Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Third paragraph, last sentence. Our of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 "broke 5-4 along ideological lines".
|
You're kidding, right? It's not the same thing. Some justices tend to vote more liberally. Others more conservatively. Occassionally they all agree. There's absolutely no implication of parties there. Several of the most ideologically conservative justices were appointed by Democrats and vice versa.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I am against abortion. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would not rule against abortion based on my personal beliefs because I would have taken an oath to be impartial.
|
You sersiously need to take a Constitutional History class. IF (big if) Roe v. Wade gets overturned it will not be because of justice's inability to be impartial, it will be because the right of privacy that was created out of thin air by the Warren Court will be disipate. I'm pro choice, too, but as someone who's actually studied court cases I recognize that the basis for Roe v. Wade is flimsy at best. There is no "right to privacy" stated anywhere in the document or amendments, and at best it's implied. That doesn't mean I disagree with the decision (I do) but that I know that it's the product of an activist court that had to plumb the depths of the law to concoct a decision that greatly hemmed in the rights of the states.
And if you didn't rule against abortion, it wouldn't be because you were or weren't impartial. It would be because you followed precedent, which typically implies a conservative justice. That's what SCOTUS does, sets and defines how all following similar cases should be viewed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Jesus, look at the moderation on TFP. All in all, it's impartial. I dance on Cynthetiq's nerves constantly, but he has never once let our disagreements spill over into his administrative duties on the site. Why? Because he understands that as an administrator he is responsible for being fair and impartial. You yourself do the same thing. And no, this isn't sucking up.
|
I'm glad you recognize that we go to great lengths to have "flat" moderation, especially in Politics, but that's really apples and oranges. We're only guided by the rules section. There's no rule of law here or great tome of previous decisions.
In the end, I guess I'm completely confused as to what you mean by "biased". A judge can be neither conservative nor liberal? They have to follow prescedent dogmatically? There can be no expansion or contraction of the scope of any previous decision? There's a reason that we have 9 justices, Will. There are two very different schools of thought on how to interpret the Constitution, and each is represented. Do you want to abolish the schools of thought?