Objective Criteria (resources)

Still trying to get a set of OBJECTIVE definitions of Judicial decisions: It seems to me that any decision can be 1 of 8 outcomes based on which "side" won and which lost,
  1. Constitution WON, Federal law lost
  2. Constitution WON, State law lost
  3. Federal law WON, State law lost
  4. Constitution lost, Federal law WON
  5. Constitution lost, State law WON
  6. Federal law lost, State law WON
  7. Law WON, Individual lost (procedural)
  8. Law lost, Individual WON(procedural)
DEMOCRATIC -- One way of classifying these is that 1,2, and 3 are Anti-Democratic, Dictatorial, in that the most local democratic law lost, 4,5 and 6 are Democratic in that the most local government won, and 7 and 8 are probably best not categorized in this way.

FEDERALIST -- Another way to classify these is that 2,3 and 1? are Anti-Federalist, National, and 5, 6, and 4? are Federalist

Previously discussed in Activist: Constitutionist , Simplicity , Corporate , Social control

Level of "Discovery"

Another topic is the level of discovery that it is "reasonable" to do with respect to a Supreme court appointment

  1. Criminality -- Is the Judge a criminal now, or has he been in the past?
  2. Qualifications -- Is the Judge educated enough, smart enough, experienced enough to serve? -- Note: There has been some disagreement as to whether a judge should be rejected if he is not highly qualified, e.g.: a) Not approved by the AMA, b) We need judged for the common man {TBD}
  3. Judicial Style -- How does the judge decide cases, Based on a Dead Constitution, a Living Constitution, or? based on a set of core moral principals?
  4. Moral leaning -- What is the morality of the judge, e.g. Conservative, Liberal, Religious, Atheist, Fundamentalist, Weak Christian, Jew, Moslem, etc? -- In general, there seems to be a conscientious that we do not admit to considering these, as well as those below, in the approval process, though if a judge seems to, or is suspected as likely to, generally decide according his leanings or positions, then it is probable that these will be explored and considered regardless of the profession to the contrary.
  5. Positions --How would a judge decide on specific "hot" button issues? -- Abortion, Disabled, Free Enterprise, Gay, Gender, Race, etc. Certainly there are people, groups, etc. that either feel strongly about certain issues or are willing to use these issues to further their addenda.
  • Personality and History. -- Is the Judge a nice person, do lots of other people like him, did he rise from the low class... -- This is either stated, in general by his supporters, or criticized as the "politics of personality" if it is negative. (Note: I am not sure where this should be in the aboee list)
In general the people who feel that the Judge should be confirmed state that only the first few should be considered and were in the past, where as those who might oppose the Judge or the nominator tend to explore more of these levels.

Also see: Judgments , Activist , Candidates ...


C-Span ^f"Roberts" (June 19, 1997, How the Supreme court works)
Resources on the Web (SctNomination)

Offical Supreme court site

Oyaz site > podcasts > Roberts > [feedback]

FindLaw Citation Search
    U.S. = e.g. 410 U.S. 113.


Post a Comment

<< Home