Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
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.
|
I don't know what else to do here except scream at the top of my lungs "You're wrong, you're wrong, YOU'RE WRONG!". Both dc_dux and I have given you several examples of top-notch justices (our disagreement over Rheinquist notwithstanding) that had no judicial experience before their SCOTUS terms. So if you're going to call Thurgood Marshall, for instance, a "stupid" choice, which is what you're doing thus far, then I'm going to have to metaphorically smack the taste out of your mouth. The same with Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurther or Lewis Powell. We're at the point that you either need to conceed that there glaring holes in your "stupid" arguement or consine yourself to the fact that your inability to back down is making you look very foolish.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
Here's a source for that:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rt-right_N.htm |
Did YOU bother to read the article you quoted? Not once does it mention political leanings of any single or group of justices. I don't see the words "Republican" or "Democrat" appear at all in the article. "Conservative" and "liberal" both appear multiple times but unless you're saying that a judge can't decide consistently in one way or another, then those terms don't really matter. Judges, like all of us, have opinions on the way the world should work. And, unlike you and I, they get paid to have those opinions. As a matter of fact, those opinions are published, reviewed and studied. Some could argue that opinions are the stock and trade of judges everywhere. So if you want judges without opinions, I will insist on all the birds flying out of my ass be wearing White Sox gear since they will, by definition, be shitbirds.