AAA Who do you think you are kidding. Clarence Thomas( had never tried a case in his life when he took a seat on the Supreme Court. He was appointed head of the EEOC by Regan to impede the work of that organization ("restructure EEOC regulations") and in '90 appointed to DC court of appeals to be groomed for a move to the Supreme Court the following year. Thurgood Marshall would have rolled over in his grave. If it looks like a HN, walks like a HN and sounds like a HN, its an HN.
AAA, I have to admit to knowing practically nothing about Charles Schumer. Why is he an "asshole"? As for Anita Hill, her competency as a lawyer, or her "cashing in" on the speaking tour really isn't relevant to what happened during the Thomas confirmation hearings. Can there be any doubt that her allegations could have destroyed her life? Do you think she was just shooting craps and hoping for the best? If she was lying, she should have gotten a lucrative contract in Hollywood. She seemed pretty convincing to me. While I dislike Thomas' politics, and if her story is true, than I would dislike him as a human being, I have to say that it is a credit to our system of government that the guy was confirmed. At least we know that when it comes down to the nitty gritty, allegations do not convict. Still innocent until proven guilty in the US (except for cases involving the IRS, which is amazing and a shame). And if you think I am being partisan, I am not. I feel the same contempt for Bill Clinton as a human being that I feel for Thomas. This despite the fact that I believe he was a good President. I know you feel differently. But I don't know why. Except for the obvious....he was a Democrat. Other than that??? Being a "good guy" or a "bad guy" doesn't seem to have much to do with how our Presidents perform. Here is another subject I believe we would have to agree on. We have had some miserable men who were effective Presidents (maybe the majority of them), and guys like Carter, who was (appeared to be) an honest and honorable man, yet a weak President. Too many examples to list. Besides, really, who of us know what these guys were like in real life? They are so insulated from the public, we can only know them by their publicists and the media. Too bad Martin Sheen isn't the real President Peace, RS
So what? Plenty of justices have gone from the Court of Appeals to the Court without experience in trying cases. Justice Bryer comes to mind.
It's called a remedy to address laws that the court found to be unconstitutional (in this case state constitution).
AAA doesn't like the constitution when it is not interpreted in his favor. Can you imagine living under his own personal interpretation of the constitution that he would have everyone adhere to?
The same applies to atheists and agnostics, who have views that could cloud their judicial judgement. If the standard is applied, it should be applied universally, yet the Democrats are simply applying an anti-religion standard. But this really ISN'T about separation of church and state. It is about having a judiciary that is unbiased - able to rule based on the facts, the law and the Constitution, regardless of what the judge's background is with regards to religion, gender, ethnicity, political party or anything else that might bias their viewpoint.
I agree with your points regarding what the Democrats are trying to accompish with their filabuster, and how they are doing it. However, I for one am glad there is still at least one Senator who is willing to put principle ahead of politics and do the right thing. But, the inability to get judges confirmed isn't helping the GOP or our country any, so it may be time for Hatch to retire.
Dude, I gotta ask -- you're not into animal porn, are you AAA?? I think the perception of the court is that it has the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that everyone, no matter their religion, race, or sexual preference, has the same rights to freedom and happiness as everyone else. I mean, shit, why should some redneck have a right that a homosexual doesn't??? What are we, the 3rd reich here?? Pink triangles for all the fags?
So the question becomes this: Is someone who strongly and adamantly believes that abortion is wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs capable of making judicial decisions on abortion issues which would contradict their strongly held religious beliefs? Some are capable, and others aren't. You would have to look at their records in the past to see if they routinely voted or ruled in a manner that was more consistent with their religious/political belief systems, or if they ruled favor of the reasonable rights of the individual as outlined in the constitution.
So an African-American judge should not feel compelled to uphold laws mandating racial quotas. I agree! As far as abortion being this personal liberty acid test, by the same token why isn't the 1964 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. Don't I have the right, as a free individual, to hire, serve, rent, or do business with whoever I choose. Alas, don't I have a right to be predjudiced.You see Rogue, these rulings are not about justice or fairness, or philosophy, but they are about whatever prevailing political winds mold the judicial participant's at any random snapshot in history. Any time someone bring's up the sanctimony of the High Court's sense of morality, I have but two words, Dred Scott.