PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Give Chris Wallace credit: he actually brought up topics that didn't shield the candidates.
Case in point....we learned that Bill's wife has no understanding of either justice, nor of the Supreme Court's role.
Let me set the stage, providing the role of the court.
1. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.
. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.
If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."
2. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News
3. And....this view:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15
3. Now Hillary Clinton's view:
".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate
Why have a court?
Liberals simply want a rubber stamp, without any connection to the Constitution.
So saith Bill's wife.
Case in point....we learned that Bill's wife has no understanding of either justice, nor of the Supreme Court's role.
Let me set the stage, providing the role of the court.
1. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.
. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.
If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."
2. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News
3. And....this view:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15
3. Now Hillary Clinton's view:
".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate
Why have a court?
Liberals simply want a rubber stamp, without any connection to the Constitution.
So saith Bill's wife.
