For every presidential election in recent history (meaning at least the last 30), I have had one overriding concern: the nomination of Supreme Court justices. I was asked once why it would be a problem if President Obama merely replaces retiring liberal justices with more liberals—other than missing the opportunity to "pack" the court to my liking. That's when I realized that I don't want a biased Supreme Court, at least not in the sense my friend was implying. But neither do I want a "balanced" Supreme Court. I want one that will rule based on the Constitution, whether they are for or against me. I don't want the Judiciary taking over the role of the Legislature. If our Justices are chosen based on their positions on particular issues rather than for their position vis–à–vis the Constitution and the Law, I think we have little hope for real justice.
But enough heavy thinking! Mallard Fillmore can make me smile, even about such an important issue.
Since for once I'm pretty average, here's a link for me to look up the members: Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is MOTSCOTUS used for these fellas?
Thanks, Stephan. I seem to know a few names, but not with a great deal of certainty as to whether or not they're serving presently. Though I'm pretty sure John Jay is dead....
And I guess the trouble is that it seems that constructionist judges are now only picked by conservatives for the most part. And Obama has explicitly stated that he will not pick constructionist judges, but only ones that will decide cases the way he wants.
And somehow no one has been complaining about that - at least not that I've seen, which I suppose isn't saying much.
We wouldn't have to worry about the MOTSCOTUS so much if we had a civil law legal system...
Okay,I'll bite. Would you please explain further?
Wikipedia has a lengthy article on common law, but the salient point is the short paragraph on the difference between common law and civil law:
This connotation differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" with the same force of law as statutes. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in, or is combined with common law in, almost all non-Islamic, non-common law countries), judicial precedent is given relatively less weight, and scholarly literature is given relatively more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing the law.
The map of countries with common law jurisdiction is also instructive.
Ok, the middle paragraph above ought to be a blockquote, but that obviously doesn't do much to set it apart as a quote. Now it looks like I plagiarized...
I think it's because only certain html is allowed.
If I managed to change the setting, this part will be in blockquote.Did it work?
Cool. It did.
I see a great deal of British influence on that map.
It is especially interesting to look at this map which shows a few more legal systems, like sharia law.
Also to note the French (Napoleonic) influence in Louisiana, and of course Quebec. And those independent Scots!
