John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme

[Happy Monkey]

Applying precedent takes on new meaning in the USSC. But I'm still waiting on more information.

[lookout123]

i've heard Schumer and a couple of others complaing because we don't know anything about Roberts' personal views. i consider that a good thing. if he is required to pass legal judgement on an issue and he uses the current law and the US constitution as his resources then he is fulfilling his duties. if he ever steps up and says "i feel, or i think..." then that is not what he is supposed to be doing. judges should be able to make rulings that fit legal and constitutional parameters even when it rubs against their personal preferences.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i've heard Schumer and a couple of others complaing because we don't know anything about Roberts' personal views. i consider that a good thing.

You and I agree on this. I could almost accept even a Yankee fan (and that's saying a LOT). Personal views are personal, and professional comportment can and should be the order of the day.

Originally Posted by lookout123

if he is required to pass legal judgement on an issue and he uses the current law and the US constitution as his resources then he is fulfilling his duties. if he ever steps up and says "i feel, or i think..." then that is not what he is supposed to be doing. judges should be able to make rulings that fit legal and constitutional parameters even when it rubs against their personal preferences.

However. Please correct me if I am reading you wrong, but I depend on the justices' "feeling" and "thinking". Because without that interpretation, without that human, personal reading of the law, there is only a static, lifeless stack of books.

If it were even possible to do this job without thinking and feeling (and I contend that is is not, and should not), why not just give the job to a machine. Hold the brief up to the light against a copy of the constitution and if it's not a match, the answer is no. Really. Not possible or desireable.

I feel confident that President Bush would agree with me on this point, and that's a rarity. I imagine he chose this nominee based on his understanding of John Roberts Jr's thoughts and feelings. I am utterly convinced that the vetting process included many questions to that end.

I may not agree with the nominee's thoughts and feelings about a given case, but using judgement (feeling and thinking) in the context of the law, is what it's all about.

Our society is undergoing constant change. That's the reason there's a court in the first place, to adjudicate a difference of opinion, of interpretation of our rules as they stand. We NEED interpretation. As long as we are a nation of laws (made by Congress, not the Court), there will be conflict, conflicting opinions about what's right, who's right about the law. And the decision makers must think to be able to apply the law. The law often lags social/business/cultural/societal reality. Until the law changes to match the way things are now, we'll need the judges in the courts to define how a law written yesterday applies to today.

[Elspode]

A show of hands, please. How many people think that anyone who claimed, in public or in private, to be either neutral or in favor of abortion would be nominated by the Bush administration to sit on Supreme Court?