Confirmation Hearing: TexasGurl (Associate Justice)

[Ebowed]

I am dismayed to see what this confirmation hearing has become.  In the interests of defending my nominee, I should mention that TexasGurl has served on the Court before (nominated by former President PBrunsel).  I recommend reading the following case where TexasGurl not only provided a dissent opinion, but got along with her fellow Justices despite their differences in ideology.  Notice, also, that her dissent opinion was not "I oppose this ruling because I wish to push a radical leftist agenda"; she provided her own constitutional basis for why she did not rule with the other two Justices.

I don't expect TexasGurl to govern in a "bi-ideological" manner for several reasons.  The first is that we don't have two ideologies in Atlasia; we have roughly four.  Second, the Court is not a place where someone governs, and I don't think justices should be held to any special standard where they have to please the public with each of their decisions.  Their jobs as justices is to interpret the constitution, not to work in a cooperative and bipartisan manner.

[Ebowed]

That view is abhorrent.  Working in the public interest is what has given us many of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions.  If the Court makes an unsound decision they can just say that they were working in the public interest.  For example, Sandra Day O'Connor said that affirmative action may become unconstitutional after, say, fifty years once it has run out its purpose.  Does that sound logical or fair to you?  There is a reason we try not to allow that here.  We need at least one branch of the government that is not responsible to the public, and the judicial branch is it.

[Ebowed]

It doesn't matter that she once served in this capacity, perhaps she conducted herself more gracefully back then, I don't know

She did.

Senator and Associate Justice are two entirely different jobs; given that she's served in the latter already, why not vote based on her performance there?

[Ebowed]

Affirmative action did not become "rather unconstitutional."  The constitutionality of something does not change based on shifting social norms.  The only thing that can change the constitutionality of something is a constitutional amendment.

I don't see what Bush v. Gore has to do with this, as the ruling had nothing to do with public opinion, but rather whether or not the recounts should have kept going.

I didn't say that any form of government should be free from public will!  I said one branch of government does not answer to the public, and that is the judicial branch.  There is a reason that judges do not win elections, unlike presidents or senators.

[Ebowed]

Actually, slavery became unconstitutional because the United States passed a constitutional amendment.  It had nothing to do with the evolution of man's intelligence. :-P

If the public is strongly in favor or strongly against something, that has no bearing over whether something is constitutional or not.  If the meaning of the constitution can simply change based on public opinion, that is known as tyranny of the majority.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. mean absolutely nothing if the court can rule against them under pressure from "the public."

[Ebowed]

On a vote of 5-4, this nominee is confirmed by the Senate.

How is 5 a majority of the Senate?

It would be now, because the GM says Gabu agreed to be dead, which can basically be considered a LOA until he's expelled or his term ends.