theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
Once again... no spinning. Simply you backpeddling.
I wasn't the only one who read it that way.
What is needed is the most objective judges we can get. Not a whole bunch of differing people who are going to fight each other and treat the surpreme court like the halls of Congress.
If said people are of a different race so be it. If they're all of the same race so be it.
They can all be native american lesbians who were born with shingles who all grew up in deerborn michigan for all i care.
|
I'm not backpedaling. I didn't chance my position at all. If you didn't understand, oh well.
It is impossible to get objective judges. The same judges almost always side with each other. If they were truely objective it would be more random.
|
Only because people often pick "activist" judges on both sides. It's not impossible to get judges that won't be biased. It's just they aren't popular since they can't be counted on to make the call the way the nominator wants.
Also... it seems like nobody understood you... because you stated something incorrectly.
Also... there are generally strict rules to reading and intepreting laws. For those who aren't activists. So those judges who follow the same strict rules are always going to rule together.
|
I do believe it is impossible to get unbiased judges. We are going to have to disagree on that.
|
Well unbiased is a bad way to put it. It's probably impossible to get an unbiased judge. However it is not impossible to get a judge who doesn't let their biases effect their rulings.
It's a simple matter of just getting literalists. The laws are as they are written... and if you don't like them. That's what congress is for.
Like when the Supreme court overturned the Washington DC handun ban. If anywhere should have a handgun ban its a city that polticians are going to be constantly moving around who for some reason are taxed without representation.
Yet the law was clearly unconstituional.
