Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
you are totally missing the point. a supreme court judge is not supposed to be biased. obviously you can find hints of bias. you are not supposed to be making decisions based on your own personal biases. you are supposed to weigh the facts and make decisions based on facts.
its not if someone has some bias or not... the point is that they should be aspiring to apply the constitution WITHOUT bias... not giving interviews saying they are more qualified as a female, ethnic minority "to make better decisions" than a white judge.
|
actually you are totally missing the point -- there is no "judge should not be biased" clause in article II. We all bring our experience and bias to determine how we fell the president should appoint a justice. We all play a game that oh "judges shouldn't be biased."
yeah right. Further, you've fallen into the trap that a "generic" white male sets the standard of bias. Interestingly enough, conservative loved Alito's answers about empathy when he talked about his immigrant experience -- (oddly, it was "shameful" to bring up Alito's participation in groups trying to prevent the private college of Princeton to go coed.)
There is no reason to pretend that judges meet some fake standard of impartiality -- the judges are chosen
precisely b/c of their bias -- Roberts, for instance, b/c he is a Federalist.
And more importantly, judges aren't just interpreting the law, constitution etc. they are making it -- but of course, that is another "dirty secret" never to be uttered aloud.
It's all a b.s. charade. Judges are chosen b/c of their bias.
More importantly that is the perogative of the president to chose a nominee, and the Senate to vote up/down (or in practice via the rules in the Senate, try to filibuster to get a new nominee). That's the explicit word of the constitution, and the procedure of the Senate.
All the "qualifications" we are all projecting are meaningless, biased constructs based on our own thought and experiences.