Quote (Skinned @ May 17 2016 06:43am)
Historically speaking though, the presidents haven't always successfully packed courts with people of their own ideology.
I don't think SCOTUS judges can be divided into conservative and liberal groups as easily as politicians competing in a political economic market as products. I think we have a pretty smart and dynamic court now. I would like to so somebody more active and intelligence/articulate where Clarence Thomas is and there should be a balance.
I agree there should be a balance on the courts, that's part of the reason I think the upcoming election is so important.
The understanding that the balance is a tacit one, and one the Congress totally respects. A liberal won't be appointed to fill the seat of Scalia...it wouldn't be right, and when Obama talked about it, he even compromised and talked about a conservative judge that the Republicans have a track record of supporting.
I think Obama's nominee Garland is a good pick, he seems fairly minded and bipartisan supported, and of the views of what one would call a moderate republican. I think it's distasteful that he's not given the thumbs up or down, this in my view is a violation of constitutional duty.
Do you have any complaints with his other picks? Kagan and Sotomayor are both outstanding judges and have brilliant legal minds, enough to fill the shoes.
I'm not a fan of Sotomayor at all judicially speaking, I spent a bit of time going thru her positions before posting this @ontheissue.org and watched a few candid interviews with her. As a person, she is exceptionally bright, an excellent role model and talented lawyer, she's imminently likeable, however her positions on affirmative action, gun ownership, drug laws and a few other positions just dont fall in line with my libertarian views. Perhaps out of context but a couple of her quotes seemed like reverse racism against men/whites
Do you value diversity in the Supreme Court when it mitigates law? It is the highest power in the United States, as it has the power of Judicial Review over all laws passed.
In terms of supreme court preference , I'd be in the strict constitutionalist camp, as far as mitigating law, I'd refer to marbury vs madison that is if a law doesnt jive with the constitution it deserves to be thrown out, so I guess you can say in some cases I do support mitigating law when it's in conflict. When there is a conflict, I would prefer to defer to the state.
Would you rather it be diverse as it is, or would you personally like to see it packed with people who completely just agree with you and offer no other or dissenting viewpoints to make decisions with? Aka, a partisan and ideological court. This is just kind of a personal question I'm wondering about you in particular.
I'd guess I'd have to honestly answer this as I'm in the ideological court preference. I dont value diversity in terms of judicial activism, an example I could use here is the affordable care act, I dont think the court got it right in mandating the people to buy certain goods and services and penalize them if they do not, this is antithetical to freedom. I've been in the personal position the last few years (like the last ~13 years) of not being able to afford insurance, and now having hundreds or dollars per year taken for the privilege of not being able to afford even the cheapest shittiest coverage being offered that basically doesnt do anything. Thanks Obama!. Thats my generalization on that question, the nuance here would really come down to specific cases and examples which may or may not run contrary to this.
What a buffoon. The sideshow attraction has become the main show at the GOP.
Brief responses in red/bold.
This post was edited by Master_Zappy on May 17 2016 11:23am
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.