Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A bo…
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.