His job is to apply the law. There are multiple aspects to laws. Simply because you're led to a decision that isn't so nice doesn't make it the wrong one. Only the obtunded like Al Franken think otherwise.
crazylibertarian wrote:
His job is to apply the law. There are multiple aspects to laws. Simply because you're led to a decision that isn't so nice doesn't make it the wrong one. Only the obtunded like Al Franken think otherwise.
Al......Al Frankenstein...
Where is Judge Roy Bean when we need him.....
I listened to this part of his hearing in full
He followed the letter of the law as it was written which is the duty of judges . Was the law right ? No !!! He was pressed by his sense of duty to follow the laws and did so. He did not feel good about it and said so. He also said it was the law that needed changing . Not his decision to follow it . This is by no means a first for our court system .
crazylibertarian wrote:
His job is to apply the law. There are multiple aspects to laws. Simply because you're led to a decision that isn't so nice doesn't make it the wrong one. Only the obtunded like Al Franken think otherwise.
-------------------
I agree with you that a judge's job is to apply the law. But what if applying the law leads to an immoral decision? What is of greater importance, the application of law, or the application of justice?
You focus on the ding-bat Al Franken, but you did not comment on the remarks of Dr. Steve Pieczenick. Do you condone his role in the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo using the justification that national security trumps morality? Follow that up with his decision that the trucker could be legally fired for doing what is necessary to save his life. Do we see a pattern here?
We want judges that interpret the law, not make law. We want judges that follow the constitution. We also want judges that have integrity and a strong moral compass. It is on that final point that I find Gorsuch lacking.
missinglink wrote:
I listened to this part of his hearing in full
He followed the letter of the law as it was written which is the duty of judges . Was the law right ? No !!! He was pressed by his sense of duty to follow the laws and did so. He did not feel good about it and said so. He also said it was the law that needed changing . Not his decision to follow it . This is by no means a first for our court system .
----------------
We get to the crux of the matter. Hypothetically, a law is passed that is clearly in violation of the constitution (say illegal electronic surveillance). What do you do, follow the law, or follow the constitution? Another hypothetical, we are are war with China, and a law is passed that all Chinese citizens are to be rounded up and confined in camps? Do you follow the law, like in WW2, or do find that legal Chinese citizens have certain rights granted under the constitution that cannot be abridged by an illegal law? That is where integrity and a strong moral compass come to play.
Emotion is not law...........what do you think the blindfold signifies?
Has nothing to do with compassion. His job was to rule by facts, rule by law.....period. had he ruled with compassion, he would be no different than judges we see rule on politics instead of ruling by law.
He did his job right, may not be popular but it was right.
ACP45 wrote:
----------------
We get to the crux of the matter. Hypothetically, a law is passed that is clearly in violation of the constitution (say illegal electronic surveillance). What do you do, follow the law, or follow the constitution? Another hypothetical, we are are war with China, and a law is passed that all Chinese citizens are to be rounded up and confined in camps? Do you follow the law, like in WW2, or do find that legal Chinese citizens have certain rights granted under the constitution that cannot be abridged by an illegal law? That is where integrity and a strong moral compass come to play.
---------------- br We get to the crux of the matt... (
show quote)
Nice try, except during war our enemies have no constitutional protections. The Constitution is for citizens only, not enemies or illegals.
He's a soulless Conservative. What did you expect...
missinglink wrote:
I listened to this part of his hearing in full
He followed the letter of the law as it was written which is the duty of judges . Was the law right ? No !!! He was pressed by his sense of duty to follow the laws and did so. He did not feel good about it and said so. He also said it was the law that needed changing . Not his decision to follow it . This is by no means a first for our court system .
Thank You, was going to say something similar but not needed given your concise recitation..
I believe he will make an excellent SC Judge..
If they filibuster, which they will just for paybacks in not letting BO have his choice, then no more waiting it out~~ go with the nuclear option and let's get moving ❗️
lindajoy wrote:
Thank You, was going to say something similar but not needed given your concise recitation..
I believe he will make an excellent SC Judge..
If they filibuster, which they will just for paybacks in not letting BO have his choice, then no more waiting it out~~ go with the nuclear option and let's get moving ❗️
That is the difference between a judge who is a constitutionalist and one who believes that the Constitution is a living document and can be changed by any whim that a judge wants to use to express his "feelings". Linda, you like true conservatives, and even some Republicans believe in following the Constitution and using the amendment process to change it when needed. I agree that Gorsuch will be a judge who respects the Constitution, and follows the law rather than making up new meanings as suits his feelings on any one particular day.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.