A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

Fishking said:

The part in bold only proves that it doesn't matter who Republicans choose. Romney was about as moderate as you could get and yet he still got blasted for made up controversial stuff like "binders full of women".

Click to expand...

Yeah, and basically ****ting on half the electorate, inaccurately.

Southern Dad said:

I agree that Merrick Garland should be confirmed. No doubt that he is center left. However, Ginsberg will leave office during the Trump presidency. He'll get to appoint a conservative to replace her.

Click to expand...

Which is why Republicans shouldn't have freaked out so much about Garland and just let him go. Even if republicans got the president they want republicans actions on Garland will make Democrats do the same thing when Ginsberg leaves. Assuming she wouldn't just outlast a republican president. By being d-bag obstructionists they are taking their chances of holding onto the Senate, and tanking what little chance they have of winning the white house for nothing. If they don't confirm Garland, then when Hillary comes into office with a democratic senate she'll say heck with Garland and nominate someone republicans will hate more. She'll then follow that up with a replacement for Ginsburg that will lock down the supreme court for the next 20 years. Better to take Garland now and pray it helps you replace Ginsberg.

Fishking said:

That is all irrelevant to the job of a judge. Their job is not to base rulings on feelings and personal experiences but on the original intent of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect minorities. To understand whether a law is a harmful overreach that hurts minorities being able to empathize with them helps in that judgement.

One of the single biggest problems we seem to have in this country is that large swaths of the country don't have the ability to grasp the difference between being knocked off your high horse vs being stomped into the ground. Majorities never get stomped into the ground, but they react to getting knocked off their high horse as if they were. It usually takes someone who knows what it's like to be truly persecuted to recognize true persecution when they see it. Rich white christian men rarely have the ability to truly understand what that feels like, and as a result they struggle to recognize it when it's actually happening.

Kobie said:

Yeah, and basically ****ting on half the electorate, inaccurately.

Click to expand...

Not really inaccurately and almost every President these days ****s on half the electorate.

MrWonka said:

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect minorities. To understand whether a law is a harmful overreach that hurts minorities being able to empathize with them helps in that judgement.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that from the Bill of Rights. There's freedom of religion, speech, bear arms, some stuff on quartering soldiers (which isn't thing anymore) and some judicial stuff and the balance of state and federal powers in the 10th Amendment. That aside, it doesn't matter if a law is considered harmful or overreaching, if it is allowed by the Constitution, to a judge's ruling.

One of the single biggest problems we seem to have in this country is that large swaths of the country don't have the ability to grasp the difference between being knocked off your high horse vs being stomped into the ground. Majorities never get stomped into the ground, but they react to getting knocked off their high horse as if they were. It usually takes someone who knows what it's like to be truly persecuted to recognize true persecution when they see it. Rich white christian men rarely have the ability to truly understand what that feels like, and as a result they struggle to recognize it when it's actually happening.

Click to expand...

Eh...identity politics has made things worse, not better. That aside, judicial rulings have nothing to do with personal feelings or experience. It is based purely on understanding the intent of the Founding Fathers provided in writing in the Constitution.