www.politicofcanada.blogspot.com

Lack of Impartiality on USSC

Article II of the US Constitution provides that the President is to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.  This is supposed to be a test of qualifications not one's political idealogy.  During the Reagan adminstration there was a justice appointed whom the Senate refused to confirm because of his political idealogies.  Although I did not necessarily agree with this justice on all issues, I was right out of lawschool at the time and crazy enough to urge President Reagan to challenge the Senate by seeking a Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition in the Supreme Court to obtain a ruling that confirmation could not be based upon political idealogy.  This was actually debated at the White House for several weeks but a decision was made not to bring such an action because 1) The Reagan administration already felt that the Supreme Court was wielding too much power and the adminstration wanted to curtail not expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and 2) Senators have immunity for lawful actions taken on the floor of the Senate.  My argument on both issues was 1) While it is true that the USSC is expanding its authority way beyond that originally intended by the framers of the Constitution, this is precisely the type of case the Supreme Court should undertake and the failure to take that action could mean that from that day forward our Supreme Court justices would be confirmed based their political idealogies. (This has in fact proven to be true.)   and 2)  Senators have immunity for lawful actions taken on the floor of the Senate but confirming a Supreme Court nomination based on political idealogy is outside the scope of their authority and is not a lawful act and further that that the immunity afforded Senators applies to complaints for damages not for injunctive relief to compel compliance with the Constitution. 

The idea behind the method of selection in the Constitution is that there would be an averaging out of Supreme Court appointees because sometimes one party's president would appoint the justice and sometimes the other party's president would appoint the justice.  Thus, over time there would be a balance of the viewpoints.  What has happened by allowing Senators to confirm justices based on political idealogy is that the random selection process has been eliminated and now our Supreme Court is a political entity controlled by the party that holds a majority of the Senate.  Our Supreme Court is losing its political impartiality by losing the random selection process.  

Israel:  Yes, many rabbis urged Israel not to form a government in Israel at that time.  Now that it is done most do not believe the clock can be turned back but many still believe that Zionist Israel is not adhering to the Torah in the manner in which the government operates, See Exodus 23:9  "And you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Bingo!

Impartiality in Weighing the Evidence

This is one of the greatest dilemmas that has ever faced mankind.  Even the appointment of Supreme Court justices in the United States is based upon Senate approval which in turn is often nothing more than a litmus test for a particular idealogy whether it be pro or anti-abortion rights or pro or anti-First Amendment Establishment Clause freedoms.  Why is that?  It is because each member of the Senate hopes that a person of his idealogy will receive an appointment so that this appointee will "prejudge" the evidence and decide in a certain way regardless of the case put in front of him.  The system of Senate ratification of Judicial nomination for positions on the federal bench is designed to elicit the bias of the appointed justice when ruling on a case.  This system is laced with potential for abuse and corruption even if only at the most "nonobservable" level. 

The key to becoming color blind is for people of different races and cultures to live and work with one another on a daily basis so that they learn to understand one another.  The failure to implement this key in Israel, for example, is the reason for the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel.  The failure to implement this key in Israel is itself magnified and made glaring in that this refusal is in direct violation of the Torah. 

Amen

Being color blind means that we do not let our personal biases guide
our assessment of the evidence.   This is a skill that very few people
in this world ever truly develop.

Indeed, and it is neither a skill possessed by either the hysterical, exagerrating Arab media or the sleight-of-handing, victim-narrative churning Zionist media. The problem is that the nature of power is such that it wishes to dictate facts and truth on its own terms, rather than on the truth's terms, and because there are few people anymore willing to risk everything to speak to truth to power whatever the personal consequences to themselves, we all find ourselves in a situation where each side is attempting to enlist the rest of us in its campaigns using exagerration, half truths, smoke and mirrors, and sometimes even complete BS, as the bait to lure us in.

But this situation also exists to large extent in the legal world as well.

I'm all ears/eyes as to how you think this can all be reformed on a mass scale.

Impartiality in Weighing the Evidence

It is important as we progress into a more civilized world which provides human rights protection to all people that we are "color blind" in our view of evidence.  You are right to insist upon an equal application of the law.  The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." (Article 7)  

In weighing the evidence in a court of law this means that a judge must be impartial.  He must consider all of the evidence and not neglect evidence that does not support the result he believes should obtain.  He must first weigh the evidence and only then decide.  When I looked at the argument you made, that Lawrence Cannon is not being impartial in that he does not criticize Israel's killing of 6 Palestinians whereas he does condemn Iran's crackdown on protesters, I noted several important pieces of information omitted from your comment. 

What I discovered is that there are two different news reports that provide different information concerning what had occured.  As an example of one version Al-Manar reports the death of three Palestinians because of the air raid but omits any information as to the reason Israel made the assault.  Fox News provides a different report in saying that the three who were targeted had murdered an Israeli settler.  The problem is that the public (as triers of fact) cannot form a true opinion of what occured if we are not provided complete information. 

//www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=116994&language=en 

//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581167,00.html

If the attack was unprovoked as the Al-Manar article suggests then you are right that Israel should be condemned for this assault. But if in fact, the three men had murdered a settler then Israel would be justified in taking action against the offenders if Palestine refused to arrest them.  This would be completely dissimilar from the crackdown on protesters in that the protesters have not willfully murdered innocent civilians as is alleged by Israel against the three Palestinians. 

The next question is who is telling the truth.  Once again, we cannot simply assume that one always lies and one always tells the truth.  We have to assess the credibility of the information presented including witness statements, as part of our consideration of the evidence. I would venture to guess that Mr. Cannon considered all of the evidence and concluded that Israel had justification which is the reason he did not condemn Israel for the raid.  No doubt others will form a different opinion on this issue.  The question is who will consider all of the evidence and decide without interjecting his own personal biases.

Being color blind means that we do not let our personal biases guide our assessment of the evidence.   This is a skill that very few people in this world ever truly develop. 

Down with Zionism, Death to Islamism!

Lynch Netanyahu, hang Khamenei!

When was the last time, they applied the same standards to all

Israel as the biggest terrorist state will have free hand for some times longer.  But their faith just as the Mullahs faith is the same, going down.

Mehrdad