lanchid ([info]lanchid) wrote,
2005-07-14 17:43:00
  • Mood: contemplative

politics

I make an effort to answer polls. I have become curious about them in the last few years. That said, today's Excite.com poll left me answering "not sure", which is rare. (I'm kinda opinionated, ya know?)I mean, I'm no lawyer. What I know of our justice system is 85% Law & Order and the rest is paying attention to the news.

So I'm throwing it to ya'll......(especially [info]xyellowroset)


Some U.S. senators are suggesting that President Bush should look beyond the bench for Sandra Day O’Connor's replacement, arguing that the view from inside the federal courts might be too narrow for a prospective Supreme Court nominee. The justices themselves have indicated to the Senate that they would welcome non-judges, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist never served as a judge before he was named to the court. Others have argued, however, that a justice without an established record wielding a gavel could be a wild card. (AP)
Poll #532575 Excite's Supreme Court Poll
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 16

Do you think that the next Supreme Court justice should have previous experience working as a judge?

View Answers
Yes - at the Federal level
6 (37.5%)
Yes - at any level
6 (37.5%)
No
1 (6.2%)
I'm not sure
3 (18.8%)
answer in comments
0 (0.0%)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
     
    Help
  • 4 comments

[info]taffimai

July 14 2005, 22:26:51 UTC 6 years ago

But then I also think that the next justice should have an HRC membership, and I know that isn't going to happen.

[info]dana_kujan

July 14 2005, 22:41:48 UTC 6 years ago

I voted "not sure." But I know this much: George W. Bush is the President of the United States, not chief of programming at CBS; so, everyone giving him advice like "pick a woman," "promote a Hispanic," "try Judge Judy in that time slot" needs to back off. This is an important decision, not to be half-assed or made to "raise (approval) ratings."

Having said that, do I think he'll break away from his conservative base long enough to make an informed, non-partisan, educated choice? Hell no!

[info]nnaylime

July 15 2005, 00:32:00 UTC 6 years ago

As much as there's appeal in the idea of an 'outsider' on the bench - that's not what it's about. As a JD, the idea of someone with no previous experience in consitutional interpretation chills me to the very core.

Whatever anyone may believe, justices are supposed to make decisions based on sound legal reasoning and precedent - not political expedience.

[info]standp

July 15 2005, 12:18:55 UTC 6 years ago

Make mine Female

Er... I'd like the next judge to be a drummer. Okay, I don't really have an opinion, I just wanted to thank ya for friending me Lanchid! Howdy!

... kay I'm a dork - I'll give an opinion. I still have a tiny bit of optimism left in me, in spite of two Bush terms, and it seems to me someone with experience on the bench, if they're reasonably intelligent and enlightened, must be a better option than someone with no experience. It seems to me the latter might be more easy swayed by opinion and emotion rather than sticking to interpreting the law.

But it should be a female 'cause I hate the idea that the country is led almost exclusively by old men. I don't like old men. Not sure why. Maybe I have grandfather issues. :-P
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…