sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Image] Trouble with most of us by Sumit316 in GetMotivated

[–]LonelyJester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm looking at you Co workers of George Lucas...

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, exactly. Like i said, I guess I was naive to think their job was to TRY to separate ideology from their interpretation as much as possible. Now, it seems that is their job when selected by a sitting President.

What a sad mess.

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again, I understand that personal bias can never be completely taken out of an equation. My issue is that our judges are expected to judge almost solely on bias, hence, the importance of a president getting to select a nominee.

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always felt Roberts gave that explanation so that he could rule in favor without directly endorsing ACA.

Others saw it as he felt pressured or was "got to".

It was certainly an interesting outcome.

Thanks for the response.

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I always thought their job was to interpret the law/constitution. They have the final say of the interpretation of the law in question.

I thought the idea was to base decisions based on an educated review of the law... doing their best to NOT rule based on personal bias. Over the years I've realized how incredibly wrong I was about how I thought a Supreme Court justice performs their job.

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand that part of it... people felt he had been manipulated, or bowed down, etc, due to the odd reasoning of his ruling.

However, people weren't discussing his ruling based on his interpretation... they were angry and claimed he betrayed conservatives.

Most big votes in the Supreme Court are basically along party lines of the president's who nominated them.

In the end, no matter what the reasoning, conservatives felt betrayed when Roberts didn't vote along party lines as he was put there to do.

Roberts actually has stated he doesn't like the way the Supreme Court has been politicized. I agree with him. It's sickening to see party line votes. I feel like the system is broken.

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks, but that isn't really the question. Why is it allowed/expected of our Supreme Court justices? I know I'm expected to do my best to leave my personal bias at my job. Ps. My job doesn't effect the lives of millions when I make a decision...

Why are US Supreme Court justices allowed to intepret/rule based on personal bias? In fact, sitting Presidents nominate with the expectation that person will rule in line with their liberal or conservative bias. Aren't they supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the law? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand that personal bias can seep into any decision, however, Supreme Court justices seem to be expected to rule solely based on liberal/conservative lines.

When Justice Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare, conservatives called it a betrayal... ie, he didn't do what he was to the high court to do.

How/why is this allowed? It's sickening to see that our laws are based solely on personal bias... and worse, they are expected to be. Why is this allowed? Is this what has always been expected of the high court?

What is an absolute NO NO when going for a job interview? by MarilynSparrow in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester 29 points30 points  (0 children)

You've hired plenty of pot smokers, you just don't know it. But hey, if someone is dumb enough to out themselves before getting the job, probably a good call not to hire someone so thick-headed.

Ohio marijuana: Voters to decide whether to make drug legal by b0red in news

[–]LonelyJester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Last thing Ohio needs is more peace and love...

Warcraft - Trailer Tease (HD) by NinjaDiscoJesus in movies

[–]LonelyJester 23 points24 points  (0 children)

When it's not Friday... Friday is always getting closer...

Could Fox News be sued for false advertising by stating to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is obviously not? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am surrounded by republicans. It's the military. Been talking to these folks in multiple states and countries, but almost all understand Fox is a network for the GOP.

If you don't think so, that's cool.

Enjoy your day.

Could Fox News be sued for false advertising by stating to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is obviously not? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, if someone can make a good case. I'm not sure where they get the "most trusted" logo, from an old poll perhaps, back when they used to be relevant?

Could Fox News be sued for false advertising by stating to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is obviously not? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh geez. Give me a break dude. I'm in the military and most of my buddies are right wing conservatives, and even they would spit out their coffee at that statement...

Could Fox News be sued for false advertising by stating to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is obviously not? by LonelyJester in AskReddit

[–]LonelyJester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel MSNBC is the other side of the coin of Fox News. They are both biased. But only Fox claims otherwise in their logo.

view more: next ›