• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chief justice urges progress naming judges

GPS_Flex said:
The problem was created by the courts. Politically motivated interpretations of the law and the constitution have led to the politicization of the judicial branch. Until judges start strictly interpreting the law as it was written, this will and should continue.
Click to expand...

At what point in our nation's history has the judicial branch NOT been politicized? It's easy to romanticize the good old days, but the problem is that they never existed in the first place.
 
We won't stop getting partisan politicians and partisan judges until we, the electorate, stop emphasizing partisan politics so much. They won't compromise until we compromise. They bicker and stop one another on our behalf. Until we act in a more responsible manner, they won't either.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Albert di Salvo and Tactical Evil Dan are now thread banned. I suggest getting on topic and staying on topic and no more crap.
 
Edit: ten characters
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
Obama voted against the Bush nominees. Now you don't want the same rules applied to Obama. That's all this is about.
Click to expand...

What you don't get is that the right should approve or not approve nominees based on their qualifications, not on whether or not Obama didn't vote for Bush's nominees.
 
Kandahar said:
At what point in our nation's history has the judicial branch NOT been politicized? It's easy to romanticize the good old days, but the problem is that they never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Great point.

The system was perfect until we handed it over to imperfect men to implement. That doesn’t mean we throw out the constitution and stop expecting our judges to be MORE perfect than they have been. Same goes for the members of congress.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What you don't get is that the right should approve or not approve nominees based on their qualifications, not on whether or not Obama didn't vote for Bush's nominees.
Click to expand...
Actually the right would still have a ways to go before we could match the politics of personal destruction the left has engaged it. Compare the way Sotomayor and Kagan were treated to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. It does seem a little convenient to call for an end to stalling judicial nominations now, while it's Obama's admin doing the nominating.
 
If judges had to answer the question when a senator asks where they stand on a certain issue, we would have fewer activist judges and we wouldn’t be losing our liberties and freedoms at the breakneck pace of today.
 
Redress said:
1) It's republican politicians blocking democratic judges and democratic politicians blocking republican judges.

2) If we block republican and democrat judges, then there pretty much is no one left.
Click to expand...

Judges should only make decisions based on literal interpretations of the law and the constitution.Their decisions should not be base on their political leans. Until that can happen I want the politicians I vote for to block any judges Obama nominates regardless if it is a long time before any judges get appointed.I am sure you would want democrats blocking judges picked but conservative presidents.
 
X Factor said:
Actually the right would still have a ways to go before we could match the politics of personal destruction the left has engaged it. Compare the way Sotomayor and Kagan were treated to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. It does seem a little convenient to call for an end to stalling judicial nominations now, while it's Obama's admin doing the nominating.
Click to expand...

Though I neither liked Bork nor Thomas, their nomination approval needed to be based on ability, not on personal attacks. Partisanship has run rampant, and the "well, THEY did it, so WE should do it" attitude makes the side saying it look as bad as the side they are opposed to.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Yeah,” pick your poison”… If they don’t review it they can’t screw it up so it’s almost better at this point if they don’t review it.
Click to expand...

But the legislature screws it up, and I'm more afraid of legislators passing stupid laws to get re-elected than I am about judges who have to get re-appointed.

It's not judges who screw things up - it's legislators.
 
jamesrage said:
Judges should only make decisions based on literal interpretations of the law and the constitution.Their decisions should not be base on their political leans. Until that can happen I want the politicians I vote for to block any judges Obama nominates regardless if it is a long time before any judges get appointed.I am sure you would want democrats blocking judges picked but conservative presidents.
Click to expand...

So you only want judges to interpret based on your partisan beliefs. You fail to see the problem with this?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Though I neither liked Bork nor Thomas, their nomination approval needed to be based on ability, not on personal attacks. Partisanship has run rampant, and the "well, THEY did it, so WE should do it" attitude makes the side saying it look as bad as the side they are opposed to.
Click to expand...
My point is, the right has a ways to go before you can say we're doing what the left has done. Maybe payback isn't such a bad thing. It could serve as an object lesson.
 
Kandahar said:
At what point in our nation's history has the judicial branch NOT been politicized? It's easy to romanticize the good old days, but the problem is that they never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Marbury v. Madison anyone?
 
X Factor said:
My point is, the right has a ways to go before you can say we're doing what the left has done. Maybe payback isn't such a bad thing. It could serve as an object lesson.
Click to expand...

This attitude ensures nothing ever gets fixed. We are all just going to stand around pointing at each other while the ship sinks.
 
Redress said:
So you only want judges to interpret based on your partisan beliefs. You fail to see the problem with this?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the partisan belief that judicial rulings should be based on the Constitution.
 
X Factor said:
My point is, the right has a ways to go before you can say we're doing what the left has done. Maybe payback isn't such a bad thing. It could serve as an object lesson.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Universally, both sides have been just as bad. And payback, ultimately, hurts everyone. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
 
X Factor said:
Yeah, the partisan belief that judicial rulings should be based on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's a problem since different folks view what the Constitution say differently. Terms need to be redefined based on modern times. If not, the entire Constitution should be scrapped and rewritten every 50 years or so.
 
X Factor said:
Yeah, the partisan belief that judicial rulings should be based on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Something no two people can agree with. Which brings us back to just approving judges who agree politically with us and the judicial system slowing more and more.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't agree. Universally, both sides have been just as bad. And payback, ultimately, hurts everyone. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Click to expand...
Payback is a political reality and probably the only thing that keeps politicians from feeling they can act with impunity. I do like your eye for an eye quote, even though I don't agree with it.
 
X Factor said:
Payback is a political reality and probably the only thing that keeps politicians from feeling they can act with impunity. I do like your eye for an eye quote, even though I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

So our judicial system should be nothing more than another arm of the legislative branch?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's a problem since different folks view what the Constitution say differently. Terms need to be redefined based on modern times. If not, the entire Constitution should be scrapped and rewritten every 50 years or so.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the Constitution, CC? It's not hard to follow. It's only when it's stretched to justify results oriented rulings that it gets complicated.
 
X Factor said:
Have you ever read the Constitution, CC? It's not hard to follow. It's only when it's stretched to justify results oriented rulings that it gets complicated.
Click to expand...

I've read the Constitution. I find it writen vaguely, just as the founders intended, so it could be used for generations, and applied to situations that they had not even considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom