Would you vote to confirm a Communist to the Supreme Court?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're in the Senate. The President has appointed a new judge to a Supreme Court vacancy. The judge has belonged to many communist organizations and is a self-proclaimed Marxist. When asked about many legal concepts and court cases, he gives very valid well thought out answers and clearly has massive legal knowledge. There is no doubt he has the qualifications to sit on the Court.

Would you vote to confirm him?

[Emsworth]

When asked about many legal concepts and court cases, he gives very valid well thought out answers and clearly has massive legal knowledge. There is no doubt he has the qualifications to sit on the Court.

Would you vote to confirm him?

It depends on his actual legal views. The point isn't whether he is qualified, but whether he has a sound judicial philosophy.

[Speed of Sound]

if he was qualified to be on the court, then i guess i would, though i wouldnt be happy about it

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It depends on his actual legal views. The point isn't whether he is qualified, but whether he has a sound judicial philosophy.

Well he's a communist. That sums it up.

[Emsworth]

It depends on his actual legal views. The point isn't whether he is qualified, but whether he has a sound judicial philosophy.

Well he's a communist. That sums it up.

If he makes his decisions on the basis of his political ideology (be it communist, fascist, libertarian, or anything else), instead of the Constitution and the law, then he would be a horrible judge. I would never vote to confirm him.

[opebo]

Of course I would.  A communist would be better than the theocrats we've been getting lately.

[A18]

Why would a communist want to be a judge, when he knows he has to apply a document that stands so diametrically opposed to his views?

I would be suspicious of his motives.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It depends on his actual legal views. The point isn't whether he is qualified, but whether he has a sound judicial philosophy.

Well he's a communist. That sums it up.

If he makes his decisions on the basis of his political ideology (be it communist, fascist, libertarian, or anything else), instead of the Constitution and the law, then he would be a horrible judge. I would never vote to confirm him.

Well an adherant to strict Marxist ideology would not care about the Constitution, since they would believe it needs to be abolished and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat

[A18]

Communist: I don't care about the Constitution.

Kennedy: He seems very qualified.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why would a communist want to be a judge, when he knows he has to apply a document that stands so diametrically opposed to his views?

I would be suspicious of his motives.

Theoretically the President would have to do the same, but that didn't stop FDR.

[A18]

Which is why I wouldn't have voted for FDR.

[Emsworth]

Well an adherant to strict Marxist ideology would not care about the Constitution...

Then the President who would nominate, and any Senator who would vote for, an individual who he knows would violate his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution is unfit to be a part of the government.

Which is why I wouldn't have voted for FDR.

"The United States Constitution has proven itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It depends on his actual legal views. The point isn't whether he is qualified, but whether he has a sound judicial philosophy.

Well he's a communist. That sums it up.

If he makes his decisions on the basis of his political ideology (be it communist, fascist, libertarian, or anything else), instead of the Constitution and the law, then he would be a horrible judge. I would never vote to confirm him.

Basically every judge lets his political ideology get in the way.

[Emsworth]

Basically every judge lets his political ideology get in the way.

To an extent, this problem cannot be avoided. Of course, judges do let their personal opinions get in the way some times; no judge is perfect.

However, some judges do this more than others. Take, for example, William O. Douglas, who regularly made rulings on the basis of his personal views. A modern example might be John Paul Stevens. On the other hand, there are several judges who seldom let their personal views color their decisions, like Hugo Black.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Basically every judge lets his political ideology get in the way.

To an extent, this problem cannot be avoided. Of course, judges do let their personal opinions get in the way some times; no judge is perfect.

However, some judges do this more than others. Take, for example, William O. Douglas, who regularly made rulings on the basis of his personal views. A modern example might be John Paul Stevens. On the other hand, there are several judges who seldom let their personal views color their decisions, like Hugo Black.

Isn't a Republican who decided not to appoint a Republican as President a bad example?

[Emsworth]

Isn't a Republican who decided not to appoint a Republican as President a bad example?

His views are horribly idiosyncratic. For example, he held in two different cases that flag burning was not constitutionally protected speech. Yet, in almost all other cases, he has taken a firmly libertarian view on free speech. Why? Most probably because of his sentiments as a military veteran.

[© tweed]

No, as an anti-communist, I don't want a communist on the supreme court.

[Peter]

Why would a communist want to be a judge, when he knows he has to apply a document that stands so diametrically opposed to his views?

"[A] Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory" --Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[Jake]

Well an adherant to strict Marxist ideology would not care about the Constitution, since they would believe it needs to be abolished and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat

You've pretty much answered the question for yourself. If the nominee had no regard for the Constitution at all, he is going to make a horrible judge, regardless of his legal knowledge.

[A18]

Why would a communist want to be a judge, when he knows he has to apply a document that stands so diametrically opposed to his views?

"[A] Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory" --Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Yeah, nice job taking a quote dealing with the economic regulatory powers of the states, and applying it to a completely foreign situation.

The powers of the federal government are few and defined. If a communist supports coining money, there might be something for him in the Constitution. There's not much else.

[True Democrat]

I wouldn't vote for him, although I most likely wouldn't filibuster if he actually knew what he was talking about.

[opebo]

Basically every judge lets his political ideology get in the way.

To an extent, this problem cannot be avoided. Of course, judges do let their personal opinions get in the way some times; no judge is perfect.

People's views don't 'get in the way' of interpretation - they create their interpretations.  All these so called judicial theories such as strict constructionism are just methods of making the constitution promote ones ideology. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Best one on the court.

[KillerPollo]

Basically every judge lets his political ideology get in the way.

To an extent, this problem cannot be avoided. Of course, judges do let their personal opinions get in the way some times; no judge is perfect.

People's views don't 'get in the way' of interpretation - they create their interpretations.  All these so called judicial theories such as strict constructionism are just methods of making the constitution promote ones ideology. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Best one on the court.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If he had no regard for the Constitution, then no.

[CheeseWhiz]

If he had no regard for the Constitution, then no.

^^^^^

And, after reading this topic, it seems he does not.