Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (307310)	5/28/2009 12:20:56 AM
From: goldworldnet	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793916

The more I read of Sotomayor, the less empathetic I become and I accept and agree Republicans are duty bound to oppose her conformation to the best of their ability. * * *

To: Neeka who wrote (307310)	5/28/2009 10:26:40 AM
From: rich evans	8 Recommendations Respond to of 793916

We got a nominee who decides on a result she wants for her biases and not on what the law is or would dictate. Ends justify the means. Result over process. Totally contrary to judicial ethics, our rule of law and what has made this country great in comparison to the dictator type places. Rich

To: Neeka who wrote (307310)	5/28/2009 11:14:05 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

RULE OF LAWYERS "It's not the rule of law, it's the rule of lawyers: That's the central message conveyed by President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge of the Second Circuit federal appeals court, to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court next October," Andrew C. McCarthy writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com). "Obama and the lawyers in his administration are fond of invoking the rule of law. Yet that golden standard stands on the conceit, honored more in the breach than in the observance, that 'we are a nation of laws, not of men.' It holds that there is an objective corpus of law - of the community's reasoned consensus, shorn of passion, fear or favor - under which we've agreed to be governed and to which those chosen to represent us owe their fidelity. It's a nice ideal. Increasingly, though, our real governing standard is the one made infamous by the legendary litigator Roy Cohn: 'Don't tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.' "Our ideal of judging was perhaps best explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn't design or alter the rules of the game. That's how it's supposed to work. The judge's courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can win if the law - the objective law - is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don't have a rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is done - not manufactured. "The president doesn't view the world that way. He wants the umpire to pick winners and losers, not simply to preside over a fair fight - 'fair,' in this context, meaning a fight under rules agreed upon before the game gets started."