Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some liberal recently said that he/she/it would not vote for Neil Gorsuch, because he wasn't "mainstream enough", or something very close to that.
Is there some requirement that judges and justices should be "mainstream"?
Not hardly.
A judge's job is to look at a case, listen to arguments from both sides, look at the law, and see what the law dictates about that case.
Some people want judges to lean a little on the side of minorities. Or on the side of women. Or on the side of homeless people. Or whichever group.
Sorry, but that's not the judge's job. His job is to apply the law. If someone wants the group they're pushing, to be favored, they should talk to the legislature, not to the courts. It's Congress's job, or the state legislature's, or the city council's etc. job to be "compassionate". They can write into the law some language saying penalties for violating the law should be lower if the perp is homeless, or has suffered from racial discrimination, or whatever issue. The lawmakers absolutely have the authority to do that.
But the Courts do not. If the lawmakers saw fit to leave out such amenities either in the law being examined, or in other laws also on the books, the Courts have no authority to put any in.
Private people, of course, can be as compassionate as they want. They can lean in favor of a minority, or a woman etc. But just because they like doing that, doesn't mean a court can do the same. Those people should influence their legislatures to write laws the way the people want them.
Judges cannot, MUST not, be any more "compassionate" than the law is. To be exact, they MUST lean on the side of THE LAW, not their own personal desires. Gorsuch himself pointed that out when he was first named as a USSC nominee. He said that any judge who looks back at his career and is happy with every decision he has made, is probably not a very good judge. A judge might want to be compassionate to a defendant... but he must render a decision based on what the law says, not what he personally wants to do.
No, judges must not be "mainstream", because being mainstream means being compassionate when needed, something judges must not do. If the laws don't specifically make room for such compassion, judges must forego it... and maybe the people should contact their legislators and tell them to cange the law. But judges cannot change it from the bench, for one particular case.
The legislature is the body that decides what the government will do, not the courts. The courts ONLY decide if people are obeying the law that the legislature wrote. If the court's judges are unhappy with what the law says, they cannot ignore it, or pretend it says something it doesn't. The judge can express his unhappiness in his written opinion, but then must say, "with the way this law is written, I have no choice but to rule this way."
actually the job of the supreme court is to apply the constitution to the law they are reviewing. lower court judges apply the law to the case at hand.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,950,661 times
Reputation: 16466
Why can't we have one, just one, gay, black, pro freedom, civil, gun and women's rights supporting justice? Just one who believes everyone is equal and the Constitution means what it says.
actually the job of the supreme court is to apply the constitution to the law they are reviewing. lower court judges apply the law to the case at hand.
Actually it's not. SCOTUS does review Constirutional issues, but they aren't limited to it by any stretch. For instance, Scalia loved statutory canons of interpretation, in cases challenging statutory interpretation, he really shined.
SCOTUS is simply the court of last resort and has the final say on what the law is in the federal system.
Beyond that I'm not sure what OP is getting at.
Scalia and Ginsburg used to have some real illuminating debates in their opinions. Assuming Gorsuch is confirmed, I hope he is able to have the same wit and intelligence Scalia brought. And I'm a liberal!
In all honesty, I think that the Democrats are making a mistake in blocking him. Yeah, I know, what the Republicans did was pretty low. Make them pay for it in some other way.
Gorsuch is the best of the worst possibilities that could be offered. He's the deal you shouldnt refuse. Yes, he is not going to rule the way you would prefer in a lot of things. But he's not going to be a sarah palin crazy candidate foisted upon us by the nuclear option. Save that sort of protest for someone more offensive if another judge leaves. And I think a lot of folks on the right will be surprised by some of Gorsuchs rulings as well.
a regular citizen gets no vote on who becomes a supreme court justice. With that said Gorsuch is bought and paid for, why would anyone want someone like that on the SC? Why not nominate Mike Flynn for the SC while we're at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
