45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)
Discussion
djc206 said:
A healthy democracy challenges every single decision, action or comment made by its leader....
And that viewpoint is fine when it is done in a democratic manner within the realms of elected politicians and free votes. Edited by djc206 on Monday 27th January 23:42
the problem is you need to stay within the limits of the political system otherwise you end up with mob rule cults causing paralysis and mouth breathers like Gina Miller, the SNP and James Comey trying to use the power of the courts to fiddle with the democratic process.
The democrats need to refocus on running the country and running the 2020 election campaign. Cannily, this is a similar problem affecting the SNP.
Democracy is a balance. Elections are only part of the system. Courts and the application and adherence to laws is another vital element - and a MASSIVE part of that is the political leaders knowing and understanding that laws apply to them too - and knowing that they will be prosecuted if they abuse those laws.
Even if the majority of the public do not mind that a leader breaks the law, the law is still supreme. Of course, if the majority of the public don't like a particular law, then the democratic process can be used to change that law. Until then, the law stays in place and needs to be respected - by everybody.
Even if the majority of the public do not mind that a leader breaks the law, the law is still supreme. Of course, if the majority of the public don't like a particular law, then the democratic process can be used to change that law. Until then, the law stays in place and needs to be respected - by everybody.
Carl_Manchester said:
And that viewpoint is fine when it is done in a democratic manner within the realms of elected politicians and free votes.
the problem is you need to stay within the limits of the political system otherwise you end up with mob rule cults causing paralysis and mouth breathers like Gina Miller, the SNP and James Comey trying to use the power of the courts to fiddle with the democratic process.
The democrats need to refocus on running the country and running the 2020 election campaign. Cannily, this is a similar problem affecting the SNP.
The courts and the law are a key part of a democracy.the problem is you need to stay within the limits of the political system otherwise you end up with mob rule cults causing paralysis and mouth breathers like Gina Miller, the SNP and James Comey trying to use the power of the courts to fiddle with the democratic process.
The democrats need to refocus on running the country and running the 2020 election campaign. Cannily, this is a similar problem affecting the SNP.
The courts can’t fiddle with the democratic process unless the democratic processes aren’t conducted to the letter of the law. You’ve bought into Trumps and some Brexiteers bulls
t about the courts undermining democracy failing to appreciate that they are actually enforcers not usurpers.The democrats need to do both. They all swore oaths to protect and uphold the constitution, they are doing that. If it backfires at the election then at least they can sleep at night knowing they tried to do the right thing.
Carl_Manchester said:
And that viewpoint is fine when it is done in a democratic manner within the realms of elected politicians and free votes.
So impeachments, votes of no confidence and the courts aren't part of a healthy democracy?Right, got it.
We get to vote once every 4-5 years and must swear blind allegiance to whatever happens in the interim.
What utter nonsense.
walm said:
Carl_Manchester said:
And that viewpoint is fine when it is done in a democratic manner within the realms of elected politicians and free votes.
So impeachments, votes of no confidence and the courts aren't part of a healthy democracy?Right, got it.
We get to vote once every 4-5 years and must swear blind allegiance to whatever happens in the interim.
What utter nonsense.
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process, it is an implied assumption by the opposing view that judges are not biased but evidence suggests that they are because they are a product of whomever places them there.
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
Carl_Manchester said:
the problem is you need to stay within the limits of the political system otherwise you end up with mob rule cults causing paralysis and mouth breathers like Gina Miller, the SNP and James Comey trying to use the power of the courts to fiddle with the democratic process.
Your grasp on reality could only ever be described as tentative, but of all the utter bilge you've posted, that takes the biscuit, by a country mile!Top trolling!
Carl_Manchester said:
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process
So you'd prefer some sort of process where elected representatives judge the criminality or behaviour of the president, rather than a judge? As opposed to the current impeachment sham that the dems are running?Carl_Manchester said:
You are entitled to your view but my view is different, i believe that the current trend for the use of courts/legalese in politics is anti-democratic.
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process, it is an implied assumption by the opposing view that judges are not biased but evidence suggests that they are because they are a product of whomever places them there.
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
So, are you saying that politicians do not have to follow the law?My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process, it is an implied assumption by the opposing view that judges are not biased but evidence suggests that they are because they are a product of whomever places them there.
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
That is the implication of your comment. That is a massively, massively dangerous and downright foolish stance to take.
Part of our disenchantment with politicians is that we often feel that they do not abide by the same rules and laws that the rest of us mere mortals do - one law for us, one law for them etc.
So, your solution to this disenchantment is to make it even EASIER for politicians to ignore rules.
_dobbo_ said:
Carl_Manchester said:
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process
So you'd prefer some sort of process where elected representatives judge the criminality or behaviour of the president, rather than a judge? As opposed to the current impeachment sham that the dems are running?
Carl_Manchester said:
You are entitled to your view but my view is different, i believe that the current trend for the use of courts/legalese in politics is anti-democratic.
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process, it is an implied assumption by the opposing view that judges are not biased but evidence suggests that they are because they are a product of whomever places them there.
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
Does the FBI not suffer from the same bias you accuse the courts of having?My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process, it is an implied assumption by the opposing view that judges are not biased but evidence suggests that they are because they are a product of whomever places them there.
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
Actually the US courts system is terrible anyway because of the way Supreme Court Justices are appointed. That there’s a movement to try and keep RBG alive until the Dems have control of the White House again to save the SCOTUS being completely overrun with troglodytes says it all.
pinchmeimdreamin said:
_dobbo_ said:
Carl_Manchester said:
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process
So you'd prefer some sort of process where elected representatives judge the criminality or behaviour of the president, rather than a judge? As opposed to the current impeachment sham that the dems are running?Tallow said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
_dobbo_ said:
Carl_Manchester said:
My position would be to argue in favour of political constitutionalism rather than legal constitutionalism on the basis that judges can inflict too much bias into the process
So you'd prefer some sort of process where elected representatives judge the criminality or behaviour of the president, rather than a judge? As opposed to the current impeachment sham that the dems are running?Eric Mc said:
So, are you saying that politicians do not have to follow the law?
There is no issue with the rule of law.The problem is the Judiciary system which gets involved. Politicians have to follow the law, the point is whether the court system can/should be used as a weapon by politicians for adversarial litigation against one another where there may be bias implied
by a single judge who is not an elected representative of the people.
The politicians job (one job anyway) is to help form consensus and pass law, the courts job is to help enforce the law. What we are seeing in the USA and the UK is judicial meddling where it is not warranted (the first major example was Wade vs Roe 1973).
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is legal constitutionalism in action, the FBI are not elected by the people but they will use judges and the system to enforce the constitution. The problem is that Comey himself implicated bias in this decision making process and this is why the opposing viewpoint to your ‘very dangerous’ remarks is that it is also very dangerous to allow unelected people to enforce the constitution without strong political oversight.
The answer to all this is simply consensus, allow the politicians to be elected and held accountable with some level of transparency, give the information to the FBI, let them take a view on it and let them work within the law to bring a case separate from the politicians.
As we saw when Clinton was done over, this transparent due process does not happen during impeachment, don’t like it? change the law.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff