so, you're saying voters shouldn't bother voting for 3rd party candidates because they have no chance to win? Logically that makes sense, but why should they vote for someone they don't really like just because they have a chance to win?

personally, if I voted for candidates I really liked, I'd probably have skipped at least half the elections since I was old enough to vote.

When it comes to the role of judges in our country, I am an originalist. To be more specific, I am a textualist. When you have judges that try to change the meaning of the author's words to "better suit the time period", you now have a judicial branch that tries to legislate. This is very dangerous for the future of our country. Our government was set up very specifically by our founders to create a balance of power. We have a legislation to create new laws that are appropriate for the culture of the day. It is our judges responsibility to interpret law as it was written.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/1/2019 8:01:00 AM (view original):
When it comes to the role of judges in our country, I am an originalist. To be more specific, I am a textualist. When you have judges that try to change the meaning of the author's words to "better suit the time period", you now have a judicial branch that tries to legislate. This is very dangerous for the future of our country. Our government was set up very specifically by our founders to create a balance of power. We have a legislation to create new laws that are appropriate for the culture of the day. It is our judges responsibility to interpret law as it was written.

I agree completely. The Constitution allows for endless changes to reflect new attitudes and ways of the world. They are called amendments.

The Judicial branch is becoming a bad joke. If Trump does something, invariably some left-wing activist Federal judge in Hawaii or the Bay Area will strike it down just to delay implementation. The next time a Democrat is in the white house, it will be the turn for the right-wing activist jurists to obstruct. If you want to be an activist, feel free...just don't put on a black gown when you do it. Judges have become politically weaponized just like everything else in this decadent, dying country of ours.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one.

I am with Tang. I think judges are human beings and have their own biases and those biases subjectively impact how they interpret the constitution, precedents, etc. Tough job. They remind me of sports officials. Held to a high standards but in a role where mistakes will happen and will be there for all to see.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/1/2019 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/1/2019 8:01:00 AM (view original):
When it comes to the role of judges in our country, I am an originalist. To be more specific, I am a textualist. When you have judges that try to change the meaning of the author's words to "better suit the time period", you now have a judicial branch that tries to legislate. This is very dangerous for the future of our country. Our government was set up very specifically by our founders to create a balance of power. We have a legislation to create new laws that are appropriate for the culture of the day. It is our judges responsibility to interpret law as it was written.

I agree completely. The Constitution allows for endless changes to reflect new attitudes and ways of the world. They are called amendments.

The Judicial branch is becoming a bad joke. If Trump does something, invariably some left-wing activist Federal judge in Hawaii or the Bay Area will strike it down just to delay implementation. The next time a Democrat is in the white house, it will be the turn for the right-wing activist jurists to obstruct. If you want to be an activist, feel free...just don't put on a black gown when you do it. Judges have become politically weaponized just like everything else in this decadent, dying country of ours.

THIS !!!

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/1/2019 9:00:00 AM (view original):
I am with Tang. I think judges are human beings and have their own biases and those biases subjectively impact how they interpret the constitution, precedents, etc. Tough job. They remind me of sports officials. Held to a high standards but in a role where mistakes will happen and will be there for all to see.

I think what you and tang state is fair enough (not having a strong opinion on the subject.)

Judges, like sports officials, are human beings and are prey to subjectivity and bias like the rest of us. However, these people get paid specifically to not act upon those all too human traits. As an official, you don't let your love for the LA Rams impact how you call the game this weekend. As a judge, you don't let your love for (insert pet activist cause here) cloud your ruling. That's why the lady is blindfolded. She can't see and she shouldn't place her fingers on either side of the scale.

If a judge can't be objective because their bias and subjectivity are that strong, they are in the wrong line of work.

Yes, I think judges trying to legislate from the bench is a much bigger threat to our country's preservation than anything Trump has done. It is much easier the hold the president accountable than it is the judicial branch. If you think Trump is damaging to our nation's integrity. you can vote him out. The president cannot legislate. He does have limited executive power within the bounds of our laws and constitution, but if he oversteps his authority we have judges to stop him.

I agree but they still ref or judge based on their feelings too often even if it is subconscious.

Taint sucks. LOL.

I do agree that many judges are just bad. I have sat on two juries and I thought the judge in one was excellent, she was A+. In the 2nd one, it was a grumpy old loser. He was bad. Judges aren't God.