EvilPhysicist wrote:
I disagree, on both premises.
first: yes, hes teh new guy, he doesnt have the experience or nations trust to be put into a position that hold power to decide how our laws are enforced.
First off, while this may be a technical difference, but it's very incorrect to state that the Supreme Court just "decides how our laws are enforced", as though it's just a matter of the personal preference of each individual Justice. The court determines the constitutionality of an issue brought before it (typically an appeal of a lower court ruling on constitutional grounds). That's it. They don't get to make up rulings based on how they feel. In theory, they're supposed to be deciding how something applies *only* in terms of the constitution and past rulings of the court. They most certainly must justify any decision made based on the wording of the constitution (and past rulings of similar nature). A Justice cannot just rule a paticular way because he thinks that the way the laws of the country should work. Ok. Technically he can, but judges of that level *don't*.
Quote:
second: i dont beleive roberts to be fair or balanced when it comes to his decision making. I understand that it is hard to find a canidate that satifies both liberals and conservatives, but putting one in that position that so vehimetly upsets the other 49% of america is a slap in the face to the very concept of unbiased blind justice.
But is that a problem with Roberts? Or a problem with the 49% who seem to become "vehemently upset" at any appointment that is not Liberal.
You seem to be saying that no Conservative justice should ever be appointed because that would be a slap in the face to liberals. So when you say a candidate that satisfies both conservatives and liberals, you really mean a candidate that satisfies liberals, since apparently, the requirement to satisfy liberals is to appoint someone that is liberal.
Or am I wrong? What kind of a conservative justice would you not be vehemently opposed to?