land...period. Would you like to know happens when justices are appointed that broadly interpret the Constitution? You get Kelo vs. The City of New London for starters.

For the record...I know what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor.

Wikidbchofthewst · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
This does...
[/color][/color]

I don't want a SCOTUS that has empathy of any kind (and you shouldn't either) . I want a SCOTUS that strictly adheres to the document that sets this nation apart from all the rest...the one that defines who we are and where we came from.

The "Rule of Law" makes no distinction. The US Constitution is what it is...The Law of The Land...period. Would you like to know happens when justices are appointed that broadly interpret the Constitution? You get Kelo vs. The City of New London for starters.

For the record...I know what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor.

em·pa·thy (ěm'pə-th&#275

Pronunciation Key
n.

Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.

How does having empathy equate to being unable to judge based on the Constitution? Just because someone has the ability to empathize with another human being doesn't mean they would be unable to do their job the way it's meant to be done.

mahlye · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
The article isn't crying out against diversity. It's addressing the issue of "Rule of Law" and the purpose of the SCOTUS.

Judges shouldn't be picked based upon what they've experienced in the past. I want a justice that rules with his/her brain using the US Constitution as the basis as opposed to a justice that rules with their heart based upon their past experiences.

Have you ever been in a court room? I have been in a court room many times. It depends on the case, but from my experiences I always hoped that the judge had heart. That's important for a judge, really it is and I'd like you to have a good argument if you choose to debate that BUT like I have previously stated - it depends on the case.

VTXDave · Oct 30, 2008

Wikidbchofthewst said:
How does having empathy equate to being unable to judge based on the Constitution?

It doesn't, but here's the rub. If Obama wants to appoint strict Constitutionalist justices, he would have said so. Everyone states how intelligent the man is, yes? If that's true, would he have not said so? If one "reads between the lines" what he's implying is that he wants justices appointed that will lean in favor of who he deems as "disadvantaged". IMO, Obama is not looking for constitutionalst...He's looking for justices that will base their interpretations and subsequent rulings, not upon constitutional law, but upon how they "feel"

Barack Obama said:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

VTXDave · Oct 30, 2008

mahlye said:
Have you ever been in a court room?

More than once.

mahlye · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
More than once.

so then I would assume you were in favor of the overall decision of the law. Still, do you disagree with what I said? Consider what kind of cases go to court. There are all types of scenarios that come to play.

VTXDave · Oct 30, 2008

mahlye said:
That's important for a judge, really it is and I'd like you to have a good argument if you choose to debate that BUT like I have previously stated - it depends on the case.

Not when it reaches the Supreme Court of the United States. I have no problem with a Superior Court Judge, or even an Appellate for that matter, ruling with his "heart", but if the case eventually reaches the SCOTUS...They have no choice but to rule based upon the Constitution. The rules by which the SCOTUS operates are defined, and limited, by the Constitution and nothing else.

VTXDave · Oct 30, 2008

mahlye said:
Consider what kind of cases go to court.

I do, and the SCOTUS does not hear cases involving DUIs, robberies and such. That is the venue for the superior courts to decide. When a case in in the hands of the SCOTUS, they're (the justices) ruling based upon constitutionality of legislation. There's a big difference in the roles of the superior courts and the SCOTUS.

Wikidbchofthewst · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
It doesn't, but here's the rub. If Obama wants to appoint strict Constitutionalist justices, he would have said so. Everyone states how intelligent the man is, yes? If that's true, would he have not said so? If one "reads between the lines" what he's implying is that he wants justices appointed that will lean in favor of who he deems as "disadvantaged". IMO, Obama is not looking for constitutionalst...He's looking for justices that will base their interpretations and subsequent rulings, not upon constitutional law, but upon how they "feel"

Are you saying that rich, white, straight judges never let their feelings come into play when they make their judgments? How would you even know that?

mahlye · Oct 30, 2008

VTXDave said:
I do, and the SCOTUS does not hear cases involving DUIs, robberies and such. That is the venue for the superior courts to decide. When a case in in the hands of the SCOTUS, they're (the justices) ruling based upon constitutionality of legislation. There's a big difference in the roles of the superior courts and the SCOTUS.

I wasn't thinking of the supreme court of the united states, sorry. I would have to agree with you then in regards to scotus.

TheBrutalTruth · Oct 31, 2008

ElBarto said:
Not even close to the loonier fringe of the National Review (from where this piece was copied).

Long story short, after eight years supporting a guy who believes that the constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper," for whom political conformity was the sole criterion on which potential judicial nominees were evaluated, I don't think the author's views of Obama's legal opinions have much credibility.

Obama's going to make a great president. Everyone should be celebrating Tuesday night. I know I will be.

Well, you know it's funny, but Obama and Bush are related, so it must be a genetic thing for assclowns like them to think there is something wrong with the Constitution.

mahlye · Oct 31, 2008

John McCain has had sex with several men, three at once; do you want a president whose been gang banged by men? I don't.

Obama and the Law.

Wikidbchofthewst

Well-Known Member

tipsgnob

New Member

joepro

Well-Known Member

eatAstar

Well-Known Member

VTXDave

Well-Known Member

Wikidbchofthewst

Well-Known Member

mahlye

Well-Known Member

VTXDave

Well-Known Member

VTXDave

Well-Known Member

mahlye

Well-Known Member

VTXDave

Well-Known Member

VTXDave

Well-Known Member

Wikidbchofthewst

Well-Known Member

mahlye

Well-Known Member

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member

mahlye

Well-Known Member

Similar threads