Judges must be neutral
I take great exception to Sen. Barrack Obama's view on what he is looking for in a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Obama does not seem to be in favor of applying the law equally to all citizens. He seems to want the justices he would nominate to violate the very oath they would take when sworn in :
· "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
I believe that Chief Justice John Roberts has the right idea when he says a judge is like an umpire. Judges must stay completely neutral and be impartial at all times.
This country will continue down the wrong path if Obama is elected president and is able to put judges on the bench who support the ideal of having different laws for different groups of people.
3 Responses to "Mark Mohr, Omaha"
William Patrick LaViolette said
A Sen. Barrack Obama Quote : "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Republican's keep chanting
Some keep chanting this mantra about not legislating from the bench. I think they would prefer a super computer that just does calculations with no thought of humanity.
I prefer the direction that Barrack has stated and will support him fully.
William Patrick LaViolette
CJP said
Is Chief Justice Roberts a Highly Partial and Totally Dishonest Umpire?
Chief Justice Roberts has said that "judges are like umpires, simply calling balls and strikes, but not defining the strike zone". Roberts has said that judges don't make the rules of law, but merely interpret them.
However, in the four years that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court, he has ruled in every single case in favor of the power structure — in favor of employers over employees, prosecutors over defendants, corporations over consumers — totally, unanimously, 100% — without exception.
If an "impartial umpire" ever ruled his every single call in favor of the Home Team and against the Visitors, most people would undoubtedly conclude that this umpire was "on the take", that this umpire was "bribed", that his umpire was the opposite of impartial, that his umpire was voting his personal prejudices and totally not trying to honestly apply the rules of the game.
How does Chief Justice Roberts' record on the Supreme Court compare to his confirmation hearing rhetoric?
Please Visit My Blog: Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists