Repubs to block Obama's Justic nominee

[jillio]

Darkdog's "many and numerous attempted interpretations" of what jillio was saying:

1. "...a judge should overturn a law he deems unfair..."

The end

Just to be extra clear, I was applying your standard to a type of decision justices do face- judicial review. That's a reasonable conclusion. Actually, it's the only reasonable conclusion, unless I'm somehow supposed to infer that you meant judges should never make a decision she or he believes to be unfair except when it comes to judicial review.

You aren't supposed to "infer" anything. That is the problem. You are attempting to "infer" rather than reading what is written.

But then you don't seem aware of judicial review. Maybe that's causing this misunderstanding. Some of the biggest cases in American history involved the Supreme Court striking down laws entirely. Not just saying "you can't apply the law this way" but saying "this law is void and you cannot enforce it and you cannot write new ones that do what this one does."

"Some of the biggest cases" is hardly a majority. The vast majority of the Supreme Court cases heard have absolutely nothing to do with striking down a law, but reviews to decide if a particular law was applied as it was intended in that particular case. They are reviews of a lower court's decision based on application of a law.
So let me figure out what your position is. The Supreme Court justice now has to decide whether to overturn or uphold a law that is constitutional but, in her view, unfair. She has two options:

a. Say something like "I think this law is uncommonly silly and I would vote against it if I were in the legislature, but I believe it's constitutional, so I vote to uphold it."

b. Play verbal judo and twist the meaning of the constitution and/or the law itself to justify overturning it on constitutional grounds.

Which would you prefer she do?

Again, the decision is not whether the law itself is "fair" as you put it, but whether it was applied in that particular case in a fair and equitable manner, and consistent with the original intent of the law as written.

 

[jillio]

No, he made the statement as part of the decision of that case. It pertains to how justices are supposed to make their decisions for all cases. So?

He has also made other statements on other cases reviewed under the U.S. Supreme Court. I find it interesting that the one you chose was a reference to Roe V. Wade. It appears to me that is nothing more than an attempt to bring that same old emotional manipulation into the discussion as a way to dispose of all logic and clear thought.

 

[darkdog]

You aren't supposed to "infer" anything. That is the problem. You are attempting to "infer" rather than reading what is written.

That was my point. It would be beyond stupid of me to infer that your statement had an implicit exception to judicial review.

I did not infer anything you didn't say. I took what you said to its only logical conclusion. If you don't want people scrutinizing the logical implications of what you say, why bother having a debate at all?

"Some of the biggest cases" is hardly a majority. The vast majority of the Supreme Court cases heard have absolutely nothing to do with striking down a law, but reviews to decide if a particular law was applied as it was intended in that particular case. They are reviews of a lower court's decision based on application of a law.

They are reviews of the constitutionality of the law, period. It's where they decide whether that law itself is consistent with the ultimate law, the Constitution.

Again, the decision is not whether the law itself is "fair" as you put it, but whether it was applied in that particular case in a fair and equitable manner, and consistent with the original intent of the law as written.

That's exactly the way it should be, but not the way it always is with judicial activists. Glad to know you're an originalist, although I'm more of an original meaning type of guy.

By the way, Reba made it clear she doesn't want to talk about Roe v. Wade and it's just coincidence she happened to find an appropriate quote from that case. Why antagonize her over that? Focusing on such a point seems like a fine way to avoid "logic and clear thought". I find that a common pattern.

 

[jillio]

That was my point. It would be beyond stupid of me to infer that your statement had an implicit exception to judicial review.

I did not infer anything you didn't say. I took what you said to its only logical conclusion. If you don't want people scrutinizing the logical implications of what you say, why bother having a debate at all?

You took it to a conclusion. Whether it was logical or not is open to debate.


They are reviews of the constitutionality of the law, period. It's where they decide whether that law itself is consistent with the ultimate law, the Constitution.

It is not always about the constitutionality of the law. It is quite often about whether the law has been applied in the way it was intended as written. The law can very well be constitutionally sound, but application cannot.
That's exactly the way it should be, but not the way it always is with judicial activists. Glad to know you're an originalist, although I'm more of an original meaning type of guy.

By the way, Reba made it clear she doesn't want to talk about Roe v. Wade and it's just coincidence she happened to find an appropriate quote from that case. Why antagonize her over that? Focusing on such a point seems like a fine way to avoid "logic and clear thought". I find that a common pattern.

Because it is a typical pattern. It needed to be pointed out.

 

[darkdog]

You took it to a conclusion. Whether it was logical or not is open to debate.

Again, exactly my point. If your statement was not meant to apply to judicial review, then explain how. If it's up for debate, then debate it already.

It is not always about the constitutionality of the law. It is quite often about whether the law has been applied in the way it was intended as written. The law can very well be constitutionally sound, but application cannot.

Yeah it is, by definition. If it's not about the constitutionality of a law, it's not called judicial review.

Because it is a typical pattern. It needed to be pointed out.

Once again, you made my point. Your pattern of picking up some extraneous point and nitpicking that while ignoring the substance of the debate does need to be pointed out.

 

[jillio]

Again, exactly my point. If your statement was not meant to apply to judicial review, then explain how. If it's up for debate, then debate it already.

Already have.


Yeah it is, by definition. If it's not about the constitutionality of a law, it's not called judicial review.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court reviews many decisions of lower courts that have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law in question, but of the application of that law. They are not one and the same, as you seem to think they are.

Once again, you made my point. Your pattern of picking up some extraneous point and nitpicking that while ignoring the substance of the debate does need to be pointed out.

So, how about getting back to the fact that you obviously object to a Supreme Court Justice having empathy?

 

[darkdog]

Already have.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you didn't. Can you show me where? Or did you use some sort of voodoo psychology logic that we engineer physics types are too illogical and unintelligent to understand?

Incorrect. The Supreme Court reviews many decisions of lower courts that have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law in question, but of the application of that law. They are not one and the same, as you seem to think they are.

I never argued they didn't. When they do take it upon themselves to decide the constitutionality of a law, it's called judicial review. When they only look at the way the law was applied in specific cases, it's not judicial review.

So, how about getting back to the fact that you obviously object to a Supreme Court Justice having empathy?

What did you say about attributing words to me that I never said in a weak attempt to bolster my position? Something about destroying credibility. Did you base your characterization on this quote?

I think people should have empathy for everyone. It's a great trait to have.

Perhaps it was this quote.

Nowhere do I argue for a justice with a mental disorder [antisocial personality disorder].

Or this quote.

There are a lot of good qualities one should have. That doesn't mean they should all be mentioned specifically as criteria for a Supreme Court justice.

If you want to get back to that, great. I'm 8 posts ahead of you. From post 58:

There are a lot of good qualities one should have. That doesn't mean they should all be mentioned specifically as criteria for a Supreme Court justice. "When I pick a Supreme Court candidate, I want someone that is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a cannibal. I will have no cannibals on my court!" I know that sounds crazy, but it's not too different from saying "I want someone who is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a sociopath. The Supreme Court has no room for sociopaths!" As you said, a person without empathy is a sociopath.

So why am I concerned he would pick this one positive trait to emphasize? Because it could mean two things. It could mean that he wants a justice who will bias her decisions towards the downtrodden groups he mentioned. That would not be blind justice. The other is that he wants someone who will be able to see how the ramifications of his decisions affect various groups and factor that into his decision making. That is outside the judge's role in interpreting the law. That's the job of the legislature.

That and the fact that he said the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" leaves me with little hope that we won't get a judicial legislator.

You see now? I don't want a person who lacks empathy any more than I want a person who eats people habitually. I worry that he wants a judicial activist and is using his talent with words to frame it in a more politically digestible way- someone with empathy for the downtrodden.

 

[darkdog]

Darkdog's prediction of jillio's next post:

I don't want a person who lacks empathy any more than I want a person who eats people habitually.

Oh, so now you want a sociopath and a cannibal on the court.

 

[jillio]

Well, we can see what this has been reduced to.:roll:

Your orginal complaint here was that Obama's call for a justice with empathy was unreasonable and out of line. Care to get back to that?

 

[darkdog]

Well, we can see what this has been reduced to.:roll:

Again, I'm about 39 posts ahead of you on that sentiment.

