Waitone
Member
Interesting question.
What is to prevent the prez from refusing to fill a vacancy?
What is to prevent the prez from refusing to fill a vacancy?
These comments should upset some senators.
- Thread starter Bruce H
- Start date
- Status
cuchulainn
Member
Legally? Nothing.
Politically? Lots.
Otherguy Overby
member
Unconstitutional
If I could ask John Roberts questions there'd only be one:
"Do you think the 1934 Firarms act is unconstitutional?"
A one word answer, sir!
I do like the intiials JR, though.
I sure hope we don't get any unintended consequences, however.
If I could ask John Roberts questions there'd only be one:
"Do you think the 1934 Firarms act is unconstitutional?"
A one word answer, sir!
I do like the intiials JR, though.
I sure hope we don't get any unintended consequences, however.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
I wish we had more than "hope."
Yeah, but Roberts was "just doing his job" back then, and anything he put down as an actual opinion was just him doing a service for his employer. Roberts has no opinions of his own, has no motives, has no desires, or agendas. He is a legal machine, andempty vessel waiting to be filled with whatever politcal beliefs and ideals that his superiors feel necessary.
I know thats cynical, but i honestly cannot have respect for a man who claims to have NO STANCE ON ANYTHING.
RealGun
Member
When the best of the best isn't good enough.
cuchulainn
Member
Is that what he's saying? Or is he saying that he thinks judges should keep their stances out of their rulings? Thus -- professionally -- it's his job not to take a stance.
Control Group
Member
Isn't that exactly what we want out of a SCOTUS judge?
His stances shouldn't matter, only his ability to read the Constitution (not difficult) and to weigh existing case law (very difficult) as each applies to a case at hand.
From a 2A perspective, a "stance" can only hurt the cause: say the judge has a pro-gun stance. Fantastic. We can then expect him to apply the 2nd as written. Of course, if he has no stance, and just applies the Constitution as written, we can expect him to apply the second as written. If, OTOH, he has an anti-gun stance, we can expect him to crowbar "well-regulated militia" into meaning only the army should have guns.
What it comes down to is if you like the Constitution, you don't need the judge to have a stance. You just need him to do the job he's required by law, oath, and ethics to do. It's if you somehow want the Constitution to say things that it doesn't - that effectively banning MG manufacturing for the civilian market isn't an "infringement", that the commerce clause trumps all local law, that seizing your house to sell to a mall is legitimate eminent domain - that you need judges to have stances.
unixguy
Member
My question for the nominee
If I was given a chance to ask any nominee for SC a question, it would be this: "Please give me an example or three of cases that you decided according to the words of the law, that were difficult for you because they go against your personal convictions. As an example, suppose you personally believe that allowing doctors to help someone end their life is wrong, but the law (as you read it) allows it to happen. Or vice versa."
Well said.
If I was given a chance to ask any nominee for SC a question, it would be this: "Please give me an example or three of cases that you decided according to the words of the law, that were difficult for you because they go against your personal convictions. As an example, suppose you personally believe that allowing doctors to help someone end their life is wrong, but the law (as you read it) allows it to happen. Or vice versa."
Well said.
RealGun
Member
I can't quote him exactly, but I was struck by Roberts' response to one prickly question. He said something like "it is the ultimate insult to a judge to suggest that he or she is not objective in interpreting the law." Now in context, that is a bit of righteous indignation to ward off a confrontation, but it really is the essence of this debate. All of the questions are suggesting that judges have questionable integrity. The judge selection procedure we currently use is not the way to fix that. The hearings contribute nothing except one more way for offering partisan resistance to the President and a simple check point (advise and consent) to ensure that the President doesn't pull any tricky business.
To me, the real problem is that Congress wants to work around their inability to pass constitutional amendments. In some instances, I think the Supreme Court is doing their job for them. If Congress can't find a provision in the Constitution to support what they want to do or if they can't get an amendment passed and ratified, they should live with it and not play lawyer games. By worrying about what the Court will do, they abdicate power to the Court.
To me, the real problem is that Congress wants to work around their inability to pass constitutional amendments. In some instances, I think the Supreme Court is doing their job for them. If Congress can't find a provision in the Constitution to support what they want to do or if they can't get an amendment passed and ratified, they should live with it and not play lawyer games. By worrying about what the Court will do, they abdicate power to the Court.
saltydog
Member
It so happens to be that the United States has an extreme amount of brain dead people living within its borders. Its the only explanation that makes any sense to me!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
It's a welfare thing. It's not surprising you don't quite get it, since you're probably been on the paying rather than receiving end of it all your life.
So-called "welfare" is a way of buying votes for leftist extremists with the nation's hard-earned tax dollars.
- Status