Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom
-
@jon-nyc said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
He’s way too partisan for SCOTUS. We need fewer Alitos and Sotomayors, not more.
Which of the two you mention do you trust more to be rational? I trust Cruz to be rational, which is to say, to follow the written law, within rational interpretations of those written words.
I trust Sotomayor to have no boundaries of "written law" that can't be easily overcome by her True Belief that her morals are the True judge of what is legal.
@Horace said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
@jon-nyc said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
He’s way too partisan for SCOTUS. We need fewer Alitos and Sotomayors, not more.
Which of the two you mention do you trust more to be rational? I trust Cruz to be rational, which is to say, to follow the written law, within rational interpretations of those written words.
I trust Sotomayor to have no boundaries of "written law" that can't be easily overcome by her True Belief that her morals are the True judge of what is legal.
That's original intent vs. Living Constitution. LC has Waaay too much odor of Red Queen Rules for me.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jon-nyc said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
He’s way too partisan for SCOTUS. We need fewer Alitos and Sotomayors, not more.
Which of the two you mention do you trust more to be rational? I trust Cruz to be rational, which is to say, to follow the written law, within rational interpretations of those written words.
I trust Sotomayor to have no boundaries of "written law" that can't be easily overcome by her True Belief that her morals are the True judge of what is legal.
I think they are equally likely to start at their preferred conclusion and work backwards in their reasoning towards some interpretation of the law.
She would do it in a screechy manner, he would do it in a preening manner. He would also embrace the RGB-style celebrity justice model from the beginning, since he’s well known,. He may also maintain presidential ambitions at his youngish age would could only further pollute his opinions.
I want justices that no one outside of legal circles has heard of before they’re shortlisted.
-
I've always noticed that the most unbiased, intelligent, logical people I know are the ones who largely share my beliefs. It's an amazing coincidence.
-
@Horace said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
@jon-nyc said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
He’s way too partisan for SCOTUS. We need fewer Alitos and Sotomayors, not more.
Which of the two you mention do you trust more to be rational? I trust Cruz to be rational, which is to say, to follow the written law, within rational interpretations of those written words.
I trust Sotomayor to have no boundaries of "written law" that can't be easily overcome by her True Belief that her morals are the True judge of what is legal.
That's original intent vs. Living Constitution. LC has Waaay too much odor of Red Queen Rules for me.
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
That's original intent vs. Living Constitution.
I dont really understand this vs.
Judges are always interpreting what THEY THINK the constitution writers meant, even way back when.
For example, the #2 Amendment. How can anybody really know what the constitution writers thought about machine guns, automatic weapons, etc when the writers probably thought no further than the musket? They had no clue what the future of weapons would be. Maybe the original intent was anything other than a musket should not be allowed. It is an interpretation.
That is like us today predicting what the future will hold. We MAY be able to make better guesses, since information is more easy to get. Back then, they really had no idea of what was happening in Japan, for example and what inventions were occuring there.
-
-
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
Why is the Bible relevant?
Not sure what that means. Why is any religious book relevant?
Bible
Koran
Vedas
Tripitaka
Talmud
Tao Te Ching
etc -
The Bible is relevant because it addresses the human condition and human nature. Human nature has not changed.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The Bible is relevant because it addresses the human condition and human nature. Human nature has not changed.
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
The Bible is relevant because it addresses the human condition and human nature. Human nature has not changed.
I agree. Most religious sacred books pretty much include that also. They are/were a way to teach morals to people who, at the time, had very little access to information.
But I am not sure how it relates to "original intent vs. living constitution", (which I said that every Supreme Court judge is doing their own interpretation of the original intent was.)
-
Did you ever read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers?
-
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
Did you ever read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers?
No. I know that they have been mentioned here before, but I have never read them.
-
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
Did you ever read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers?
No. I know that they have been mentioned here before, but I have never read them.
@taiwan_girl said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
@Jolly said in Another wise, diverse judge shows the necessary diverse wisdom:
Did you ever read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers?
No. I know that they have been mentioned here before, but I have never read them.
I suggest you do. Then I think you will have better understanding of Original Intent.