Your orginal complaint here was that Obama's call for a justice with empathy was unreasonable and out of line. Care to get back to that?

For the third time, from post 58:

There are a lot of good qualities one should have. That doesn't mean they should all be mentioned specifically as criteria for a Supreme Court justice. "When I pick a Supreme Court candidate, I want someone that is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a cannibal. I will have no cannibals on my court!" I know that sounds crazy, but it's not too different from saying "I want someone who is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a sociopath. The Supreme Court has no room for sociopaths!" As you said, a person without empathy is a sociopath.

So why am I concerned he would pick this one positive trait to emphasize? Because it could mean two things. It could mean that he wants a justice who will bias her decisions towards the downtrodden groups he mentioned. That would not be blind justice. The other is that he wants someone who will be able to see how the ramifications of his decisions affect various groups and factor that into his decision making. That is outside the judge's role in interpreting the law. That's the job of the legislature.

That and the fact that he said the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" leaves me with little hope that we won't get a judicial legislator.

Now, I thought I'd save you some time and provide you with some jillioesque responses so you can just choose from a list. That's just the type of guy I am.

a. "Clearly you've misunderstood. It's so obvious I don't even need to explain."

b. "A sociopath is nothing like a cannibal. The two aren't even close. Let me recommend you some graduate level psychology texts to read."

c. "So... you want a sociopath on the bench?"

d. A well thought-out response grappling with the subject at hand without resorting to nitpicking extraneous points, twisting words, or obfuscating.

Just kidding about d. I threw that in just for kicks.

 

[Reba]

He has also made other statements on other cases reviewed under the U.S. Supreme Court. I find it interesting that the one you chose was a reference to Roe V. Wade. It appears to me that is nothing more than an attempt to bring that same old emotional manipulation into the discussion as a way to dispose of all logic and clear thought.

I was looking for a quote about empathy or feelings of a judge, so it fit. I found the quotation first, then the reference.

To be honest, I had hoped to find another quote to use that had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade simply because I was afraid some people might focus on the source rather than the quotation.

Apparently I was better at anticipating your reaction than you are at judging my motivations.

You seem to be the one that wants to harp on it.

 

[jillio]

I was looking for a quote about empathy or feelings of a judge, so it fit. I found the quotation first, then the reference.

To be honest, I had hoped to find another quote to use that had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade simply because I was afraid some people might focus on the source rather than the quotation.

Apparently I was better at anticipating your reaction than you are at judging my motivations.

You seem to be the one that wants to harp on it.

Actually, I think the motivation of the reference was quite obvious, and had absolutely nothing to do with me.

 

[Reba]

At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision
is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for
supporting our predilections.
William O. Douglas

Source:William O. Douglas Quotes

 

[Reba]

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases
must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and
not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice."
Justice Hugo L. Black
(1886-1971) US Supreme Court Justice

Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Reba]

"I belive the Court has no power to add to or subtract from the
procedures set forth by the founders...I shall not at any time
surrender my belief that the document itself should be our guide, not
our own concept of what is fair, decent, and right."
Hugo L. Black

1969 Interview
Source:The Supreme Court and Its Great Justices by Sidney H. Asch

 

[Hear Again]

I'm confused. If a judge's decision isn't based on fairness, what is it based on or am I misunderstanding Reba's post? (#74)

 

[Jiro]

I'm confused. If a judge's decision isn't based on fairness, what is it based on or am I misunderstanding Reba's post?

For example - the Constitution says "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALLY." but some judges allowed/created law to limit that quote to only white men.

 

[Reba]

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's
constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters
into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is
no law at all.
William O. Douglas

Source:William O. Douglas Quotes

 

[Reba]

“Yes, I will bring the understanding of a woman to the Court, but I doubt that alone will affect my decisions. I think the important thing about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.”

Sandra Day O_connor Supreme Court justice Quotations Homepage

 

[Reba]

"We Justices are certainly aware that we are not final because we are infallible; we know that we are infallible only because we are final. One does not forget how much may depend on the decision. More than the litigants may be affected. The course of vital social, economic and political currents may be directed."

-Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Address: To the Text and Teaching Symposium, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 12, 1985