Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by cupofjoe1962, Dec 29, 2009.
Senate GOP opposes S.F. judicial nominee
The last thing we need is another judge with an agenda.
All judges have agendas. We need the courts to have a pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-worker agenda, rather than a pro-corporation, bigoted agendas that the right-wing judges push. It's naive to think one side doesn't have an agenda and the other side does.
When the agenda is to favor one skin color over another, it is not a very
If this was a white judge who favored white's over minorities, you would
be the first to raise an objection.
We would be naive to think otherwise.
All people should be treated equal.
You should not get an advantage because of the color of your skin.
I believe a whole lot of people vocalized the same thought at the time - including government officials, priests, ministers, civil rights activists, movie stars, singers, and just plain folk.
An agenda that protects the status quo will favor one race over another if one race achieved the status quo as a result of racism. I'm surprised you didn't realize that. If you're envious of the advantages that black people have because of the biased judges, then I feel sorry for you, for what that's worth.
Ah well then, if singers, movie stars and "plain folk" vocalized the though then it must be true
We all know there was a lot more to it than that, largely at the feet of the N.O. mayor - but let's just blame racism :singing:
I agree 100%. For example, thanks to activist judges like this, the liberal solution to racism is more racism.
What are you referring to specifically, anything? Or are you simply following a Party line?
No we don't need judges that follow your skewed politically ideology or any agenda for that matter. We need judges that are pro-Constitution, ones that interpret the law and not create it.
Favoring one skin color over another is RACISM, we have been told that many many times, Martin Luther King told us that.
Voting for a politician based on skin color is RACISM we have also been told that many many times, have we not...... It was done during the last presidential election but nobody seemed to notice it........
Well Patters, the best judges are those that are not agenda driven, and I would hope you'd have grown up a little by now and stopped saying things like right wing judges push "bigoted agendas." That only makes you sound small and hurts your argument. I think the idea that you so ineloquently are trying to talk about is a judge's interpretation of rights of the individual versus rights of the group (corporation, government, etc). This is an idea that crosses political ideology, as sometimes the conservative justices will be the ones defending the right of the individual. For a good example see Kelo vs. New London, in which the conservative justices (Thomas and Scalia) sided with the dissent against the property grab by a (gasp!) corporation. Here is a quote from the dissent:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
And one from Clarence Thomas' :
"This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
There are numerous examples I'm sure, but this case, as well as the overturn of the DC gun ban are two recent examples of the conservative justices protecting the rights of the individual.
Back on topic, this guy doesn't seem like a big deal to me, I don't think he should be shut out for cases he argued while employed by the ACLU, just as a conservative judge shouldn't be denied for arguments they made while in the employ of another entity. The Katrina comments are more of a concern, but let's face it, that was as Mrs PatsFan said, a commonly held opinion, not exactly a huge leap for him to make. If that's all they've got I'd say its not enough. Again it goes back to the people; they voted Obama and a Dem Congress into office knowing what that would mean, so it is not a surprise that they are installing left of center judges.
I think my usage of the phrase "for example" clearly implies I was using a random example, and not referring to any singular specific instance.
You can choose to dismiss it as a party line, but it is still a perfectly valid example.
What is interesting is that everything perceived negative in the legal sense about him, happened prior to his appointment... he has been on the bench now for 8 years, and there are no substantive issues to be dealt with or controversial decisions he has made...
Guess we judge people solely on their past, instead of a whole body of work...
Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto at one time in his life, isn't that experience agenda driven.. if it is not, not sure what is...
It is also a sensitive area, as the 3% minorities seen at the last Republican Convention..may go down to 2% due to this and other actions..
Stokes, if I accept that idea that liberal judges have agendas, which I do, it's because I believe conservative judges have agendas. I believe those agendas are bigoted. That does not mean the judges are bigoted. The fact is if a judge rules in a way that interferes with a person's struggle for equality, that judge's agenda is bigoted. A judge who is against gay marriage may not be a homophobe, but his agenda is bigoted.
There are many examples of justices, because of their ideologies found themselves in odd positions. One of my favorite examples is when Scalia sided with Larry Flynt against Jerry Falwell.
The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996) - Full cast and crew
That said, as noted above, conservatives justices have bigoted agendas, despite their kind and tender hearts. Their conservative agendas forced Congress to write special legislation to ensure that women's rights are protected:
Day of vindication for grandma as pay law signed - CNN.com
The conservative agenda has certainly at times and continues in some ways to deny blacks, Latinos, gays, and others equal rights.
To my way of thinking those are bigoted agendas. Dick Cheney for instance does not hate gays, I truly believe, but his agenda is anti-gay.
But just because a justice comes to a decision you may not like does not make the decision making process agenda driven. Granted, there are plenty of judges that are agenda driven. The best however are not. They apply a consistent legal philosophy to their decisions rather than a specific agenda. It is possible for them to rule in a case on purely legal grounds rather than because they have an agenda to block equal treatment of all citizens. Their ruling would be based on law and not on any agenda, bigoted or otherwise.
I agree, that is reality, I can't say that though the "other racists" jump all over me with their pompous bigotry crap.
How in the world can you not have an agenda? Do you think it's just coincidence that liberal justices have a judicial philosophy that generally supports liberalism and conservative justices have a judicial philosophy that generally support conservative causes?
No Patters, I agreed that too many judges on both sides DO play politics with their decisions, but that the good ones do not. My issue was with you using your usual tactic of skewing reality in favor of your political ideology. You referred to conservative justices as pro-corporation and bigoted, and neither of those statements is necessarily true. Ginsberg essentially sided with Pfizer in Kelo, doesn't that make her pro-corporation? If both sides have agendas then BOTH are bigoted, but as usual you go ahead and ignore that fact for the liberal judges!
Come on Patters, we're not ALL bad over here on the right. Not like you commie loons over there on the left (kidding, kidding!)
Separate names with a comma.