Barrett Triggers Libs By Showing She Is Unbiased

[rangerrebew]

 The Latest   
Barrett Triggers Libs By Showing She Is Unbiased

 
Liberal Senators went after Barrett hoping to reveal that she had a deep-seated bias that would justify all of their unfounded anger towards her. But Barrett proved them all wrong when she let them know that she intends to be a fair Justice that is going to do her best not to bring her personal opinions/beliefs into cases. That must have mystified libs that Barrett could do something they all fail at regularly.

“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe [v. Wade] was wrongly decided?” Senator Feinstein asked.

“Senator, I do wanna be forthright and answer every question so far as I can. I think on that question, I’m gonna invoke Justice Elena Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not gonna grade precedent, give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. It would be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.”

https://freedomupdates.com/the-latest/barrett-triggers-libs-by-showing-she-is-unbiased/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I actually prefer someone with bias over someone who has none.

A morality bias is something that is useful for a judge as the law does not cover 100% of all cases coming before him/her.

[berdie]

I actually prefer someone with bias over someone who has none.

A morality bias is something that is useful for a judge as the law does not cover 100% of all cases coming before him/her.

I wish I could agree, but I can't. It's not a judge's job to enforce what is moral or what is not moral. That comes under the heading of religion.

A judge is there soley to interpret the law on the  books in regards to the case at hand without injecting opinion or defining morality.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I wish I could agree, but I can't. It's not a judge's job to enforce what is moral or what is not moral. That comes under the heading of religion.

A judge is there soley to interpret the law on the  books in regards to the case at hand without injecting opinion or defining morality.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post?

Yes you did.

Someone without bias cannot possibly be a moral human being, therefore is godless.

A law can never cover 100% of all situations.  If it did, we just need robots to judge us, not people.

The moral character of a judge is absolutely required to be a prudent jurist.

[christian]

A clue to the clueless.  Laws enforce morality upon those that reject morality.  The sociopath murderer goes to prison, even executed as his immorality is intolerable to society.  Breaking the laws that impose morality upon people has been around thousands of years.  The wicked, evil, moralless chafe under having to deal with consequences for their wickedness-es.  They do so love their hypocrisies like wanting to get rid of cops, then bawl the cops are not saving them afterward.  A fool is very unhappy when the fool gets its way.
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A clue to the clueless.  Laws enforce morality upon those that reject morality.  The sociopath murderer goes to prison, even executed as his immorality is intolerable to society.  Breaking the laws that impose morality upon people has been around thousands of years.  The wicked, evil, moralless chafe under having to deal with consequences for their wickedness-es.  They do so love their hypocrisies like wanting to get rid of cops, then bawl the cops are not saving them afterward.  A fool is very unhappy when the fool gets its way.
 

I agree.

One cannot possibly believe it is best to be non-biased as our laws are indeed based upon the bias of morality as conveyed by our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Lose that, and one loses everything we have built upon over the decades.

And welcome to TBR, @christian

[berdie]

Yes you did.

Someone without bias cannot possibly be a moral human being, therefore is godless.

A law can never cover 100% of all situations.  If it did, we just need robots to judge us, not people.

The moral character of a judge is absolutely required to be a prudent jurist.

Perhaps our disagreement on this issue may stem from the definition of the words "biased" and "morality".

Who defines morality? A person could possibly be on trial for DWI, but moral in all other aspects of their life. Could they not? But they still broke the law.

If a judge imposes their own "biases" in rendering a decision. For the sake of argument let's say...the DWI person above is before a judge that has an extreme bias against drinking...for any reason. So the decision of that judge might be colored by bias.

Bias does not equal morality or godlyness. But it can very often cause legal counsel to get a judge that will be more sympathetic to their case. Or in the case of the prosecution...to seek a judge that will rule in a harder fashion. It happens all the time. IMHO...the judge should administer the law.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Perhaps our disagreement on this issue may stem from the definition of the words "biased" and "morality".

Who defines morality? A person could possibly be on trial for DWI, but moral in all other aspects of their life. Could they not? But they still broke the law.

If a judge imposes their own "biases" in rendering a decision. For the sake of argument let's say...the DWI person above is before a judge that has an extreme bias against drinking...for any reason. So the decision of that judge might be colored by bias.

Bias does not equal morality or godlyness. But it can very often cause legal counsel to get a judge that will be more sympathetic to their case. Or in the case of the prosecution...to seek a judge that will rule in a harder fashion. It happens all the time. IMHO...the judge should administer the law.

Of course the wrong bias is evil, such as racism bias.

If you go back to the original topic, the subject is the lack of bias present in a judge.

We do not need a judge who has no bias, period.

We need judges who have a bias toward morality when the law has gray areas like it frequently does.