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?
I want a constitutionalist judge who practices judicial restraint.
I really dislike judicial activism.
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.
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.
Don't you think it would be appropriate to wait until a nominee is selected before you condemn him/her?
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?
The nominator is the PRESIDENT of the United States - and therefore the ONLY qualified erson to nominate.
Just because he's the nominator doesn't mean he's qualified. He just has the only authority to put forth possibilities.
This is correct - he is only qualified through election by the majority of the people.
By that logic George W Bush was competent. Do you ever read what you write?
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
by Credence221 months ago
What will Obama do with that new vacancy on the court?
by Cagsil5 years ago
And people accept this as being okay? Pathetic. Enough Said!
by Ben Bush9 years ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation...
by John Welford8 years ago
Trafalgar Square in London has for many years had an "empty plinth" - there should be a statue on it but there isn't. At present, anyone can book an hour to stand on the plinth and say or do whatever they...
by Mom Kat7 years ago
If a couple has joint custody and one parent decides they want to take the other to court for full - what exactly does that parent have to prove as a substantial enough reason for the courts to order the change?Is it up...
by Reality Bytes6 years ago
The beginning of round two?http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … titutional"A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.