The judges’ personal beliefs are not of concern, provided the judge applies the rule of law to the decisions, and doesn’t legislate from the Bench.
Bane is that kinda like when Sam Alito was appointed (with all you cheering here) and he was quoted as saying that he would be sure to remember those that had made it possible? In other words, he was saying that he would be partial to those that had appointed him, rather than being impartial and interpreting law?
Souter decides to apply some European law to justify his decision.
-- You mean like judges that have been basing legal decisions on common law judgements like they have been for centuries? The american legal system is based on the british common law system, meaning that if a precedent is not present in US law, he can and has every right to look in british or equilivant common law elsewhere. This is a common practice worldwide for justices. The fact you believe it improper simply goes to show your level of ignorance.
Souter is “law shopping” to find a country with a law that agrees with his personal opinion, and he finds no basis in our law to support him.
-- This of course os also a very foolish statement. When a US prescedent exists, that will be used as consideration in the decision, provided that he agrees with the decision.
This is how judges rule. When they interpret a law, they first look for decisions on both sides of the fence. Often a judge will have a gut feeling from the word go as to how he will rule. That said, he will base his ruling on previous decisions that will strengthen his decision and make it less likely to be overturned, which is embarassing to a judge. Regardless of if the desision is a US one, or a British one or a canadian one, he is free to use it and it has always been like this.
In the late 1700's when America won its independance, what rule of law do you think they used in their decisions? Thats right, the british common law.
In the common law system, a decision in an equalivant common law country carries weight.
Always been this way, always will. Conservative judges use it just as much as liberal ones.
This also applies to judges that use loose interpretations based on social engineering; a judge that doesn't feel the death penalty is humane is not permitted to apply his personal beliefs; he must base his ruling on the law as it stands; not as he wishes it to be.
-- Again, you are totally misinformed. Judges are NOT bound to follow existing laws, they often do however this is not mandatory. Judges rule based on what they feel is right and also existing decisions. Many, many, many decisions throughouttime have been prescenent setting decisions, such as your much hated Roe v Wade. These however come at a much higher risk of being later overturned.
The Constitution is not “a living breathing document” it is a legal contract that says exactly what it means.
-- Correct. It is a docturine outlining the principles that Americas founding fathers intended. This is exactly why people are upset at the bush administration reading non-existant things into the constitution that they use to defend their illegal acts. Bush says the constitutiongives him to power to violate ANY law. Clearly, this is NOT the case, in fact the opposite is true, that he is found to faithfully obey the law and follow the constitution.
Conservatives favor judges that, even if pro-life will rule in favor of abortion if the law that is applied is consistent with the ruling. Conservatives prefer to make law by legislation, not judicial fiat.
-- This is such a farse, it is hard to believe that you actually believe it. The law of the land concerning abortion is Roe v Wade, opening the door for pro-choice. If conservative judges did as you say, then they would be bound to follow that decision, not make another one from scratch. This is why your arguement is so flawed... States are passing oppressive anti-abortion laws in the hopes it will be challenged as they believe that the 2 new Supreme court nominees (Roberts, Alito) will make it more likely that Roe V Wade will be overturned. This blows a huge hole in your arguement that conservative judges rule by lkaw and do not use their personal views to influence their decisions. Conservative judges will be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade before they even read a single document of the case.
Mark, I think that you need to respond to this statement you made:
“I've had it with this Murtha - he's a damned traitor and there's an end on it.
NOTE: Unless you have gold plated proof of accusations against our magnificent men and women in uniform, don't even bother trying to post it. This is not a site for slandering the good name of the American fighting man or woman.”
Posted by Mark Noonan at May 19, 2006 03:19 AM
How about this (tip of the iceberg and you know it)?
“The official, who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the yet-to-be-completed investigation, said the evidence developed by investigators strongly indicates the killings last November in the insurgent-plagued city of Haditha in the western province of Anbar were unjustified.”
Mark, how about a little apology for Murtha?
Barney: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot does this have to do with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation? You need to hold off on this until an appropriate thread is opened.
Many democrats are fine with the idea of appointing moderate conservatives to the bench. Its when you want to appoint radical evangelicals when things get tough mark. These are the equalivant to the "liberal activist judges" you always complain about.
judicial appointments are give and take, clinton appointed many, bush will and so will the next president. Some will be liberals and others conservatives.
The mindset that all judges should only be conservatives is incredibly ignorant and unintelligent.
axis apparently doesn't understand the issue (what a surprise!)
The judges’ personal beliefs are not of concern, provided the judge applies the rule of law to the decisions, and doesn’t legislate from the Bench.
