Waddie Michell is a columnist for the Elko Daily. He writes on a lot of subjects and I like to read his articles.
I don’t get it. Why are our political parties arguing over the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Question: Aren’t both parties supposed to be looking for the same qualifications?
Question: What is a judge appointed to do?
Answer: Interpret law and dispense justice
Question: What is justice supposed to be?
Question: Why have the Justices of our Supreme Court become so blatantly proud to show their biases?
Answer: No accountability, job security and years of precedence. Oh, yea, and us for allowing it.
Question: If a judge is known to be biased on certain subjects or leans toward a certain political philosophy or, known to consistently vote with widely touted, conservative or liberal agendas, then doesn’t or shouldn’t that exclude that judge from being allowed to serve on our nations highest court?
Question: Who appoints and confirms a Justice?
Answer: The politicians we elect. The President nominates and the Senate votes to confirm.
Question: Should we hold our politicians and our courts to a higher standard?
Answer: Yes (and it’s long overdue)
Question: Does anyone disagree with these statements?
Answer: There shouldn’t be. (except, of course, dirty politicians, like Harry or John Mc or corrupt judges as in the Hammond case).
Question: Why do we, as Americans, allow these known biases to be what our whole judicial system is based on?
Answer: We shouldn’t, it sure wasn’t set up to be that way.
The liberal judges vs. conservative judges should not be an accepted way to decide the most important cases of our time. Their decisions determine the interpretation of laws by which this nation must abide. Known biased judges should never be part of the equation in any case brought forth in a Courts ruling process.
Every Supreme Court appointee, in my time, has been scrutinized, questioned, and put through hell to assure us all of their fair and unbiased intentions (lies), then promptly take their place on whichever side, conservative or liberal, they will vote towards the rest of their lives. An honest, unbiased judge is looked on as a “wild card,” not a judge holding up to the oath he or she took.
Why do we voters allow it? When did we start allowing this type of judicial political imprudence to rule us?
We shouldn’t have to worry if a Supreme Court Justice, or a federal judge or a civil court judge is liberal or conservative, dirty or bought or biased (as we so conspicuously saw in the Hammond case). They should be and are supposed to be neutral, fair, knowledgeable, unbiased interpreters of the laws of the land and the constitutionality of those laws.
We’ve allowed our highest court, and in turn every court, to become a stage for posturing of political agendas pushed by less than honorable politicians and judges. (Bundy case in point).
I believe we should start anew, there must be honest and unbiased judges to be had (we can only hope). Lifetime appointments don’t now, nor ever have worked. We need a way of culling those judges with shown bias before a case is ever heard.
Look at our lifetime appointed sitting Justices now. Most are two or three generations past relevance and scary to hear talk. When a “people’s” or any other case is determined and ruled on with a stacked deck, we all lose.
Thank you kindly.