Politicians are inherently political, my friend. Bush's Attorney general illegally fired 16 US Attorneys for political reasons during Bush's last term. He commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby for political reasons. That is not to say that he didn't also make decisions based on what was best for the country. Of course, Obama picking a judge on the left side of center doesn't mean Obama is not also making decisions based on what is best for the country. Remember that Bush appointed judges that were far right of center, too. Both acts were political if you choose to use the same criteria.
I won't assume you are just talking to me, but answering your argument for myself and only myself. First, if you read an earlier post, I specifically said I have no problem with a judge drawing on their life experience to help form their opinion. To think that they don't or would not would be naive on my part. I'm a firm believer that the only time a judge should "legislate" from the bench is when a prior decision was not made. I believe in "Stare Decisis." If you read through Scalia's opinion this is essentially what he is talking about, when there is no precedent or prior case law, the judge does legislate from the bench. I don't have a problem with legislating from the bench when there is no prior decisions to draw their rulings from. However, when there are prior rulings that have been upheld in appeals, I have a problem with them reversing the decision and believing all appelate court judges have the right to do that. I think reversing standing precedents in Federal Law should be left for the USSC.
Im just posting facts my friend, whoever wants to respond can. But thats straight from the horses mouth, I guess the outrage and difference now is because she is considered a liberal, when the other quotes are from "Good conservative folk"
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will Red :yelwink2 but didn't Obama just fire some US attorney's without giving reason (or a good reason). Don't the US attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President? Maybe I'm not taking into account all the different laws here but I'm of the opinion that if the President doesn't like the way you are doing your job, then you get fired. Doesn't matter which side the President comes from, right or left. I have no problem with either set of firings. Now, more to the point, yeah I think they were political moves, but most decisions made by poloticians are, like you said. But everyone once in a while I think politics is set aside for what they believe is the overall betterment of the country (like the surge).
I went and looked at those numbers. Depending on whether you consider all rulings or just lower court, what year you look at, and trying to determine an average, it would be just as accurate to say that they reverse over 60%. Excellent point, however...........:hihi: Sotomayor has actually written 380 opinions in her 11 years on the 2nd Court. But I would say that just because the Supreme Court chooses NOT to hear a case does not mean the ruling was a good one or that they are giving it an endorsement. And the cases of Sotomayor that WERE reversed are indicative of where she stands on things and I'd say commerce does not have a friend in her. I realize that Obama believes she saved baseball but she's likely to kill off far more important concepts like interstate commerce and price consideration regarding environmental concerns. And not to do with your post but in general, the current process and communication being invoked by Democrats is shameful and laughable. In 2001 they used a filibuster to block Estrada's nomination to the Appeals Court (first time for everything I guess) because they knew they did not have a majority and because they knew it was a stepping stone to the Supreme Court as we can now see. For them to now suggest that ANY criticism or evaluation of Sotomayor is fraught with peril or somehow discriminatory is outright killing any real discussion on her merits. No chance that Ms. Sotomayor gets Borked though.
Strawman, its the right(Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and someothers) who are calling her racist. Thats whats killing the real discusssion on her merits.
A President can appoint new US attorneys when they come into office and they all do. But there has always been an important policy that to insure impartiality, legal stability, and to prevent political interference, sitting US attorneys are only dismissed for cause. The Bush administration's mass firing of US attorneys because they didn't like the politics of some of their decisions on who and what to prosecute . . . that is unprecedented. From wikipedia:
I was pointing out the difference between the two. You are the one who decided to look up where Scalia said it was ok to legislate from the bench. Well the entire opinion needs to be read before you make them one and the same with the nominated's opinion. I know you are smart enough to tell the difference. Saying they are one and the same is just like me saying a republican freed the slaves, accurate statement yes, but taken way out of context (like some of her speaches). Moving forward, just because she leans left doesn't mean I don't like the nomination. I'm going to find faults with anyone nominated, no matter which side is doing the nominating. Nobody has the same view of the world as myself and therefore if you find the right topic, I'll find fault with anyone and argue with them. I had problems with the last two justices seated. Does that mean I don't think they should be justices, no. Does that mean I think this one should not be a justice... no. I actually tend to agree that she is a bit more center than some on the right like to portray her as. Of course there are going to be things that she strays way left on but that is her viewpoint and her right to have that viewpoint. Overall, I think she isn't that bad of a choice, I just don't like her view of being able to legislate from the bench.
