-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
05 Jan 2016, 2:44 pm
hacker
After all, treaties require 2/3, why shouldn't judicial nominations?
You'd end up with all kinds of vacancies if one party or the other decided to be obstructionist. I wonder if that could ever happen?
Why is it hard to comprehend how judicial appointments could be made by a senior panel of jurists based upon peer review of candidates experience, record and educations?
Neutrality, at least it can be achieved if professional standards are gauged by the accomplished peers.
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
06 Jan 2016, 5:08 am
I admit it sounds appealing to do so--in theory. But in practice, it would prove in the US, at least, to be just as obstructionist as what you're proposing and vacancies would drag on, just as you seem to be expressing concern for.
Ricky, what you call obstruction is a natural danger, in a democracy, anything you try to do, there will be somebody trying to stop you from doing it. I know what you're saying about obstruction--you've made your position on that clear a number of times, however shakily. But, raising the bar to 2/3 would require the president to reach across the aisle to get the support of BOTH parties for a candidate.
And besides, judges aren't supposed to be faceless bureaucrats are they?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
06 Jan 2016, 6:27 am
hacker
I admit it sounds appealing to do so--in theory. But in practice, it would prove in the US, at least, to be just as obstructionist as what you're proposing and vacancies would drag on, just as you seem to be expressing concern for
Well, I can prove that a 60 vote requirement in the Senate can be obstructionist...because it is . Now. So 2/3 would be worse.
The judicial vacancies problem has reached crisis point with more than one-third of the current 103 vacancies in the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the District Courts have existed for at least 18 months. The Judicial Conference, the policy making body of the federal judiciary, has designated these vacancies as “judicial emergencies.
”
http://www.fedbar.org/Advocacy/Judicial ... Sheet.aspxWhat evidence do you have that what I'm proposing would lead to obstructionism.?
hacker
And besides, judges aren't supposed to be faceless bureaucrats are they?
Who says? If they rule in their courts with neutrality and precision, and neither seek out nor find themselves in the glare of publicity for their actions ...i think that would be a good thing.
And who says they should be political hacks making decisions based on their popularity with the electorate rather than the facts in a case. (Which is what politicizing the courts leads to in some cases. There is little more jarring to a foreigner than seeing US television commercials for judicial candidates at election time. )
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
06 Jan 2016, 7:28 am
You have some valid points I'll admit. I'm not saying the idea has no merit. I still disagree with it.
You don't see election campaign commercials for judges at the federal level, ricky, isn't that mostly what we're talking about?
Can you guarantee me that having some sort of council of judges to appoint judges, instead of a legislative/executive compromise, would be faster? I don't see how.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
06 Jan 2016, 12:29 pm
hacker
Can you guarantee me that having some sort of council of judges to appoint judges, instead of a legislative/executive compromise, would be faster? I don't see how.
I don't see how any system could be slower than one where there is obstruction to appointments to the point where there is an impasse.As there is in the US.
Here's two systems described in links below: They are bureaucracies. so perhaps the process grinds slowly and thoroughly. But there are few vacant positions in either the UK or Canada, compared to the crisis in the US. Do you accept this as evidence that a judicial commission could work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... Commissionhttp://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/appointments-n ... s-eng.html
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
06 Jan 2016, 3:35 pm
Americans always have a hard time understanding this kind of thing because they can't comprehend how any aspect of public administration could be independent of party politics. This is because in the US everything is political. By contrast, we always struggle to get to grips with a system where absolutely every significant post is filled by either party placemen or directly elected officials.
Personally I think our system is better. How can elected judges possibly work ? Don't get me wrong, I often have huge issues with the decisions taken by our judiciary (particularly so in my line of work) and sometimes find myself wishing there were some public accountability there. At the end of the day though, I'm also aware that the overwhelming majority of voters won't ever be aware of any rulings that a judge makes and also won't have any kind of legal expertise which would allow them to make an informed choice come election time. As such the elections are going to be a farce.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
07 Jan 2016, 6:49 am
sass
As such the elections are going to be a farce.
The recent re-election of Roy Moore to chief Justice in Alabama would represent the epitome of the farce..
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
08 Jan 2016, 8:41 am
JimHackerMP wrote:Can you guarantee me that having some sort of council of judges to appoint judges, instead of a legislative/executive compromise, would be faster? I don't see how.
Faster is less the issue, but being bogged down by poltical consideration rather than judicial ones is.
A standing commission can become quite efficient, and remember that over time they will see potential candidates who can be shortlisted again for later vacancies.
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
08 Jan 2016, 4:39 pm
It's an intriguing idea, really. Just hardly a realist one. It seems likely to me that the reason you guys do it the way you do is because doing it our way--compromise between executive and legislative branches--is an option unavailable in a parliamentary democracy. Almost like you were forced to choose that constitutional alternative.
