UncleNasty -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 7:43:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse It isn't the job of a Supreme court justice to make policy. Their job is to uphold and interpret current laws. She will be making policy from the bench. Bush didn't think so when he originally appointed her in 1992. I read two of her opinions, one in which she was the majority and one in which she dissented. They were both brillant; on point and insightful. She brings more judicial experience to the bench than anyone in the past 70 years. She's written over 150 opinions, only two of which have been over turned by the SCOTUS (a third is likely to be over turned as well.) That's a pretty damn good record. When Bush appointed her, the conservatives considered her moderate. When Clinton promoted her, the liberals considered her moderate. I haven't read anything yet that shows such does not continue to hold true. She has ruled on the side of business and on the side of labor. Right now, from my (very) quick review of her opinions, she looks to be 'slightly' left to me but since Souter tends to lean that way as well, it's pretty much a wash. My gut says this is a good appointment and I can't see anything that would bar her nomination from SCOTUS .. yet. Hell, the worst thing I can say about her at this point is that she's a Yankee fan but I'm still researching. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ Link gives over view and some case names for ease of research for anyone interested. Bita, are there any lawyers running for office or being appointed to a public post who *aren't* "Brilliant Legal Scholars?" I'm sure if you asked an alchoholic ambulance chaser with mustard on his jacket and who likes to hang out at the dog track if he were a "Brilliant Legal Scholor" he'd say yes. Or a divorce lawyer. Why are they always "Brilliant?" With all the "Brilliant Legal Scholors" that have been in our govt and looking at the shape financially of it I'd settle for "Competant Legal Scholors." Bill Clinton thought he was "Brilliant" too. Look what happened to him. How can you be "brilliant" if you can't even do "competant?" That's the problem with "brilliant" they all seem to forget that they work for The People and at some point decide that they'll do what "they" want to do instead of doing the job they were hired to do and are being *paid* to do. You try that shit in the "D.P.S." (Dreaded private sector) and you're gone in a week! I'd take a pass on this woman who likes to "make policy from the bench" for someone "not quite brilliant", "doesn't like brilliant" or "huh? what's brilliant?" One person's "opinion" is just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. Nice post Popeye. My opinion is that there is rampant abuse in our court system as a whole. Adherence to facts and law, and ruling accordingly, is lacking in so many proceedings, as is the lack of impartiality. We hear of an important case from time to time in which jurists actually do the job they were elected/appointed to do but most typically, in the thousands of run of the mill cases that go through our courts daily, there is abuse. More of my opinion is that we need to begin again to educate the populace in re their collective rights and powers as jury members. The history and practice of the doctrine of "jury nullification" is long. Very long. Like Magna Carta long. In essence it vests the ultimate power in the courtroom with the jury and they were enabled and expected to rule not only on the facts but on the law itself. Thus citizens were the real lawmakers and activists. In todays courtrooms if an attorney, or a pro se litigant, mentions anything relating to jury nullification they are frequently put in jail for contempt of court. Yet more of my opinion is that we'd all be better off if we eliminated judicial immunity. In short that means that judges are not held personally accountable for their poor, or improper, rulings and decisions. They have nothing at stake when they rule. Specifically there is little real motive for them to rule properly because there is no penalty if they don't. I suggest everyone spend some time in a local courtroom as a spectator to see what really goes on. Some of the behavior of judges is completely beyond the pale. Uncle Nasty
|
|
|
|