Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gerrymandering: Another Good Supreme Court Decision
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 38 (761506)
07-02-2015 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by vimesey
07-02-2015 6:34 AM


I'm not sure there can be any introduction of any element of election of the judiciary (directly or through political appointment), which can be achieved whilst keeping it ruthlessly independent of the legislature/executive.
How else is the position filled?
Rock-paper-scissors?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 6:34 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 7:15 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 38 (761574)
07-02-2015 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by vimesey
07-02-2015 7:15 AM


We went with a Judicial Appointments Commission - an independent body set up to deal with judges' appointments.
So you're saying they use the political appointment option.
Okay.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 7:15 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 07-03-2015 1:29 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 38 (761613)
07-03-2015 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by vimesey
07-03-2015 1:29 AM


We have institutions which are part of the public administration over here, and which are independent of politics.
At this point I have no idea what the hell you mean by 'politics' because in every sane understanding of the idea 'institutions which are part of the public administration' are definitely political.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 07-03-2015 1:29 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 07-03-2015 7:57 AM Jon has replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2015 12:49 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 38 (761623)
07-03-2015 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by vimesey
07-03-2015 7:57 AM


I think you should review the definition of 'politics', because I have no idea where you're drawing the line.
If you only mean to say that the system doesn't tend to play the party game, you could have just said that
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 07-03-2015 7:57 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by vimesey, posted 07-03-2015 11:54 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 38 (761639)
07-03-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2015 12:49 PM


Well, they're the same thing, so...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2015 12:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2015 2:51 PM Jon has replied
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2015 3:00 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 38 (761661)
07-03-2015 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Theodoric
07-03-2015 2:51 PM


So air traffic controllers are a political position?
No, because they aren't involved in running the government.
Surely you have a dictionary sitting around somewhere, or, you know, just speak English.
Do you see the problem with your reasoning?
Since the 'problem' was one you created by trying to imply my reckoning classifies air traffic controllers as politicians, no, I see no problem with my reasoning.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2015 2:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2015 10:01 PM Jon has replied
 Message 23 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2015 1:19 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 38 (761662)
07-03-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tangle
07-03-2015 3:00 PM


If you're point is that judges are appointed by people, you're correct. Otherwise you don't appear to have one.
My point is that judges (the real ones, not the ones who judge talent shows) are political officials.
The world where we can separate off a portion of the government and pretend it isn't part of the government is the world where pigs fly on invisible pink unicorns.
The UK has a different system of filling its political positions than the US, but that doesn't mean that the positions or the process of filling them are any less political.
Really, this shouldn't even be an argument. Why vimesey is so opposed to applying the term 'political' to his judges just baffles the hell out of me.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2015 3:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 1:54 AM Jon has replied
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2015 3:06 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 38 (761667)
07-03-2015 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2015 10:01 PM



Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2015 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 38 (761685)
07-04-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
07-04-2015 1:54 AM


People routinely use political in the way discussed here. For example we might say that one decision or another of the Supreme Court was made on a political basis rather than on the basis of the merits of the case.
Sure; and after we agreed that that was the way in which vimesey was using the term (see Message 14), we were both ready to drop the issue.
That Dr Adequate, Theodoric, Tangle, and now you want to start a new argument has no bearing on the first discussion, which was settled several posts ago.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 1:54 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 38 (761686)
07-04-2015 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
07-04-2015 3:06 AM


In the UK the judiciary are completely independent of government.
Really?
How do they enforce their judgements then?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2015 3:06 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 12:42 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 38 (761704)
07-04-2015 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
07-04-2015 12:42 PM


Why does the 'executive branch' (which is just a fancy way of saying 'the people with the guns') do what the judiciary says?
And what do we call it when they don't?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 12:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 1:38 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024