Judicial Ethical Stance and Limiting Generic Enumerated Rights

I don't want a judge, who because of a certain ethical stance, will make a ruling that is exceptional or definitional in nature which solidifies a right in an extremely limited manner.

For example, I want justices who will make rulings as to the case law body that exists, instead of the specific case presented. Instead of applying a definitional ruling to define, say pornography, as being definitionally valid so that a ruling that agrees with the judge's ethics or morals can be decided as the judge could personally agree with. I don't want a judge who will declare that if you refuse to promote a blue skinned person because you want diversity, then promoting an orange skinned person is always valid because that is the ruling definitions of race/poverty/ access/ affirmative action that the judge personally agrees with. Because, if they do rule in such a way, then they are establishing that the right to fair opportunity in workplace promotion no longer applies equally to people with blue skin or orange skin.

Instead, such rulings create a measurement of rights that are applied on situational basis, instead of legal principle. Most of the "bad" rulings that people complain about are rulings that are done in this fashion. Instead of ruling on pornography as being definitionally explicit, the court ruled in a way consistent with case law and also in such a way that pornography could be effectively regulated. That is the type of ruling required. People who make pornography, watch pornography, ignore pornography, hate pornography all were equally served by the United States Supreme Court in this matter.

What is dangerous in a ruling is when the court decides to limit explicit rights and enumerated rights. Any time you declare that no white or hispanic firefighters with demonstrated objective assessments of their tested abilities have a right to promotion when you are declaring that since blacks have less quantitative representation they are constitutionally qualified to be promoted beyond the abilities of their peers or even the merits of their own abilities, you have defined that EEOC law does not apply to a certain class of people.

Bad ruling and it weakens the EEOC as legislative law because it specifically circumnavigates the requirements of the law, so that a judge's personal ethics or morals can be assuaged.

It is stunning to see people declaring Obama's nominee Mrs. Sotomayor is qualified because she is willing to rule on ethics and morals. If it was enough reason to disqualify Bork- who was and remains by far one of the nation's leading Constitutional Law scholars, then it should disqualify her.

If in order to justify your ruling you must also restrict the generic rights of all, and you also see nothing wrong with doing this on ethical or moral grounds OR heaven forbid because you personally feel that your wisdom goes beyond others because of ethnic background, then maybe you should recuse yourself from the bench.

Leia Mais…