Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Nov 8, 2005.
Given the extent to which the judicial nomination process ahs been politicized, changes to the system would be appropriate. I would suggest blind nominations. In this process candidates would be nominated based solely upon their qualifications and the quality of their judgements as show by the number of times their decisions have been overturned on, Constitutional grounds, by higher courts. Their names and party affiliations would not be considered in this process...only their qualifications and quality of their decisions.
We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches.
Oh I see, since you cannot enforce your agenda for society through the courts, you'd like no agenda to be enforced. Let's do this, let's just go with strict constructionists, which is what ALL judges are supposed to be. Going by number of overturned cases reveals nothing and means nothing.
Excellent!! I really like Mr Sowell
When justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a card carrying member of the ACLU, was appointed to the Supreme Court, not a word about how political considerations were tainting the judicial nomination process from the Left. Now Bush is calling the shots and it's all this talk about "qualified justices".
Anyway Bully, when Robert Bork, a former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, circuit judge for United States Court of Appeals and law professor was nominated by Reagan, he was "borked" by the NOW and rated "unqualified" (!!!!!!!!) by the American Bar Association.
Then, when Thomas Clarence was nominated by the first President Bush, the NOW made the whole nomination process a three ring circus by dragging Anita Hill who practically perjured herself. Talk about a shameful spectacle.
And the freaking Democrats have filibustered just about every judicial nominee of Bush's....
It takes a lot of brass when the Left pulls crap like that and then put on airs about "politicizing the judicial process"
No, the only way the Left will be satisfied is when Bush's nominees will say that they are for Roe vs. Wade. That's the Left's definition of a "qualified" justice.
Frankly, I'd like to see a whole bunch of Senators impeached, first and foremost that rat I call a Senator .... Chuck Schumer!
You must be joking....... the unconstitutional usurpation has been by the courts, and has been every since Marbury vs Madison in 1803!
Yeah we do need an idealogical driven judicial system. We need a judicial system that is loyal to the ideals found in the Constitution of the United States of America. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that somehow the judicial branch hasn't been politicized before. It has been since Marbury v Madison and the first shift in power between political parties in history.
Besides, how do you determine quality of decisions without the standard of the constitution?
Marbury vs Madison as in "the judiciary alone has the power to interpret the Constitution"....
I read that Thomas Jefferson had a fit when he heard what Justice John Marshall pulled
Link to "Men in Black" on amazon.com
Separate names with a comma.