Repubs to block Obama's Justic nominee

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
oh wait.. we don't even know who Obama will nominate! I think Bill Maher said it best:

"Republicans say that Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice is completely unacceptable and they will let us know why as soon as they know who it is."
 
Oh geez! What if he picks a republican and they get owned? LOL!
 
Where's source?
 
netrox said:
oh wait.. we don't even know who Obama will nominate! I think Bill Maher said it best:

"Republicans say that Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice is completely unacceptable and they will let us know why as soon as they know who it is."
Click to expand...

:laugh2:
 
shel90 said:
Oh geez! What if he picks a republican and they get owned? LOL!
Click to expand...

They'll just say the person isn't REALLY a repub....like Rush said Colin Powell wasn't REALLY a Repub. So much for bi-partisan efforts, huh?
 
Foxrac said:
Thanks but you are require to a provide an source when you plan to copy from media, it's part of AD rule.
Click to expand...

Don't be so picky. What Netrox said is valid even without a source. This always happens. It's par for the course for any Supreme Court nominee and I would expect the Republicans to try and block this. I think it's silly for them to do so, though.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Don't be so picky. What Netrox said is valid even without a source. This always happens. It's par for the course for any Supreme Court nominee and I would expect the Republicans to try and block this. I think it's silly for them to do so, though.
Click to expand...

At first, I have no idea about this thread is going on without link, I prefer to read in link for full detail.
 
This always happens. It's par for the course for any Supreme Court nominee and I would expect the Republicans to try and block this. I think it's silly for them to do so, though.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, by both parties.

I imagine Souter will be replaced with someone at least as liberal leaning, perhaps more so.
 
netrox said:
oh wait.. we don't even know who Obama will nominate! I think Bill Maher said it best:

"Republicans say that Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice is completely unacceptable and they will let us know why as soon as they know who it is."
Click to expand...

:laugh2:
 
I don't care if a judge is a conservative or a liberal because a judge is not supposed to base a decision based on those views. However, Obama's "empathy" standard bothers me. Empathy is a nice-sounding word- what kind of monster could possibly oppose empathy? But on the bench, empathy means favoring one party over another based not on the law but on what the judge thinks is "fair". That's not a judge's role. If a judge wants to act out empathy, he or she should do so outside of the court.
 
Empathy defined as...

understanding and entering into another's feelings
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Empathy bothers you?
 
netrox said:
Empathy defined as...

understanding and entering into another's feelings
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Empathy bothers you?
Click to expand...
I'm all for empathy when it's appropriate. As I said, a judge can act on empathy outside of the court, but inside the court, a judge's job isn't to "recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion". It's no more appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to make decisions based on empathy than it is for a football referee to make decisions on the field based on empathy for one team or the other.
 
netrox said:
oh wait.. we don't even know who Obama will nominate! I think Bill Maher said it best:

"Republicans say that Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice is completely unacceptable and they will let us know why as soon as they know who it is."
Click to expand...
:lol:


Good one. The Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot.
 
darkdog said:
I'm all for empathy when it's appropriate. As I said, a judge can act on empathy outside of the court, but inside the court, a judge's job isn't to "recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion". It's no more appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to make decisions based on empathy than it is for a football referee to make decisions on the field based on empathy for one team or the other.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It is called "mitigating factors", and something that all judges are to take into consideration in application of the law.
 
jillio said:
Yes, it is. It is called "mitigating factors", and something that all judges are to take into consideration in application of the law.
Click to expand...
"We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged 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."

It doesn't sound like he's talking about mitigating factors. When it comes to a dispute between two parties, none of those factors should make a difference except to the extent that they determine the facts of the case. Either way, "empathy" shouldn't play a role.

Given the tendency of many Supreme Court justices to determine cases based on their own notions of what's "fair", the fact that Obama has said he doesn't find the Warren Court radical, and his empathy standard, I'm concerned we'll end up with another judge who will give us horrendous decisions like United Steelworkers of America v. Weber or Kelo v. New London.
 
darkdog said:
"We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged 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."

It doesn't sound like he's talking about mitigating factors. When it comes to a dispute between two parties, none of those factors should make a difference except to the extent that they determine the facts of the case. Either way, "empathy" shouldn't play a role.

Given the tendency of many Supreme Court justices to determine cases based on their own notions of what's "fair", the fact that Obama has said he doesn't find the Warren Court radical, and his empathy standard, I'm concerned we'll end up with another judge who will give us horrendous decisions like United Steelworkers of America v. Weber or Kelo v. New London.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you have a very distorted defininition for both empathy and mitigating factors, not to mention fairness.

Of course the Supreme Court Justices determine such based on their own interpretations of the law. That is what they are on the bench to do...interpret and apply law. If interpretation was not a huge factor in a Supreme Court Justice's duties, it would not matter a hill of beans who was sitting the bench or what their political affiliation was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top