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: TimF who wrote (55023)	5/29/2009 1:49:41 PM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 149317

>>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...<< That is no different from the operation of common law in the UK (apart from the written constitution), but it doesn't change the fact that judges can, should and do make law. The extent of habeas corpus rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution are an excellent example of this. Unless, of course, you take the Gonzales line. >>Its not an issue of confusing empathy with sentimentality<< It is if you are arguing that empathy is a quality which should count against judicial candidates. >>The issue is whether either takes precedence over the actual law.<< No it's not. No one - and certainly not Sotomayor - has ever even suggested that.

To: TimF who wrote (55023)	5/29/2009 9:15:03 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

>>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.<< The law has to consist of empathy and sentiminality. It is human law for humans. Empathy is our strength and compass that we know points us in the correct direction. The law is also by necesity of relativity, existential i.e. each persons persective is the only reality that exists. Well empathy is what makes us human, so this debates is friggen nuts-lol.