Judicial activism is where a judge like, oh say … Souter decides to apply some European law to justify his decision. Another judge like, oh say … Scalia will use the Constitution as his guide.
The reason this is abhorrent to conservatives is because Souter is “law shopping” to find a country with a law that agrees with his personal opinion, and he finds no basis in our law to support him. Why doesn’t Souter give the same weight to a law from Niger, or Vietnam, or Iran as he does to a law from France?
Why doesn’t Scalia just find an international law to support his position? Because his job is to apply our laws to his decisions, not make it up as he goes along.
This also applies to judges that use loose interpretations based on social engineering; a judge that doesn't feel the death penalty is humane is not permitted to apply his personal beliefs; he must base his ruling on the law as it stands; not as he wishes it to be. Conservatives favor judges that, even if pro-life will rule in favor of abortion if the law that is applied is consistent with the ruling. Conservatives prefer to make law by legislation, not judicial fiat.
The Constitution is not “a living breathing document” it is a legal contract that says exactly what it means. When the Constitution no longer applies, or times change to the point that the constitution cannot be applied literally, we have a process for amending the constitution; and that process is not to ignore it and apply a judges' personal opinions.
Bane, axis is an idiot, just like Barney. axis is reading straight out of the Chuckie Schumer playbook. axis can't think for himself; he's a fruitcake lemming.
Barney, try to stay on topic, you pathetic waste of clean air!
The judges’ personal beliefs are not of concern, provided the judge applies the rule of law to the decisions, and doesn’t legislate from the Bench.
Bane is that kinda like when Sam Alito was appointed (with all you cheering here) and he was quoted as saying that he would be sure to remember those that had made it possible? In other words, he was saying that he would be partial to those that had appointed him, rather than being impartial and interpreting law?
Souter decides to apply some European law to justify his decision.
-- You mean like judges that have been basing legal decisions on common law judgements like they have been for centuries? The american legal system is based on the british common law system, meaning that if a precedent is not present in US law, he can and has every right to look in british or equilivant common law elsewhere. This is a common practice worldwide for justices. The fact you believe it improper simply goes to show your level of ignorance.
Souter is “law shopping” to find a country with a law that agrees with his personal opinion, and he finds no basis in our law to support him.
-- This of course os also a very foolish statement. When a US prescedent exists, that will be used as consideration in the decision, provided that he agrees with the decision.
This is how judges rule. When they interpret a law, they first look for decisions on both sides of the fence. Often a judge will have a gut feeling from the word go as to how he will rule. That said, he will base his ruling on previous decisions that will strengthen his decision and make it less likely to be overturned, which is embarassing to a judge. Regardless of if the desision is a US one, or a British one or a canadian one, he is free to use it and it has always been like this.
In the late 1700's when America won its independance, what rule of law do you think they used in their decisions? Thats right, the british common law.
In the common law system, a decision in an equalivant common law country carries weight.
Always been this way, always will. Conservative judges use it just as much as liberal ones.
This also applies to judges that use loose interpretations based on social engineering; a judge that doesn't feel the death penalty is humane is not permitted to apply his personal beliefs; he must base his ruling on the law as it stands; not as he wishes it to be.
-- Again, you are totally misinformed. Judges are NOT bound to follow existing laws, they often do however this is not mandatory. Judges rule based on what they feel is right and also existing decisions. Many, many, many decisions throughouttime have been prescenent setting decisions, such as your much hated Roe v Wade. These however come at a much higher risk of being later overturned.
The Constitution is not “a living breathing document” it is a legal contract that says exactly what it means.
-- Correct. It is a docturine outlining the principles that Americas founding fathers intended. This is exactly why people are upset at the bush administration reading non-existant things into the constitution that they use to defend their illegal acts. Bush says the constitutiongives him to power to violate ANY law. Clearly, this is NOT the case, in fact the opposite is true, that he is found to faithfully obey the law and follow the constitution.
Conservatives favor judges that, even if pro-life will rule in favor of abortion if the law that is applied is consistent with the ruling. Conservatives prefer to make law by legislation, not judicial fiat.
-- This is such a farse, it is hard to believe that you actually believe it. The law of the land concerning abortion is Roe v Wade, opening the door for pro-choice. If conservative judges did as you say, then they would be bound to follow that decision, not make another one from scratch. This is why your arguement is so flawed... States are passing oppressive anti-abortion laws in the hopes it will be challenged as they believe that the 2 new Supreme court nominees (Roberts, Alito) will make it more likely that Roe V Wade will be overturned. This blows a huge hole in your arguement that conservative judges rule by lkaw and do not use their personal views to influence their decisions. Conservative judges will be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade before they even read a single document of the case.