New Supreme Court Justice - Page 2 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


New Supreme Court Justice

 
Given that this person has been a judge for decades and an appellate judge since she was appointed by George H. W. Bush, and they've only got two out of context inappropriate quotes and one supposedly questionable judgment, she's doing pretty good.

For those unfamiliar with appellate courts, this is where policy is set, judicial policy. The lower courts are concerned with questions of fact, who did what, when, how, how much damage, etc. Appellate courts, by my understanding, rarely address such matters. What they address are more meta-questions such as was the law in question applied correctly, did the trial go according to procedure and so on. These are questions of judicial policy.

And when the appellate courts run smack into some ass-hat piece of legislation written up by a bunch of lobbyists, appended by aides late at night when no one was looking and rammed through on a party line vote despite language more suited to grandstanding and scoring points than the fine-grained, clear, controlled explanations needed to run on the judicial operating system*, its the appellate court that has to wade through the mess and decide what it means. And even if the legislature actually did its job and passed good, clear, well written laws, we'd still need an appellate court to handle all those corner cases no one foresaw.

That's why the appellate court sets policy. That's what it's there for.

_______
* Hint - they don't make up all those strange terms for the fun of it any more than physicists get bent out of shape about the precise difference between force, energy and power.

It's too bad that we can't find seven people in this country who have sufficient experience; sufficient insight; the ability to set themselves aside from their own personal feelings and be honest about things. It shouldn't matter one iota whether she has experience with living in the streets, or whatever euphomism you choose. Ideally, seven old white guys should be able to interpret the law correctly. It's not supposed to be a law-making branch, it's a law-interpreting branch. Seven out of 300 million. Do we now need a gay judge, three more women, etc., to fill it all out sufficiently? Hand-picking a court is just as wrong as picking all white, old guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
It's too bad that we can't find seven people in this country who have sufficient experience; sufficient insight; the ability to set themselves aside from their own personal feelings and be honest about things. It shouldn't matter one iota whether she has experience with living in the streets, or whatever euphomism you choose. Ideally, seven old white guys should be able to interpret the law correctly. It's not supposed to be a law-making branch, it's a law-interpreting branch. Seven out of 300 million. Do we now need a gay judge, three more women, etc., to fill it all out sufficiently? Hand-picking a court is just as wrong as picking all white, old guys.
It's human nature that one can only get outside one's own perspective for incredibly brief periods of time, and then with only limited success. One's background and ethnicity will invariably affect one's reasoning. Thus it is definitely necessary that a diverse country have a diverse court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the one branch of government that is not directly ruled by the political parties. As such, it is important to have as diverse a group of people presiding as possible so the judgements are as fair as possible. Since it is also the only branch of government where the members are not elected, it falls to the President to maintain diversity.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sotomayor will bring something new to the bench which, while its possible to be negative, is most likely to be beneficial to the court as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N-Dog View Post
She then said, "I am not promoting it, I am not advocating it." What's thge problem (besides the fact that the conservative propaganda machine is happily being intellectually dishonest and quoting her out of context)?
My interpretation of her words were that she put that in as a 'disclaimer', but chuckled about it -- leading me to believe that she really meant it.

On the 'racism' part, how would you react if someone said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Could you put that into a context where it would be an acceptable statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waffle View Post
That's why the appellate court sets policy. That's what it's there for.
The job of an appellate court is to review actions or decisions of the trial courts by reviewing the record on questions of law or allegations of procedural error.

It is absolutely, positively NOT to set policy. That is the job of the legislative branch of the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
It is absolutely, positively NOT to set policy. That is the job of the legislative branch of the government.
Not Exactly, not in the USA, at least. Common Law is policy, Common Law is set by the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
It's too bad that we can't find seven people in this country who have sufficient experience; sufficient insight; the ability to set themselves aside from their own personal feelings and be honest about things.
So it's too bad that you can't find seven humans in the USA who aren't human?

Quote:
Originally Posted by InaVegt View Post
Not Exactly, not in the USA, at least. Common Law is policy, Common Law is set by the courts.
Common law, or case law, is not 'setting laws'. It is interpreting them. There is a huge difference in interpreting the law and making law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
Common law, or case law, is not 'setting laws'. It is interpreting them. There is a huge difference in interpreting the law and making law.
Do you think they read minds or something?

The very act of interpreting (in the case of courts) means you have to make a choice between something not explicitly stated (if it was, you wouldn't really need to interpretate, and there would be no precedent to enter common law), as this becomes law until overturned by parliament, it IS policy.

They aren't the prime creators of policy, but it is policy, however a minor part it may be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
My interpretation of her words were that she put that in as a 'disclaimer', but chuckled about it -- leading me to believe that she really meant it.
My interpretation of her laughter was her realization that that statement would likely be used in a political fashion against her, and likely by conservatives, who harp on the meaningless "activist judge" crap.

Quote:
On the 'racism' part, how would you react if someone said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Could you put that into a context where it would be an acceptable statement?
I don't chose to address that statement, because it's not what she said (though there are instances where it would be true). What she did say is perfectly legitimate and true. In instances concerning women or latinos, a wise latina women likely could come to a better conclusion than an old white guy, because she would have a better understanding of the experiences of women and latinos.

Quote:
The job of an appellate court is to review actions or decisions of the trial courts by reviewing the record on questions of law or allegations of procedural error.

It is absolutely, positively NOT to set policy. That is the job of the legislative branch of the government.

Interpreting the law and ruling on it is setting policy. It is defacto, but it certainly is setting policy. This is all making a mountain out of a mole hill, and it shows that the conservative propaganda machine is really grasping at straws to impugn her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
Common law, or case law, is not 'setting laws'. It is interpreting them. There is a huge difference in interpreting the law and making law.
Its a good thing she didn't say "making law" then, and said "making policy"

Quote:
Originally Posted by arholly View Post
<chuckle> You used a blog.
I don't get it, the guy is the head of a law department.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InaVegt View Post
I don't know her, but I think the point is not that she thinks she's better, but that she thinks her backgroun has given her an alternate way of thinking of things that widens the view of the supreme court, which did, as I understand, consist entirely of white males for most of it's lifetime.

A supreme court that consists entirely of a single subset of their jurisdiction's people is a bad thing, no matter what.
That might have been what she was saying in that speech[iirc, that is exactly what she was saying], but that is not what she said. Whether the quote was intentional or not, its still pretty indefensible




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status