You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This "Judicial Philosophy" thing is still bothering me [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 02:31 AM
Original message
This "Judicial Philosophy" thing is still bothering me
Advertisements [?]
The last time I posted about it no one responded. I put the definition of the word "Judicial" up. But now I have perused the definition of "Philosophy" and I wonder what the Hell does that have to do with being a judge? In all the definitions of "Philosophy" a person's particular beliefs, opinions and perceptions are involved. A judge is supposed to "Interpret the law" not philosophize on it!


So when Bush says Meirs has a good Judicial Philosophy he means she has her own beliefs and will apply them to the current laws in the best way she can to parallel the two. That is just not the way its' supposed to be done.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court Judges are doing full time jury duty and that should be the end of it. They should follow the law as it is written just as juries are given instructions to do before being sent out to deliberate. They are just ordinary people with extraordinary titles.

And in this light I think Roberts gave a lot of good answers by saying that he will interpret the law as it is stated. His particular PHILOSOPHY should not matter.

And one more thing. If Bush et al want to overturn Roe V Wade they will have to conclude that my uterus is not my own private organ and protected by my Right to Privacy. It is not just a matter of deciding whether they think abortion is moral or immoral. That is not the question at stake. When did our Supreme Court become our moral gurus?

I think it is high time we remind the people who want to mess with our rights as Citizens of the United States of America that they just can't make decisions because something bothers them. It is none of your damed business; just shut up and get over yourselves already!



The definition of PHILOSOPHY according to Webster:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC