I don't believe that a completely objective judicary exists.

There need to be different points of view.  Different genders, different races, different politcs, different regions of the country, different life experience...

Now stop your spinning.  I'm getting dizzy.

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.

By the way... while Congress says they hate judges who don't follow the letter of the law.

They're lieing.

They do Congresses "dirty work."

For example... when gay marriage is finally aloud in all 50 states... it won't be due to congress. It will be due to the Supreme Court declaring that not recognizing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

One thing the current nominee has in her favor is that she ruled against Maurice Clarrett... while I disagreed with her ruling... I'm guessing she did too as she went with the players union during the MLB strike.

There is nothing better in a written opinion then... "While I believe that.... the law clearly states...."

Why would she think a female Hispanic judge would do a better job of interpreting a constitution written by old white men then an old white man would?

The sad thing is that you're probably right, and judges are using their power to "create" laws through questionable ruling on issues that are politically impossible to deal with ...

The two primary checks against the legislative branch becoming too corrupt are that they are bound by the constitution (which is protected by the supreme court) and they have to answer to their voters. When your judiciary “Gets into bed” with your legislative branch to pass laws that don’t need the approval of the electorate you’re no longer living in a constitutional democracy.

How did it happen that a republic born of a rebellion against a king and parliament we did not elect has fallen under a tyranny of judges we did not elect? - Pat Buchanan

The Left has found the Ho Chi Minh Trail around democracy...to impose its views and values upon our society without having to win elections or persuade elected legislators. - Pat Buchanan