jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (18 posts)

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

  1. rhamson profile image75
    rhamsonposted 7 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?

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I want a constitutionalist judge who practices judicial restraint.

      I really dislike judicial activism.

    2. Buck Steiner profile image60
      Buck Steinerposted 7 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.

    3. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 7 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.

  2. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

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

    1. Buck Steiner profile image60
      Buck Steinerposted 7 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?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 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.

          1. alternate poet profile image67
            alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. Buck Steiner profile image60
              Buck Steinerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              lollollollollol

              God, thats funny!

            2. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

        2. Buck Steiner profile image60
          Buck Steinerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  3. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 7 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.

  4. Hub Llama profile image67
    Hub Llamaposted 7 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.

  5. alternate poet profile image67
    alternate poetposted 7 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 ?

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 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.

  6. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 7 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.

 
working