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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nigel bates who wrote (55011)	5/29/2009 10:17:12 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

"It would be more accurate to say that the area in which judges can create law is tightly circumscribed by legislation, by precedent, and in your case by the Constitution." Even if we accept that as a guideline we are constantly reminded that we exist only under rule of law. The USA has no other claim to legitimacy. Where the law is applied and found to be inadequate, it should fall back on legislature to make it right, not the Supremes.

To: nigel bates who wrote (55011)	5/29/2009 11:48:54 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Much of your judicial system is based on English Common Law, It took the principles from that English Common Law had developed, but they are mostly incorporated in to statue law. To the extent you have any common law type process still operating as a principle of our legal system, it can be overwritten by statue law, and should automatically be overridden by any contrary part of the constitution. there is clear evidence that Sotomayor does not confuse empathy with sentimentality Its not an issue of confusing empathy with sentimentality. Deciding primarily based on either would be outside of the judges proper responsibility. Having empathy, and perhaps sentimentality, is fine, maybe even good. The issue is whether either takes precedence over the actual law.