Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Nebraska Supreme Court Rules Have A Child
5 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2013 - 12:00PM #41
Do_unto_others
Posts: 11,942

Oct 7, 2013 -- 5:29PM, mountain_man wrote:


Oct 7, 2013 -- 3:44PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

.... Heterosexuality on its own is clearly NOT a qualification for good parenting.


Neither is homosexuality.





No one on th e pro-equal-marriage side has EVER claimed that it was.


But many, MANY folk on the anti-equal marriage side insist that homosexuality is - in and of itself - a DIS-qualification to be a good parent. And that's just plain nonsense, as myriad studies have shown.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2013 - 12:02PM #42
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Oct 8, 2013 -- 12:00PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Oct 7, 2013 -- 5:29PM, mountain_man wrote:

Oct 7, 2013 -- 3:44PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

.... Heterosexuality on its own is clearly NOT a qualification for good parenting.


Neither is homosexuality.


No one on th e pro-equal-marriage side has EVER claimed that it was.


I did not say you made that claim.

But many, MANY folk on the anti-equal marriage side insist that homosexuality is - in and of itself - a DIS-qualification to be a good parent. And that's just plain nonsense, as myriad studies have shown.


I said nothing about that.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2013 - 12:03PM #43
Do_unto_others
Posts: 11,942

Oct 7, 2013 -- 5:30PM, mountain_man wrote:


Oct 7, 2013 -- 4:08PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

If it isn't your uterus, you don't get a say in the matter.


And those without a uterus have no say on the issue.





That should be understood in what I said. It isn't any man's - OR woman's - decision to make for someone else.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2013 - 12:05PM #44
Do_unto_others
Posts: 11,942

Oct 7, 2013 -- 10:24PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Oct 7, 2013 -- 5:30PM, mountain_man wrote:


Oct 7, 2013 -- 4:08PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

If it isn't your uterus, you don't get a say in the matter.


And those without a uterus have no say on the issue.




Apparently, the Nebraska Supreme Court does have a say in the matter.





But it SHOULDN'T! It isn't THEIR uterus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2013 - 7:01PM #45
TPaine
Posts: 10,308

Oct 8, 2013 -- 10:23AM, mountain_man wrote:


There should also be an age limit. Some of the older judges just get stuck in their ancient version of what society is and impose that on a different society.



I can agree to a 15 year term limit as long as there is an option to re-appoint a good justice. I have a problem with an age limit because it can cause an excellent justice to be removed regardless of how competent he or she is. IMO, William Brennan, Jr. was the best justice that has served on SCOTUS. He served from 1956-1990 and retired at age 84.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."-- Thomas Paine: The Crisis No. V (March 21, 1778)
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 12:48AM #46
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Oct 8, 2013 -- 7:01PM, TPaine wrote:

I can agree to a 15 year term limit as long as there is an option to re-appoint a good justice. I have a problem with an age limit because it can cause an excellent justice to be removed regardless of how competent he or she is. IMO, William Brennan, Jr. was the best justice that has served on SCOTUS. He served from 1956-1990 and retired at age 84.



If we have a system that judges must be re-nominated after a certain period, I don't think we need to have an age limit as well. My reasoning is that if we get a situation where Judge Smith has obviously gotten too old for the job, whomever nominates him will (hopefully) choose to nominate someone else in the future. I do think that we need some mechanism for removing Judges if they suffer from the infirmities of age though.


I'm actually opposed to having judges elected because that opens judges up to making decisions on the basis of politics, rather than purely on the law. It is a judge's job to apply the law to the facts of a case and whether their opinion will be politically popular shouldn't enter into the decision. In addition, making them elected opens them up to the same sort of corruption as we see in politicians (campaign contributions and PACs). However, I'm also aware of the dangers of making them purely political appointments since that brings us straight back to the problem of appointing judges purely to uphold one's political biases (see, for example, Scalia and Thomas, both appointed purely because they could be relied upon to side with Republicans on any issue).


My suggestion is to remove the power of nomination from the political process entirely and instead, give the power of nomination to the Bar Association. Judges nominated by the Bar Association for fixed terms, after which they must be re-nominated.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 1:38PM #47
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,796

Oct 9, 2013 -- 12:48AM, Ebon wrote:


Oct 8, 2013 -- 7:01PM, TPaine wrote:

I can agree to a 15 year term limit as long as there is an option to re-appoint a good justice. I have a problem with an age limit because it can cause an excellent justice to be removed regardless of how competent he or she is. IMO, William Brennan, Jr. was the best justice that has served on SCOTUS. He served from 1956-1990 and retired at age 84.



If we have a system that judges must be re-nominated after a certain period, I don't think we need to have an age limit as well. My reasoning is that if we get a situation where Judge Smith has obviously gotten too old for the job, whomever nominates him will (hopefully) choose to nominate someone else in the future. I do think that we need some mechanism for removing Judges if they suffer from the infirmities of age though.


I'm actually opposed to having judges elected because that opens judges up to making decisions on the basis of politics, rather than purely on the law. It is a judge's job to apply the law to the facts of a case and whether their opinion will be politically popular shouldn't enter into the decision. In addition, making them elected opens them up to the same sort of corruption as we see in politicians (campaign contributions and PACs). However, I'm also aware of the dangers of making them purely political appointments since that brings us straight back to the problem of appointing judges purely to uphold one's political biases (see, for example, Scalia and Thomas, both appointed purely because they could be relied upon to side with Republicans on any issue).


My suggestion is to remove the power of nomination from the political process entirely and instead, give the power of nomination to the Bar Association. Judges nominated by the Bar Association for fixed terms, after which they must be re-nominated.




I feel the same way. I have been thinking about this for a while. I prefer a judge not to have a distinct political affiliation. Too many are bias, and if bias in the wrong way they hurt people. 


I define wrong way, as hurting people.  A judge should interpret the law as impartially as humanly possible. attempting to put personal ideology aside. All this while still remaining human. It is not a easy thing. 


So I too believe term limits and being appointed the most fair human thing we can do. Not age limits.



Bolding mine, your last paragraph does seem the most sensible idea. 

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 2:40PM #48
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

One should not make the erroneous assumption that a Bar Association would be free of politics. Remember that most politicians are lawyers, or at least have been to law school. If Bar Associations appointed judges those associations would quickly become political.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 11:28PM #49
rangerken
Posts: 16,967

I completely oppose having any BAR assocition choose judges. These associations are always highly political and also, highly pro tort lawyers.


The one thing I'd change, as I've written earlier, is to end lifetime tenure for ALL judges. Precisely how to do that is worthy of debate obviously.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2013 - 2:08AM #50
karbie
Posts: 3,329
How about not allowing any political group to be attached to their ads, since that means nothing these days? The ads will be some of their rulings, good, bad, and insane.
Victim statements about how they felt after a sentence--maybe. Any judge who rules strictly along political or religious bias should be kicked off the bench permentally because they are politicians instead of impartially upholding the law.
"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook