Originally posted by KellyJayIf he/she is not impartial they should be consistent. Reliable and reasonable. They should have a talent for evaluation and the ability to explain these evaluations coherently and honestly.
What would define the perfect judge? Since Bush is about to name
someone he wants, what should this person be like? What makes
a good one?
Kelly
OK, my choice for the justices of RHP would be:
1) #1 cuz he's already a lawya. He could run programs to see if ya lyin.
2) Remora91 cuz she's the only teenaga wit any damn sense on the
site.
3) DocterScribbles due to his powers of truth
4) Visteads due to his voice of religious moderation and intellect
5) Bbarr due to his command of syllogistic logic
6) Nyxie cuz we need a smart woman on tha court.
7) Rwingett due to his sense of historical context.
8) Wulegrb also due to his ability to understand history and religion in
context.
9) RBHill to provide balance and copy and paste skills.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is no such thing as a perfect judge, but there have been great Justices on the Supreme Court, and some poor ones.
What would define the perfect judge? Since Bush is about to name
someone he wants, what should this person be like? What makes
a good one?
Kelly
Great Justices include John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, William Rehnquist, and many others.
Poor judges have included Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, among others. Bush favors the ideologues Scalia and Thomas, so his appoinment will be someone about as far from perfect as they get.
Originally posted by WulebgrI can't imagine why you would include Rehnquist as a "great" judge; his writings have been absolutely medicore and he was never even a judge until he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The last great conservative judge was John Harlan (he was a consistent conservative, not a right-wing fanatic).
There is no such thing as a perfect judge, but there have been great Justices on the Supreme Court, and some poor ones.
Great Justices include John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, William Rehnquist, and many others.
Poor judges have included Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, among ...[text shortened]... gues Scalia and Thomas, so his appoinment will be someone about as far from perfect as they get.
Originally posted by Wulebgr
There is no such thing as a perfect judge, but there have been great Justices on the Supreme Court, and some poor ones.
Great Justices include John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, William Rehnquist, and many others.
Poor judges have included Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, among ...[text shortened]... gues Scalia and Thomas, so his appoinment will be someone about as far from perfect as they get.
In Scalia and Thomas, you just named the only two current justices who are strict originalists (interpreting cases based on the original intent of the founding fathers). The other justices have, to some extent been activists, some more than others.
Scalia and Thomas are also the only two justices who do not feel it is necessary to use laws from Canada and other countries to decide U.S. cases... Back in January , Scalia actually debated Breyer on a C-Span debate entitled "The Relevance of Foreign Law." Breyer, as well as a number of other justices, feels that it's necessary to use foreign laws as a basis for making his decisions, and Breyer actually said that during the debate.
Moderator Michael Rosenfeld, president of the US association on constitutional law, said, (paraphrasing) " Let me ask the following hypothetical. Suppose your court had never had any jurisprudence on abortion and all of the abortion jurisprudence, including your own opinions, were by Canadian judges. Would there be any interest, would there be any point in reading that and looking at it as well-reasoned, not well-reasoned, helpful or not helpful, in developing doctrine?"
JUSTICE SCALIA: I wouldn't look to Canadian law. I look at the text. It says nothing about it. And I look at 200 years of history. Nobody ever thought it or said anything about it. That's the end of the question for me. What good would reading Canadian opinions do unless it was my job to be the moral arbiter, which I don't regard it as. I regard the constitution as having set a floor to American society. That floor says nothing about abortion. It's not the job of the Constitution to change things by judicial decree. Change is brought about by democracy. Abortion has been prohibited. You want to change that? American society think that's a terrible result? Fine. Persuade each other about that. Pass a law and eliminate the laws against abortion. I have no problem with change. It's just that I do not regard the Constitution as being the instrument of change. By letting judges read Canadian cases and saying, "Yeah, it would be a good idea not to have any restrictions on abortion." That's not the way we do things in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens and repeal the laws. Why should the Supreme Court decide that question?
Then later:
JUSTICE SCALIA: We are one of only six countries in the world that allows abortion on demand at any time prior to viability. Should we change that because other countries feel differently? Or maybe a more pertinent question: Why haven't we changed that if, indeed, the court thinks we should use foreign law? Or do we just use foreign law selectively? When it agrees with what the justice would like the case to say, you use the foreign law, and when it doesn't agree, you don't use it. Thus, you know, we cited it in Lawrence, the case on homosexual sodomy. We cited foreign law. Not all foreign law. Just the foreign law of countries that agreed with the disposition of the case. But we said not a whisper about foreign law in the series of abortion cases. What's going on here? Do you want it to be authoritative? I doubt whether anybody would say "Yes, we want to be governed by the views of foreigners." Well, if you don't want it to be authoritative, then what is the criterion for citing it or not? That it agrees with you? I don't know any other criterion to bring forward.
