Is nominating a judge to the court to curry favor or justice?

1. 72

   rhamsonposted 13 years ago

   With the retiring of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens what is the criteria for the nomination of a new one?  Do we need a justice with an agenda or one who hears both sides and doles out unbiased constitutional application to the cases?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I want a constitutionalist judge who practices judicial restraint.
      
      I really dislike judicial activism.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Buck Steinerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We need a Justice who "hears both sides and doles out unbiased constitutional application to the cases"!
      
      We will get a left leaning activist wholly unqualified to perform the duties He/She was nominated for.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A rhetorical question, and clearly the answer is the judge who is unbiased should be preferred, but that is not going to happen, given the biased agenda of the last judge to take the bench without much quarrel or legit debate.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Don't you think it would be appropriate to wait until a nominee is selected before you condemn him/her?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Buck Steinerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't care whats appropriate or not, the nominator is wholly unqualified to nominate so I would expect another bad pick like his first one.
      
      Any other questions?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The nominator is the PRESIDENT of the United States - and therefore the ONLY qualified erson to nominate.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Just because he's the nominator doesn't mean he's qualified. He just has the only authority to put forth possibilities.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               This is correct - he is only qualified through election by the majority of the people.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Buck Steinerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  God, thats funny!

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No, that doesn't make him qualified either. At one time the majority thought the world was flat too.

                  replyreport
         2. 57

            Buck Steinerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            By that logic George W Bush was competent. Do you ever read what you write?

            replyreport
3. 95

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   I would not take Buck's comments as a condemnationo of any individual, but rather as a comment on the system.  Unfortunately our political system has degenerated to the point of "get my laws passed (or interpreted to my benefit) any way I can".  If that means appointing a so-called judge that will make law instead of one
   who "hears both sides and doles out unbiased constitutional application to the cases" then so be it.

   replyreport
4. 63

   Hub Llamaposted 13 years ago

   The actual answer to the original question is that there is technically no criteria other than to be nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. Former Chief Justice Warren Berger was the Governor of California when he was nominated, having never been a judge anywhere at all.
   
   Unbiased constitutional application would be wonderful. The catch is that unbiased is in the eye of the beholder.

   replyreport
5. 66

   alternate poetposted 13 years ago

   The real problem is that if judges have been installed before who are biased then putting in any middle of the road judge leaves the high court biased in the opposition's favour. Don't see how it is possible to avoid that ?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your right. It isn't. But ALL judges are biased. The whole thing is, which way, and do we want that particular bias.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   If we install a judge who reads the first three words of the Preamble "We the People" and not "We the Rich People" - then we will get good rulings from that judge.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What is most assuredly the downfall of the nominating system we have now is the polarization of the legislative and electorate in this country.  Once the ball got started rolling to place justices with a slant on the law one way the next president came along and nominated one the other way to "balance" out the opinions being handed down.
      
      If we are as divided as we have ever been in this country how can we expect a change to take place that will be any different.  Everybody has an agenda and even if you don't one will overide your wishes unless you make it known.
      
      It is almost certain that Barak Obama will appoint a liberal judge because he may never get another chance with the political landscape changing in the next election.  But wouldn't it be refreshing if we could find a judge that does exactly what the title implies in impartiality and fairness in the eyes of the law.

      replyreport