Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This is nothing more than doubletalk gobbledygook for "unfettered power in one man."> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Am I getting it now? Have I learned good this month?> <No, not really. The point of judicial hearings are not "to attempt to get the Conservative guy to say that he'll judge in a more middle-of-the-road way."> Okay. Then in two sentences, what is the purpose of the hearings? <No, they know he's a conservative who will adjudicate fairly and impartially, because that's what conservative judges do.> Hmmm. That's interesting. If that's the case, then why does it matter if Alito is conservative? Couldn't a liberal judge be considered too? Or are you suggesting that liberal judges DON'T judge fairly and impartially?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Read my post A liberal judge CAN judge fairly and impartially if he is "just to the left of center" as Alito is just to the right. Big difference between that posture and the lunatic fringes on both sides. The purpose of the hearings is precisely that as in the Bork "witch hunt" to prove that they are on the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately for the brilliant, baisically middle of the road Bork, Salem Mass of 1793 reared its ugly head.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Very well, Douglas, answer me this. Would you want the kinds of authority that Bush thinks he has in the hands of a liberal Democrat? The authority to decide what a law means through a "signing statement." The authority to disregard laws he thinks are "obsolete" and invent new ones to replace them. Little things like this.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Paley ----I must say this is an excellent question? It's all yours Douglas!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Then in two sentences, what is the purpose of the hearings?> Does it have to be two or can I do it in one? The purpose of the hearings is to confirm that the prospective Justice is professionally, intellectually, and morally qualified. <Or are you suggesting that liberal judges DON'T judge fairly and impartially?> Yeah, that's what I was suggesting.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Then in two sentences, what is the purpose of the hearings?> <Does it have to be two or can I do it in one?> I didn't want to put too much pressure on you. <The purpose of the hearings is to confirm that the prospective Justice is professionally, intellectually, and morally qualified.> Thanks. That makes sense to me. <Or are you suggesting that liberal judges DON'T judge fairly and impartially?> <Yeah, that's what I was suggesting.> So, based simply on the fact that Alito is 'conservative' -- he is more likely to judge fairly and impartially, that's what you're saying?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would you want the kinds of authority that Bush thinks he has in the hands of a liberal Democrat?> They already had them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, based simply on the fact that Alito is 'conservative' -- he is more likely to judge fairly and impartially, that's what you're saying?> It's my opinion that conservative judges tend to rule on what the law actually says, rather than what they would like it to.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe LBJ is a quick thought that pops in anyone's head or Harry S Truman.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 223 in response to 221. I disagree with you on that one Douglas and again the Bible example as it's all in the interpretation. I know, I know, you'll counter with but the liberals interpret more. Well that's an interpretation. I think there have GREAT liberal judges as well as conservatives.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Bottom line is that throughout history as I've mentioned here before, there's has been an ebb and flow of power between the three branches and it becomes extremely poignant and exacerbated at time of war, which is what we're in right now (declared or not) So let's keep our cool, and not say George wants to be or acts like a dictator. That's silly talk and counter-productive. Reminds people of the Sheehans and the Belafontes of this country who are hoping against us and who hate this country of ours.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I think there have GREAT liberal judges as well as conservatives.> cape cod joe, you're one of the first people that I can imagine myself having a conversation with in WE. Thank you. I agree with your statement about judges.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's my opinion that conservative judges tend to rule on what the law actually says, rather than what they would like it to.<< Have you seen this study, Douglas? <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/" target="_blank">http://msnbc.msn.com/id/110093 79/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In particular, this part: >>"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.<< So it seems both sides are quite capable of ruling from emotion, not strictly "the law." For both sides, the debate on abortion, for example, is an emotional one, depending on ones personal beliefs. That has to shade how one would make a ruling. It's human nature.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Have you seen this study, Douglas?> Yes. <So it seems both sides are quite capable of ruling from emotion, not strictly "the law."> Of course. It's still my opinion that liberals tend to do it more.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's still my opinion that liberals tend to do it more.<< Naturally. According to that study: "Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate."
Originally Posted By woody cape cod joe: I was quoting Barbara Boxer back in post 198. I don't get your misunderstanding. I'm glad others set you straight.
