The Cellar - View Single Post

mrnoodle · 07-20-2005, 02:53 PM

Why is a traditionalist SCOTUS a bad thing? It seems to me that a court should stand for established law and let the legislators do the "progressing". Everyone gets so worried that someone's going to take away their precious abortions, or not take everyone's feelings into account. In a way, it would be refreshing to have a machine take over the responsibility of judging the constitutionality of lower court decisions. That way you could be sure that the judgements were free of the influence of beltway cocktail parties, ego, and personal "legacy." Unfortunately, it would also erase the other human components of dignity, honor, and respect for the spirit of the law.

As if recent SCOTUS decisions have demonstrated those, anyway.

No one raised a ruckus over Ginsberg, even though she (OMG! WTF!) pulled the court to the left. She was overwhelmingly confirmed because, at the time, she demonstrated the backbone necessary to keep her personal politics off the bench. Of course, she's failed miserably at that task since then, but again, that's human nature.

Yes, nitpickers, there are holes in this post. But in a perfect world, judges would be seperate from all the bullshit politicking. That's all I'm wishing for, as impossible a goal as it is.

07-20-2005, 02:53 PM	#14
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Why is a traditionalist SCOTUS a bad thing? It seems to me that a court should stand for established law and let the legislators do the "progressing". Everyone gets so worried that someone's going to take away their precious abortions, or not take everyone's feelings into account. In a way, it would be refreshing to have a machine take over the responsibility of judging the constitutionality of lower court decisions. That way you could be sure that the judgements were free of the influence of beltway cocktail parties, ego, and personal "legacy." Unfortunately, it would also erase the other human components of dignity, honor, and respect for the spirit of the law. As if recent SCOTUS decisions have demonstrated those, anyway. No one raised a ruckus over Ginsberg, even though she (OMG! WTF!) pulled the court to the left. She was overwhelmingly confirmed because, at the time, she demonstrated the backbone necessary to keep her personal politics off the bench. Of course, she's failed miserably at that task since then, but again, that's human nature. Yes, nitpickers, there are holes in this post. But in a perfect world, judges would be seperate from all the bullshit politicking. That's all I'm wishing for, as impossible a goal as it is. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh Last edited by mrnoodle; 07-20-2005 at 02:56 PM.