|
popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 10:45:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:
ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
From what I've seen of the "judicial activism" charge in use, it means "the judge didn't rule the way I think s/he should have".
Gigs, no I don't think so. Judges should concentrate on the law and not espouse "causes" that they then rule in favor of.
In other words I think it's "vital" that they remain ***impartial***. They simply can't be making rulings based on their personal feelings.
That's not "good judgin'" I guess that's why they have layers of courts, to keep the other judges in check.
I agree with you about what judges should do, but I wasn't referring to what judges do. What I said is that when I have heard charges of judicial activism leveled against judges, it has nearly always been sour grapes - anger/irritation that the judge didn't rule the way the person complaining of judicial activism felt they should. It's rare that the person backs their charge up with actual evidence.
Folks are getting ready to beat up on Sotomayor because of some comments she's made about her background having an influence on her decisions. Apparently, Alito made very similar comments in his confirmation hearings -
"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Judges are human. They can't help but to be influenced by their own experiences. That's why there's more than one judge on the Supreme Court, state supreme courts and appelate courts - to keep the other judges in check.
quote:
Ever see that statue of Lady Justice? She wears a *blindfold* for a reason!
Ideally all judges should rule the same way on any givin case. "Ideally."
We don't live in an ideal world. Ideally, all laws would be written in a way that makes clear what the lawmakers intended and that passes constitutional muster, but many laws have language that is open to interpretation, and some laws that are passed are unconstitutional. Ideally, all prosecutors would use the same standards when deciding what charges to bring, but in practice it's left to the prosecutor's discretion, and some of them are softies and some are hardasses. Ideally, the amount of money a defendant has shouldn't affect the sentence they receive, but in practice a public defender is most often about as useless as tits on a boar. The outcome of a trial often depends more on whether one can afford to pay an attorney than it does on the details of the crime one committed.
We absolutely rely on judges using their discretion. The details of every case are different. When you/me/whoever go up before a judge, we don't want complete objectivity. What we really want is for that judge to look at us as an individual, to look at the specific circumstances of our case, and to decide how the law should apply to us in our particular situation.
quote:
Bita could probably explain that better than me since she reads other people's "opinions" all the time. Perhaps she could explain the absolute importance of impartiality in the judiciary.
I understand the importance, I just think that it's an unrealizable goal. Again, judges are human, and are subject to all of the faults and foibles of other humans, which is why higher courts have more than one judge. More diversity on a particular bench can only be a good thing, bringing varied experiences into the decisions that are made, helping to assure that the decisions represent the best interests of a majority of us.
Gigs, first of all her parents came here from Puerto Rico during WW2.
Puerto Ricans are all *American Citizens*, it's a protectorate of the U.S. so she's had no "immigrant experience".
Secondly from reading the above quotes from her it is abundantly clear that she is *not* impartial.
If she would let her personal experiences cloud her judgement of the law then she shouldn't be a judge at any level.
*Any judge* should be guided by "the law" and not personal preferances or biases. That is what we're paying those judges to do!
If I owned a warehouse and I was paying someone to take boxes off of a truck and stack them in a certain place that's what I expect them to do.
If they decided to stck those boxes in another place instead then they're not doing the jb that I'm paying them for are they?
The more "degrees" someone has the more *supervision* they need it seems. I don't know where that type of thinking comes from that "they" get to define their own job descriptions! They don't! Most box stackers will do the job that they're hired to do and not have an agenda..
|
|
|
|