Do you really think American politicians would go for it? That's the thing. We have to be realists about this. What's a realistic expectation in this matter.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
09 Jan 2016, 9:39 am
hacker
It's an intriguing idea, really. Just hardly a realist one. It seems likely to me that the reason you guys do it the way you do is because doing it our way--compromise between executive and legislative branches--is an option unavailable in a parliamentary democracy. Almost like you were forced to choose that constitutional alternative
The electoral commission in the UK is only about a dozen years old. If you read the responsibilities of the commission it is clear that power has been given up in order to establish a system with integrity.
In Canada until 1951 a house of Commons committee dominated by the majority party drew electoral boundaries was responsible for elections.
Several authorities on the subject have documented the history of the process up to the 1960s. In effect, there were no rules to guide the exercise. In the words of Professor Norman Ward (1967, p. 107), the process was a “freelance operation in which any rational boundary drawing was likely to be the result of coincidence or accident.” Professor Terence Qualter (1970, pp. 99–100) identified four informal “rules” which parliamentarians seemed to have followed in those days, namely: if the number of seats had to be reduced in a given area, 1) retain the incumbents' districts; 2) eliminate the districts of members who were not going to run again; 3) reduce the seats of minority parties; and 4) if there was strong pressure to increase representation in heavily populated areas, increase the size of the House rather than reduce the representation in rural areas.
The research done on this period reveals a considerable amount of political influence on the readjustment process prior to the 1960s. This was often referred to as “gerrymandering,” a term used to describe the manipulation of riding boundaries so as to ensure, as far as possible, the re-election of the members of the governing party.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... ep2&lang=eSo the independent commissions grew
despite the fact that ruling parties had control. They were willing to give up that power in order to establish a system in which everyone could have confidence was fair.
I can't figure where you get the notion that there is compromise going on in the US system. If there was compromise there wouldn't be gerrymandering...
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
09 Jan 2016, 10:07 am
There is still compromise, Ricky. Unfortunately, it's with other politicians with the motives of perpetuating their power. (Common in democracies as well as in dictatorships: as Chancellor Palpatine put it: all those who gain power are afraid to lose it [even the Jedi].)
What I would wonder is, how would we convinced these politicians that it's in their best interests, and in the interests of their power, to end the corrupt practice of gerrymandering?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Jan 2016, 3:46 am
JimHackerMP wrote:It's an intriguing idea, really. Just hardly a realist one. It seems likely to me that the reason you guys do it the way you do is because doing it our way--compromise between executive and legislative branches--is an option unavailable in a parliamentary democracy. Almost like you were forced to choose that constitutional alternative.
Nope. It used to be determined by Parliament (see the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts) and we had parliamentary democracy then.
And as Parliamentary democracy means the executive are part of the legislature, everything parliament does ends up being a compromise between the two branches.
What the difference is, frankly, is that we have built over time a reputation for the administrative functions as not being partisan. It is not perfect, but the politicians are told to butt out.
Do you really think American politicians would go for it? That's the thing. We have to be realists about this. What's a realistic expectation in this matter.
Politicians go for what seems popular. You need to get the people on side and the politicians will follow.
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
12 Jan 2016, 1:05 pm
Good point. And the Reform Acts did that? Got the politicians out of government?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
12 Jan 2016, 1:28 pm
JimHackerMP wrote:Good point. And the Reform Acts did that? Got the politicians out of government?
No. They were examples of major reforms of constituencies and boundaries that were carried out within Parliament, before we moved to having boundary commissions etc.
What they did do was increase the franchise by lowering the property requirements, abolish the "rotten boroughs" which had very small electorates and could easily be controlled by landowners, and created more boroughs to cover areas which had been urbanised but had no real representation (such as Manchester and Birmingham).
My point was that improvements to the electoral system were made by our politicians, even though it directly affected many of them. They followed popular campaigns for reform, which pushed for more (and with the Chartists in the 1840s) grew to very large and worrying proprlortions for the government. While reform did not directly result from the public campaigns, they were a major long term factor.
What I see is that in the US so many people have already decided that there is no point urging for reform because the politicians won't do it. But if it is not urged, they definitely won't.
-
- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
12 Jan 2016, 1:38 pm
a rather depressing idea. You use the word "gerrymandering" and most people's eyes glaze over or they have no clue what you're talking about. But most of the more politically-aware are aware that it's a problem. Especially here, the most gerrymandered state of the union, people bitch about it sometimes. Then again, Governor O'Malley's proposed gerrymandering that's now in effect was challenged by a petition campaign, which forced it--under our constitution--to be submitted to the voters. Who promptly approved it in the last state election.
