Hurmoth Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 In Canada anyway (and probably the US as well), judges only interpret existing laws and apply them to new situations. They do not create law.New laws can only be created by legislation. 586529491[/snapback] This is suppose to be the same way in the US, unfortunately activist judges don't always follow that rule. That's the reason I like Roberts, from what I've read in earlier opinions, he's follow that rule and has made rulings on previous law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted September 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2005 This is suppose to be the same way in the US, unfortunately activist judges don't always follow that rule. That's the reason I like Roberts, from what I've read in earlier opinions, he's follow that rule and has made rulings on previous law. 586529571[/snapback] Any ruling by an "activist" judge would only be overturned by a higher court and then presumably that "activist" judge would be reprimanded and never promoted again. I mean, I know how existing laws could be interpreted differently by different judges but someone who clearly goes off on a tangent and created a totally new ruling that is unprecidented and unsupported by existing laws would be easy to spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Biden let him have today and tore about his baseball analogy. 586520735[/snapback] It's too bad Biden struck out in his attempts. Dems are grasping at straws here. The guy is a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 No because he keeps dodging questions that would be important to him in this position and using his charm to get past them. That just shows me that he's a sneaky f*ck and doesn't deserve the position. I think Bush only chose him because Bush is lazy and thought "who's that there guy I picked da last time? Oh that's right that there Johhny Robbie...pick him pick him" then Bush goes back to playing with his ball of yarn and legos 586529338[/snapback] I strongly suggest you educate yourself a bit more on the process and the questions and answers. If he was actualy dodging questions, do you think the attack dogs of the left would be criticizing him all over? Simply put -- in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted September 15, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2005 Activist Judge is such a BS term. There isn't such a thing. The fact is if something contradicts constitutional rights, no matter how many various law making bodies support and pass it, it is a Judge's job rule against the law and essentially make something legal that the law says otherwise. Constitutional rights are the ground rules for our Government, without them it would be mob rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Roberts should without a doubt be confirmed. He has the credentials, and there really isn't a reason not to. You can speculate about what his opinions are, but you're not supposed to figure out what he likes and then confirm him. If we let the legislature pick and choose who they want on the Supreme Court based on what they like, isn't that just breaking down checks and balances? I've watched Roberts in his confirmation hearings and he seems fine for the job. He is articulate, intelligent, and knows exactly what needs to be said. He seems to interpret the position of the Supreme Court Justice as one that enforces of Rule of Law and really what the Supreme Court is all about (the Constitution). I remember one of the things he was asked about. A trend about references to decisions in other foreign countries. He said that doing that is like picking and choosing your countries to establish a false sense of precedence. He really knows what he's talking about, and I don't see any reason not to confirm him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Shake Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 The reason I'm not so sure about him is because he was nominated by this man: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedorpheux Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) The reason I'm not so sure about him is because he was nominated by this man:... 586532567[/snapback] Heh :laugh: Good point! ;) Edited September 16, 2005 by Fedorpheux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Shake Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 Activist Judge is such a BS term.There isn't such a thing. The fact is if something contradicts constitutional rights, no matter how many various law making bodies support and pass it, it is a Judge's job rule against the law and essentially make something legal that the law says otherwise. Constitutional rights are the ground rules for our Government, without them it would be mob rule. 586529814[/snapback] Amen. If someone doesn't like a Judge's ruling they are an activist judge. Next thing you know they will be flip-flopping and playing the blame game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoue Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Amen. If someone doesn't like a Judge's ruling they are an activist judge. Next thing you know they will be flip-flopping and playing the blame game. 586533877[/snapback] Bingo. I guarantee that if the supreme court ruled tomorrow against abortion the conservatives would be changing their rhetoric tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts