• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California's chief justice leaves GOP; cites Kavanaugh confirmation to Supreme Court

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,573
Reaction score
9,427
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From FOX News

California's chief justice leaves GOP; cites Kavanaugh confirmation to Supreme Court

The chief justice of California’s Supreme Court announced that she quietly left the Republican Party over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told CALmatters on Thursday that she made her decision to re-register as a no-party voter following Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation hearings.

“You can draw your own conclusions,” she said.

COMMENT:-

OK, not really a big deal, but it does highlight something that puzzles me.

In Canada, not only would a Provincial Chief Justice NOT make such an announcement, but no one would pay any attention to it if they did. In fact, it is "standard practice" (i.e. something that is almost universally done, even though there is no legal requirement to do it) that, in Canada, ALL judges resign from ALL political parties immediately upon accepting a judicial appointment and, after that, take absolutely no part in political party affairs (nor do they comment on them in public).

What puzzles me is "Why is it preferable to have judges, who are supposed to make apolitical decisions based solely on what the law IS, that are openly political rather than not?". Can anyone answer that question for me?

If you were involved in a legal dispute, which would you prefer to be hearing your case:


  1. a judge who makes their decision based on what the law IS rather than what they think the law SHOULD BE; or
  2. a judge who makes their decision based on what they think the law SHOULD BE rather than what the law IS?
  3. NOTE - You are NOT given the option of "a judge who makes their decision based on what they think the law SHOULD BE - provided that the judge thinks that the law SHOULD BE is the same as what you think the law SHOULD be - rather than what the law IS.

 
Top Bottom