Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
No, you said it was "stupid" to nominate those without judicial experience. |
What do you call it when someone commits to a bad decision? I generally call it stupid. Like "It's stupid that we stayed in Iraq after it was discovered there were no links to al Qaeda" or "It's stupid to call that woman after you found out she was a man".
There's an old saying, "The definition of stupid is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results". Either Congress is stupid expecting to get an impartial justice or they're corrupt in expecting to get an impartial justice. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I didn't say that they're biased because they're coming from political parties. I said that was the logical implication of what you've said, and I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth since I don't happen to agree with the statement. The other logical implication of your statements is that they are not impartial.
|
A judge or justice can be a member of a political party and be impartial. A judge or justice, however, cannot take into account his or her political ideologies when coming to a decision without becoming impartial.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Again, let's see something that actually has some sort of real world value. You've shown two cases where judges should have recused themselves because of personal finances. You've accused Alito of being biased towards Homeland Security cases because of his friendships without offering any proof whatsoever.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel, the merciful, in post #13
Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines.
|
Here's a source for that:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rt-right_N.htm