Nordling said:That's getting a bit silly, don't you think? When we talk about biases, we're not talking about peoples' normal affinities, we're talking about blatant disregard for human rights, e.g. That's not just a simple bias, to me that should eliminate you from being allowed on the Supreme Court...a position you hold for life.
If a person publicly admits he hates blondes, e.g., for whatever reason, he is showing himself to not be of the stature that we as a people desire for that high office.
Dog catcher? Sure...maybe even a city councilman. But certainly not someone who makes life and death decisions for the entire country.
By the logic of your post, no one should be refused a seat on SCOTUS. I can't believe that's what you really mean.
No, it's not. What I'm trying to say is, if the law is what is used to make the decisions, and not personal bias or beliefs, then the decisions made should be more or less agreeable (if said law is actually something worth using as a reference, that is).
Even with the Defense of Marriage Act (effectively banning gay marriage), a normally ultra conservative judge (which meant the GOP hoped he would rule in favor of DOMA) found it to be unconstitutional based solely on the law. And this is the same guy who thinks lawyers working pro-bono hurts society and that corporations don't need to be held liable under human rights conditions (both of which I think are ludicrous). The judge probably hates LGBTs, but found that the law made the banning of them getting married unconstitutional.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... ted-judge/