Aren't appointments to the Supreme Court based mainly upon the beliefs of the judge and how closely they match the current administrations ideals?
If that's not right, ignore me, and I'll go and research it.
Well I think it actually one of those things where you think them a good judge who will fairly interpret the law according to its true intent.
However we come out of fantasy land where people are all biased, all have agendas, etc and I think it an issue where most judges likely still have an agenda, but however they are not supposed to advocate it strongly outside of the court because they need to be viewed as impartial.
If people were elected to the Supreme Court, that would be one matter, but they are appointed there for life. Giving up being able to belong to NOW and speak for them on the weekends is a fair trade off for being in the history books as a Supreme Court judge and maintaining your impartiality.
Giving up being able to belong to NOW and speak for them on the weekends is a fair trade off for being in the history books as a Supreme Court judge and maintaining your impartiality.
As long as you have to give up hunting with your pals, too, yes.
Seems to me that judgement should be withheld until NOW has an actual reason to have Ginzburg in court working on something related to them as a group.
But I guess that compute . . . .
Besides, its about a women's organization and we all know how you feel about women outside of the kitchen
Me? No, I don't think it is unethical unless the judge also indicates that s/he would vote a certain way regardless of the underlying factual circumstances or state of the law.
Thoth
Actually I was asking Trumpet but you posted a few seconds before I got mine up.
That's the best you can do? All it does is prove you're ignorant. You know absolutely nothing but are still willing to pretend that you know something. That's the height of ignorance.
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
Aren't appointments to the Supreme Court based mainly upon the beliefs of the judge and how closely they match the current administrations ideals?
If that's not right, ignore me, and I'll go and research it.
Well I think it actually one of those things where you think them a good judge who will fairly interpret the law according to its true intent.
However we come out of fantasy land where people are all biased, all have agendas, etc and I think it an issue where most judges likely still have an agenda, but however they are not supposed to advocate it strongly outside of the court because they need to be viewed as impartial.
If people were elected to the Supreme Court, that would be one matter, but they are appointed there for life. Giving up being able to belong to NOW and speak for them on the weekends is a fair trade off for being in the history books as a Supreme Court judge and maintaining your impartiality.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Giving up being able to belong to NOW and speak for them on the weekends is a fair trade off for being in the history books as a Supreme Court judge and maintaining your impartiality.
As long as you have to give up hunting with your pals, too, yes.
Originally posted by pfflam
Seems to me that judgement should be withheld until NOW has an actual reason to have Ginzburg in court working on something related to them as a group.
But I guess that compute . . . .
Besides, its about a women's organization and we all know how you feel about women outside of the kitchen
Good one!
Originally posted by audiopollution
As long as you have to give up hunting with your pals, too, yes.
If your hunting pal is called the NRA, then sure I agree.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If your hunting pal is called the NRA, then sure I agree.
Nick
So ... belonging to the NRA would be bad, but going hunting with Heston would be good?
Originally posted by Thoth2
Me? No, I don't think it is unethical unless the judge also indicates that s/he would vote a certain way regardless of the underlying factual circumstances or state of the law.
Thoth
Actually I was asking Trumpet but you posted a few seconds before I got mine up.
Originally posted by audiopollution
So ... belonging to the NRA would be bad, but going hunting with Heston would be good?
no, going hunting with heston would be dangerous
a mind is a terrible thing to ....
g
Originally posted by jimmac
Good one!
I'm sure you'll be burning crosses with your friends...
Good one...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sure you'll be burning crosses with your friends...
Good one...
Nick
not so good one
Originally posted by Scott
Paid for?
That's the best you can do? All it does is prove you're ignorant. You know absolutely nothing but are still willing to pretend that you know something. That's the height of ignorance.