From Laurie:
One other thought I have been having...
"I have an off topic link I found interesting. I think both left and right could agree that the supreme court is too powerful. Here’s What’s Really Wrong With the Supreme Court: It’s Too Damn Powerful "One solution I heard discussed on MPR earlier today was the requirement of a super majority of Justices being needed to over rule a law that has been passed by the Legislative / Executive branches of government. Here is some history Wiki SCOTUS
One other thought I have been having...
- Are Justices partisan or does their personal interpretation of law and constitution just resonate with people in a specific party?
- Let me use myself as an example... I personally do not care about what party or person I vote for.
- I just know what I believe is best for America, and using that perspective and information available I pick between the 2 candidates.
- Partisan: "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person"
- So what if the Justices are just doing what they truly think is correct based on their interpretation of the law and constitution?
- It seems they are not partisan at all.
- I mean is Ginsberg partisan or does she just interpret the law differently. And the DEMs picked her because they aligned with her beliefs, not the other way around?
6 comments:
all the justices have an ideology- Partisan is Kavanaugh talking about a left wing conspiracy during the hearing. Partisan is picking GW to be president back in 2000.
Or... Did they rule as they believed correct... And you just disagree.
If they had ruled the other way... Would that have been partisan for the DEMs?
Are you partisan towards the DEMs because you have similar views and beliefs as them?
Or do you have similar views so you and the DEMs make similar choices?
Are Justices partisan or does their personal interpretation of law and constitution just resonate with people in a specific party?
They are partisan.
Let me use myself as an example... I personally do not care about what party or person I vote for.
A common view both parties try to exploit.
I just know what I believe is best for America, and using that perspective and information available I pick between the 2 candidates.
Many people do. But because they don't work through parties, they have no possibility of actually achieving their goals.
Partisan: "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person"
Well, which is it?
So what if the Justices are just doing what they truly think is correct based on their interpretation of the law and constitution?
I don't think they are, but it wouldn't be inconsistent with at least one of the three factors determining partisanship in the definition above if they did.
It seems they are not partisan at all.
I mean is Ginsberg partisan or does she just interpret the law differently. And the DEMs picked her because they aligned with her beliefs, not the other way around?
Of the four, I would say the RBG is adherent of some causes. The recent documentary on her is available on Hulu I believe. From what I gathered from it, she was never into politics much. Unlike Kavanaugh, for example, she didn't hold a lot of political jobs. Most new justices have been carefully vetted in that way. ON the other hand, on certain issues, there was no doubt about how she would vote.
==Hiram
Non partisans are much like Republicans. They are for doing things in theory, they just feel someone else should do them. With Republicans, it's the market that's the panacea. With non partisans, it just varies.
--Hiram
For me, Gore v. Bush tested my faith in the Supreme Court. But I really became an anti court guy over the de facto over the legislating it did over health care. Not only the outcome, but the whole process I thought was abusive. Since then, I have been the opinion that justices should have six month terms and that all their opinions should be considered advisory only.
--Hiram
Post a Comment