Another exchange:
JUSTICE BREYER: I wrote a dissent which you (Scalia) thought was totally wrong, and the question was this: Is it a cruel and unusual punishment to keep a person on death row for more than 20 years before executing them? And I wrote an opinion that suggested a dissent, that I thought this was quite likely, quite possibly would be -- the answer to that question would be yes. That is cruel and unusual punishment. Now, WHERE DO I LOOK? You say oh, I should look to myself. If I look to myself, I might be able to get an answer much faster. Let's say I don't look to myself. I mean, can I jump out of my own skin? No. No human being can. But let's see what's around. And of course I wrote this thing not too convincing, but I FOUND OPINIONS IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN ENGLAND where they had upset Jamaica.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Reversing an earlier one of their own cases.
JUSTICE BREYER: Right. Correct.
JUSTICE SCALIA: So they don't even pay attention to their own opinions.
Breyer litarally had his head handed to him by Scalia in this debate. So
Breyer and people like him think that we need to consult Canadian law, we need to consult English law, we need to find out what Zimbabwe thinks fo this.... just go anywhere EXCEPT the Constitution of the United States.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is not to ask the Canadians or the British how THEY do things. But that's exactly what these activist judges are doing. Activist judges have discovered "rights" that AREN'T in the Constitution (right to privacy) and are trying to take away rights that ARE in the Constitution (right to bear arms). Legislators are supposed to make laws, judges are not.
2 edits
Originally posted by TheBloopSimple minded. Scalia and Thomas ignore entire parts of the text of the Constitution; when was the last time they used the Ninth Amendment? Your entire discussion of foreign law is foolish; Breyer was saying in his opinion that when determining what punishment is cruel and unusual, we can look to worldwide practices. The words "cruel and unusual" ARE in the text of the Eighth Amendment although Scalia apparently can't read them; allowing the legislature to say what punishments are cruel and unusual is repealing the Eight Amendment by judicial fiat. Thus, Breyer's view is in line with the text of the Constitution and Scalia's is not.
In Scalia and Thomas, you just named the only two current justices who are strict originalists (interpreting cases based on the original intent of the founding fathers). The other justices have, to some extent been activists, some mor ...[text shortened]... ators are supposed to make laws, judges are not.
There is no indication that the Framers believed that the Constitution should be "strictly and literally" construed in all places and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Fundamental rights were not given to us by the Constitution; they exist as our birthright. Scalia's niggardly view of fundamental rights is entirely at odds with the views of the Framers; I suggest you review the Declaration of Independence and Tom Paine's The Rights of Man for starters.
Originally posted by no1marauderPerfect Judge:
Simple minded. Scalia and Thomas ignore entire parts of the text of the Constitution; when was the last time they used the Ninth Amendment? Your entire discussion of foreign law is foolish; Breyer was saying in his opinion that when determining what punishment is cruel and unusual, we can look to worldwide practices. The words "cruel and unusu ...[text shortened]... gest you review the Declaration of Independence and Tom Paine's The Rights of Man for starters.
36C-24-36.
IQ 167
Doctorat in Law; UCLA: Post Doctorate- University of Salamanca; Salamanca, Spain.
2 Kids, One cat. No Religion!
2 edits
Originally posted by TheBloopYes, they fancy themselves true "strict originalists." I think their view is seriously mistaken, and that we still live under a Constitution drafted more than 200 years ago because it is not shackled to the imaginations of the authors.
In Scalia and Thomas, you just named the only two current justices who are strict originalists (interpreting cases based on the original intent of the founding fathers). [snip]
But that's exactly what these activist judges are doing. A ...[text shortened]... red "rights" that AREN'T in the Constitution (right to privacy)
That the right of privacy in implied in the Bill of Rights is a view of the Supreme Court that goes back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). this decision invalidated an Oregon law that required attendance at public schools. The case was a landmark for parochial education. The religious zealots whose opposition to Roe v Wade nurtures attacks on the notion that privacy is an implied right within the Constitution would do well to consider what they might lose if the Court overturns the notion. Likely, they don't want that.
Scalia defers to the majority on certain issues, but he well knows that the Bill of Rights was intended by the founders to protect the people in the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
All the great justices have been activist judges, if activist means understanding common law and jurisprudence. Make no mistake, Scalia is an apt student of these traditions.Thomas, on the other hand, is another matter.
Originally posted by no1maraudergiggle... (trying to envision a marauder killing kids, raping little boys and reading legal briefs)... It don't work too well.
I can't imagine why you would include Rehnquist as a "great" judge; his writings have been absolutely medicore and he was never even a judge until he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The last great conservative judge was John Harlan (he was a consistent conservative, not a right-wing fanatic).
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgr[/i]That's it? All that bluster just to let us know that you too think third trimester babies are "parasites" who are ok to kill?
Yes, they fancy themselves true "strict originalists." I think their view is seriously mistaken, and that we still live under a Constitution drafted more than 200 years ago because it is not shackled to the imaginations of the authors.
...[text shortened]... f these traditions.Thomas, on the other hand, is another matter.
Ever met a two year old child who wasn't a "parasite"?