Thanks. I think the question of who will and won't run in the next selection and why is worth another article.
Anon
I am absolutely not saying that any Justice is being unethical or breaking rules. I am saying that they have different views of what they ought to be doing and that these different views are important to understand and have in mind when assessing the court and candidates for the court.
You like to bring up that they removed the medical malpractice cap set by the legislature as an example of a different view. However, one party or the other must not be on solid constitutional grounds. Are you saying that it's the Supreme Court that is not?
6 comments:
Excellent paper. So the question is who do we get to run for the court and fix this?
Are you saying that the Court is being unconstitutional, unethical, breaking judicial rules or the law?
It appears to me that you are setting the stage for the next election. I hope that you don't support another rule breaker like Ziegler.
Actually, Anony, my read of the article is that some of the Court's decisions represent Nietzsche's "Will" as opposed to a rational "mind".
Not unethical--nor "breaking" judicial rules (unless you expect that the 'rules' include common sense.)
Dad29 - I've read the Judicial Code of Ethics and it does include much common sense. Which have they violated?
Elliot
Thanks. I think the question of who will and won't run in the next selection and why is worth another article.
Anon
I am absolutely not saying that any Justice is being unethical or breaking rules. I am saying that they have different views of what they ought to be doing and that these different views are important to understand and have in mind when assessing the court and candidates for the court.
Rick -
You like to bring up that they removed the medical malpractice cap set by the legislature as an example of a different view. However, one party or the other must not be on solid constitutional grounds. Are you saying that it's the Supreme Court that is not?
Post a Comment