Supreme Court Justice Scalia found dead
Discussion
JagLover said:
In the UK parliament listened to the concerns of voters and legalised abortion up to 28 weeks (later reduced to 24 weeks in 1990 except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman or there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality). There are occasional debates over whether that threshold should be reduced but abortion is hardly a pressing issue in the UK.
In America the Supreme Court imposed it by twisting the Constitution to suit their needs and abortion has been one of the key issues dividing left and right in the so called "culture wars". If wikepedia is any guide only 34% of Americans are satisfied with their abortion laws.
I know what process I think is preferable and it is rule by the people not the oligarchy.
That's where we disagree. I see it as adhering to the principles, not twisting them. So it sits within that acceptable elastic band of scope.In America the Supreme Court imposed it by twisting the Constitution to suit their needs and abortion has been one of the key issues dividing left and right in the so called "culture wars". If wikepedia is any guide only 34% of Americans are satisfied with their abortion laws.
I know what process I think is preferable and it is rule by the people not the oligarchy.
I think current UK and US systems have quite the oligarchy feel about them, but I also feel it isn't anything to do with the station of the judiciary in the governance.
There is a risk that the GOP will nominate Trump or one of the other nutty candidates. If that happens, the chances of a Democrat victory will be enhanced, as moderate Republicans are unlikely to back Trump et al. The race will be closer if the GOP chooses one of its more sensible candidates. Sanders is doing well in the Democratic race, but I reckon that Clinton will win it. She's a divisive figure, but probably electable.
The politicisation of the Federal judiciary in the US is a bad thing, but it has happened, probably because of the toxic partisan politics of the US legislature. This article explains some of the problems.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/sca...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/sca...
Breadvan72 said:
“conservative” and “liberal” judges voting reliable on party lines (though the “liberal” ones are the most prone to overriding states' rights) and this is supposed to be the supreme arbiter overriding the will of the people.There is hope though that democracy may eventually triumph as seen in the growing popularity of state wide referendums over such issues as the legalisation of Cannabis.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 16th February 11:31
Breadvan72 said:
The politicisation of the Federal judiciary in the US is a bad thing, but it has happened, probably because of the toxic partisan politics of the US legislature. This article explains some of the problems.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/sca...
This also highlights the problemhttp://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/sca...
politico said:
Justice Scalia was a polarizing figure for many reasons. Not least was the reality that he had been educated, socialized, and appointed in a vastly different time. Justices nominated and vetted a generation ago may be ill-equipped to rule on same-sex marriage, strong encryption, and other matters.
Any judge significantly qualified in the constitution should be able to judge on any current issue according to that constitution.Unless you amend it (which has been done 27 times) that constitution doesn't change.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 16th February 11:17
Limited terms? A generation, 25 years? A one-shot deal, you do your term and then you're out.
I think congress needs something similar. Also something to prevent dynasties.
edit.
read the two articles, and both these.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ju...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/...
Seems the idea of fixed term is shared. The US constitution though, it's blessing it that it is written and that it is also it's curse. Fettering a society as it moves forward.
I think congress needs something similar. Also something to prevent dynasties.
edit.
read the two articles, and both these.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ju...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/...
Seems the idea of fixed term is shared. The US constitution though, it's blessing it that it is written and that it is also it's curse. Fettering a society as it moves forward.
Edited by Halb on Tuesday 16th February 11:10
unrepentant said:
If only 34% are happy it's because many on the left would like the law to be more liberal. Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago and it's time that the religious right got the f
k over it and moved into the 21st Century.
If it had been left to the individual states some would have stricter rules, some would have laxer and others might have much the same. I would suggest that satisfaction with those rules would be far higher however.k over it and moved into the 21st Century. Since the foundation of the USA we have witnessed a massive power grab by the centre at the expense of the states. The supreme court has been a part of that, including on many aspects that under the principle of subsidiarity should be decided on a more local level.
JagLover said:
unrepentant said:
If only 34% are happy it's because many on the left would like the law to be more liberal. Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago and it's time that the religious right got the fk over it and moved into the 21st Century.
If it had been left to the individual states some would have stricter rules, some would have laxer and others might have much the same. I would suggest that satisfaction with those rules would be far higher however.k over it and moved into the 21st Century. Since the foundation of the USA we have witnessed a massive power grab by the centre at the expense of the states. The supreme court has been a part of that, including on many aspects that under the principle of subsidiarity should be decided on a more local level.
t crazy right wing loons and they need reigning in. The state I live in has a ludicrous republican ahole as Governor and given free reign he'd make George Wallace look enlightened. Abortion was settled at a federal level and that should be the end of it. I'd suggest that 34% are happy because they don't think about it, 41% would like to see the rules relaxed and more freedom given to choice and 25% are batst crazy Christian republicans who think rape and incest is "God's will".Breadvan72 said:
There is a risk that the GOP will nominate Trump or one of the other nutty candidates. If that happens, the chances of a Democrat victory will be enhanced, as moderate Republicans are unlikely to back Trump et al. The race will be closer if the GOP chooses one of its more sensible candidates. Sanders is doing well in the Democratic race, but I reckon that Clinton will win it. She's a divisive figure, but probably electable.
Who are these "sensible republican candidates" of whom you speak? Rubio who thinks that abortion should be illegal even where the woman has been raped by her father or the entire 82nd Airborne? Jeb Bush who thinks that we should be executing more, not fewer people? Ted Cruz? Ben Carson? The only moderately sane person running for the GOP is John Kasich and he has no chance.Sanders has no traction outside the North East and he does not appeal to African Americans amongst whom Hillary is very popular. He'll get trounced in the South. Hillary will beat whoever the GOP eventually put up. Ignore the 40 states that are already decided and look at the swing states. In 2012 there were 11, Obama carried them all bar one and most of them by a margin of more than 5%. It's difficult to see a path to the White House for a moderate republican, let alone the whack job that will likely emerge from the primary mess they are now in.
unrepentant said:
Who are these "sensible republican candidates" of whom you speak? Rubio who thinks that abortion should be illegal even where the woman has been raped by her father or the entire 82nd Airborne? Jeb Bush who thinks that we should be executing more, not fewer people? Ted Cruz? Ben Carson? The only moderately sane person running for the GOP is John Kasich and he has no chance.
Sanders has no traction outside the North East and he does not appeal to African Americans amongst whom Hillary is very popular. He'll get trounced in the South. Hillary will beat whoever the GOP eventually put up. Ignore the 40 states that are already decided and look at the swing states. In 2012 there were 11, Obama carried them all bar one and most of them by a margin of more than 5%. It's difficult to see a path to the White House for a moderate republican, let alone the whack job that will likely emerge from the primary mess they are now in.
I agree with your point on "sensible Republicans" being absent, though the old Nixon line to "run hard right to be nominated, revert to centre to be elected" is an issue. The problem is that the ultra-extreme rightist like Cruz seem to make the merely extreme rightists like Rubio seem more moderate. However, it seems to me that Trump just might win the nomination, and would then run to right. Trump vs Clinton?...Sanders has no traction outside the North East and he does not appeal to African Americans amongst whom Hillary is very popular. He'll get trounced in the South. Hillary will beat whoever the GOP eventually put up. Ignore the 40 states that are already decided and look at the swing states. In 2012 there were 11, Obama carried them all bar one and most of them by a margin of more than 5%. It's difficult to see a path to the White House for a moderate republican, let alone the whack job that will likely emerge from the primary mess they are now in.
In the political atmosphere of the US, it is just possible that Trump could win. Clinton is clearly competent but fails the barbecue test. Like Cruz, she is just not likeable. Bit of the Al Gore problem when the dimwitted Bush won (let's assume) based on being a good ol' boy and not a pointy-headed intellectual.
The guy that does scare me is Rubio. Cruz will never be electable, but if Rubio gets traction on the later primaries he the big money will be there for him. He is just about as rightist as Cruz but with a softer delivery. My wife is American and generally independent ( voted Bush 1,Clinton,Gore, Obama) and will vote Clinton.
RDMcG said:
unrepentant said:
Who are these "sensible republican candidates" of whom you speak? Rubio who thinks that abortion should be illegal even where the woman has been raped by her father or the entire 82nd Airborne? Jeb Bush who thinks that we should be executing more, not fewer people? Ted Cruz? Ben Carson? The only moderately sane person running for the GOP is John Kasich and he has no chance.
Sanders has no traction outside the North East and he does not appeal to African Americans amongst whom Hillary is very popular. He'll get trounced in the South. Hillary will beat whoever the GOP eventually put up. Ignore the 40 states that are already decided and look at the swing states. In 2012 there were 11, Obama carried them all bar one and most of them by a margin of more than 5%. It's difficult to see a path to the White House for a moderate republican, let alone the whack job that will likely emerge from the primary mess they are now in.
I agree with your point on "sensible Republicans" being absent, though the old Nixon line to "run hard right to be nominated, revert to centre to be elected" is an issue. The problem is that the ultra-extreme rightist like Cruz seem to make the merely extreme rightists like Rubio seem more moderate. However, it seems to me that Trump just might win the nomination, and would then run to right. Trump vs Clinton?...Sanders has no traction outside the North East and he does not appeal to African Americans amongst whom Hillary is very popular. He'll get trounced in the South. Hillary will beat whoever the GOP eventually put up. Ignore the 40 states that are already decided and look at the swing states. In 2012 there were 11, Obama carried them all bar one and most of them by a margin of more than 5%. It's difficult to see a path to the White House for a moderate republican, let alone the whack job that will likely emerge from the primary mess they are now in.
In the political atmosphere of the US, it is just possible that Trump could win. Clinton is clearly competent but fails the barbecue test. Like Cruz, she is just not likeable. Bit of the Al Gore problem when the dimwitted Bush won (let's assume) based on being a good ol' boy and not a pointy-headed intellectual.
The guy that does scare me is Rubio. Cruz will never be electable, but if Rubio gets traction on the later primaries he the big money will be there for him. He is just about as rightist as Cruz but with a softer delivery. My wife is American and generally independent ( voted Bush 1,Clinton,Gore, Obama) and will vote Clinton.
I agree about Rubio, he's dangerous because he is a quiet extremist and is superficially electable. I think Hillary would eat him for breakfast though. Crazy as it may sound Romney would probably be their best bet right now and he's a terrible candidate! The Nixon adage is all well and good but it did for Romney last time and also for McCain in 08. I still think a moderate McCain / Lieberman ticket with sensible McCain / Lieberman policies would have won in '08. McCain got pushed to the right and in the end it cost him.
I add that I wish that the UK could join the US so we could all get a vote! I am only half kidding.
As for the Constitution, it shouldn't be treated as though graven in stone. Originalism fails to recognise that, as societies change so their ground rules must change with them. The common law moves with the times (sometimes it takes a while to catch up), and the interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be rooted in the past.
As for the Constitution, it shouldn't be treated as though graven in stone. Originalism fails to recognise that, as societies change so their ground rules must change with them. The common law moves with the times (sometimes it takes a while to catch up), and the interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be rooted in the past.
Breadvan72 said:
I add that I wish that the UK could join the US so we could all get a vote! I am only half kidding.
As for the Constitution, it shouldn't be treated as though graven in stone. Originalism fails to recognise that, as societies change so their ground rules must change with them. The common law moves with the times (sometimes it takes a while to catch up), and the interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be rooted in the past.
So why not amend it?As for the Constitution, it shouldn't be treated as though graven in stone. Originalism fails to recognise that, as societies change so their ground rules must change with them. The common law moves with the times (sometimes it takes a while to catch up), and the interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be rooted in the past.
It has been amended 27 times after all. At least then it is a decision of the voters not unelected judges changing it according to their own personal preferences.
RDMcG said:
Bit of the Al Gore problem when the dimwitted Bush "won" (let's assume) based on being a good ol' boy and not a pointy-headed intellectual.
That was a dilemma, a tie. I hope there isn't another judicial decision on who gets to be US Prez!Sanders v Trump, I can foresee it on my magic 8-ball.
Halb said:
That was a dilemma, a tie. I hope there isn't another judicial decision on who gets to be US Prez!
Sanders v Trump, I can foresee it on my magic 8-ball.
Well .how about a 4-4 Supreme Court decisions when the GOP refuse the confirmation hearings for the Scalia replacement?...Sanders v Trump, I can foresee it on my magic 8-ball.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff