Toudiyama[NL]

afer all the commotion concerning the appointment of supreme court judges, I was asking my self: shouldn't a judge be impartial and only look at the law at hand?
Meaning no matter if you personally are for it or against it because you are either progressive or conservative, their judgement should only be based on the law

Seeing how conservatives now try to get a conservative candidate, you would think this is not the case in the US and that instead personal favor is instead determining the final judgements ( why else do they reject someone not conservative enough in their eyes?)


I know the "liberals" are just the same in that sense

Shouldn't justice be blind ( hence the blindfold)?
And shouldn't politics stay out of the rulingproces (sorry for the english) and only make laws not apply them?

Lets face it if the law is clear in the fact that it allows same sex marriageses then a judge ruling otherwise is not sticking to the law, is he?

__________________

eXcessiveForce

the supreme court decides whether laws are legal or not. So for instance in the case of abortion, One can argue that it is a life and therefore entitled to the protection of the constitution and the law ( the "conservative" view) or that it is not a life until born and has not rights. (libral view) Since the judge may rule that a law making or outlaw abortions is legal or illegal it can make a difference.

Often things happen that are outside of current laws, like the napster, grokster stuff, again conservative or liberal can make a difference as to the interpretation of laws.

conservative does not necessarily mean republican. Nor does libral necessarily mean democrat. That is just how it usually goes. So republicans want conservatives. Democrats what liberals.

__________________
eXcessiveFORCE.

If you must use force, make it excessive.