Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--Lord Acton

Too bad there isnt some kind of psych or other test that judges would have to take to be eligible for the ultimate bench.

Who would write this test?

A moderate, a conservative, and a liberal to balance out the biases. Of course the test will then be about 1000 questions long but oh well.

And how do you define what a moderate, conservative or liberal is?

What is is? But seriously tha tmight work if you can figure out how far to the left right and middle you want to go. Too bad we don't hafve any vulcans available in real life as i am sure they would be able to come up with some kind of logical criteria.

Hey, don't foist your problems on me!

So sorry, it seemed the logical thing to do.

Bush's new choice for Supreme Court Justice has a bias. Harriet Miers is an Evangelical. She was also a member of Exodus Ministries-the crackpot Ministry that claims it cures gays.

She's also another Bush crony (she was his personal attorney), and even said that "Bush was the smartest man she ever met". What! SHE'S INSANE!!!

1. So being an evangelical is automatically biased? I would say it does, but everyone has a bias. Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg have an ACLU bias? Did John Roberts have a Catholic bias?

2. I am not sure if Miers' Exodus Ministries is the same Exodus Ministries focused on homosexuality. The Boston Globe described Exodus as a group that helps prisoners and ex-cons.

3. She is also a woman, which means she is smarter than men, by your logic.

1) While of course it doesn't matter at all what her religion is (seriously, by this logic the Vatican's been in charge of the Supreme Court for a *long* time), it's incredibly disquieting to hear evangelical organizations supporting her for the sole reason that she is an evangelical Protestant. I seem to recall a little "no religious test for office" clause that we're usually good at keeping, and this is coming dangerously close to crossing the line.

2) Her Exodus Ministries is indeed the ex-con group, not the ex-gay group.

3) Not even going here.

Matt, while MikeC's #3 was perilously close to some sort of logical fallacy (I'm not sure which one), he is correctly pointing out that Rona has, on many occasions, posted about how women are smarter/wiser/better than men, and that her opposition to Miers is logically inconsistent on that basis.

1. Certainly, and I wouldn't support her for solely being an evangelical Protestant at all. I supported Roberts not for being a Catholic or a conservative, but because I thought he was qualified. I don't support/not support Miers because of her religion.

My number 3 was a joke, primarily because I was growing sick of Rona's "women be smarter than men" posts. Apologies for being logically fallacious.

Mike, I had the same feeling as your #3... I just couldn't find a... tactful?... way to post it

ScottN, I do realize that, but I thought it best not to engage the topic, since I recognize that some issues aren't ever going to be productively debated in this context. Of course, now here we all are talking about it anyway. I give up.

Sorry... I've been letting myself get dragged into that sort of meta-discussion way to often. You're absolutely right, Matt.

(Continued from the Moral Relativism board)

R, what’s the point of democracy if un-accountable judges can overturn any law based on their own interpretation? I believe there’s a term for this… judicial tyranny. And yes, I believe it plagues us terribly today- judges do not have the right to overturn the will of the people in my book. Period. The Constitution may have that right, but not the judges or their broad interpretations.

Think about what you’re advocating… instead of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ imposing it’s will on the country, you have the tyranny of a single man or woman imposing their will on the entire country! How can that be a step up? Yes, I understand the necessity for a challenge to unconstitutional law; but I don’t believe that our current system ensures a fair balance… it simply allows judicial imposition of opinion. Zarm

First, this country is {not} a democracy, and it has never been one. It is a constitutional democratic republic. It is not run on a pure majority vote like a small-town Vermont Town Meeting. We elect representatives to pass (Congress) and execute (the President) our laws, and they have certain constraints on what they can pass for laws (the Constitution). The founding fathers distrusted "mob rule" every bit as much as they mistrusted individual privelege. This is one reason why the Constitution has so many "checks and balances."

Second, the term is "judicial activism," not "judicial tyranny," and it has been leveled at judges by extremist critics from both sides of the aisle. In almost every case, however, when you examine the arguments presented to the court and the court's opinions you will find that the judges followed the sound principles of considering, the clear language of the law, the intent of the legislators when it is possible to clearly discern it, the clear language of the Constitution, the intent of its authors, when it is possible to clearly discern it, legal precedents, and how and why similar arguments succeeded or failed in the past.

Very often, as in the case in Goodridge, the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case, you will find that the judges were compelled to rule in a an unpopular way, even over their own natural inclinations. If they had ruled the popular way, abandoning all legal principle, then they would be guilty of judicial activism -- even (as you said) judicial tyranny.

Definition:

Judicial Activism -- When a judge makes a high profile ruling that I don't like.

Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a letter of thank you to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and to his readers and radio listeners for their support during the confirmation process.

"As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force," Alito said in the letter.

"As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me."

On his radio show Wednesday Dobson read Alito's letter and told listeners that their support had "affected history" by helping put Alito on the court.

.......

“He’s not sounding like a fair and independent judge,” Barry Lynn, the organization's executive director, told the Colorado Springs Gazette. Focus on the Family is based in Colorado Springs.

Lynn said the note can be interpreted as a pledge to rule as Dobson wants on key issues, such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

“This strongly suggests Alito is going to do just what he was entrusted to do - change the law dramatically in many key areas,” said Lynn, whose group, and all national LGBT rights groups, opposed Alito’s nomination.

So never thank your supporters, folks.

Or at least be very careful how you phrase that thanks. As I said, it was not only Mr. Lynn, but also Dr. Dobson himself who read the line "As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me," as a pledge to skew his rulings in favor of Dr. Dobsons opinions.

I guess we'll see won't we?

Recently retired Minnesota Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz is taking pains to distance herself from long-time friend and political crony Dean Johnson, majority leader in the state senate, over some remarks he claimed that she made to him concerning same-sex marriages.

Johnson, meeting with a group of ministers, assured them that he'd been assured that the marriage law was safe.

Kathleen Blatz, my seat mate for 4 years, she was the chief Justice, you know what her response was? Dean, we all stand for election too. Every 6 years. She said, we are not gonna touch it. That's what she said. I've talked to Justice Anderson, and other justice, Anderson.. Dean, we're not gonna do this. We're not gonna do this."

.......

Kathleen Blatz, the retired Chief Justice, issued a statement about the Johnson tape and the report that appeared in the newspaper. She said, "It would have been highly unethical for me as the Chief Justice to comment on a matter that might come before the court, or to give assurances to anyone on how the Court was likely to decide an issue that might come before it. It just never happened."