Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 17 of 38 (761640)
07-03-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
07-03-2015 2:48 PM


So air traffic controllers are a political position?
Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 2:48 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:44 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 18 of 38 (761643)
07-03-2015 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
07-03-2015 2:48 PM


Jon writes:
Well, they're the same thing, so...
If you're point is that judges are appointed by people, you're correct. Otherwise you don't appear to have one.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 2:48 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:56 PM Tangle 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 38 (761663)
07-03-2015 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jon
07-03-2015 9:44 PM


No, because they aren't involved in running the government.
Nor are judges. Stop being silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 11:08 PM Dr Adequate has not 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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 23 of 38 (761669)
07-04-2015 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jon
07-03-2015 9:44 PM


Surely you have a dictionary sitting around somewhere, or, you know, just speak English.
Evidently, either the dictionaries are different or we read different.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:44 PM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 24 of 38 (761670)
07-04-2015 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
07-03-2015 9:56 PM


Jon, you are playing the buffoon yet again. I am sorry to say that for you such an observation is no longer of any particular note.
This is from vimsey's original post.
On the other hand, they don't end up being the politically partisan institution represented by SCOTUS - effectively, a third legislative body.
Clearly the issue here is partisan politics. If one insists that the judicial branch, which is indeed a government function, is of necessity a political function (something I find arguable[1]), then surely you can understand that such politics are not necessarily partisan.
And it is partisan politics and the possibility of eliminating that from the selection of judges that we've been discussing with vimsey ever since.
Everyone but you seems to be interested in the topic. You, of all the posters seems to insist that there is nothing to discuss.
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.
If your sole input here is to play language police, I would recommend that the other posters take that into account before they bother responding to your nonsense. The rest of us understand vimsey's point.
[1] As for the judicial function being of necessity political, by and large that is not the case. I don't expect politics to play into a land dispute between me and my neighbor or a guilty verdict on OJ Simpson. Maybe some people do call such functions politics, but such people are not using the word in the every day sense.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 07-04-2015 8:22 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 25 of 38 (761673)
07-04-2015 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
07-03-2015 9:56 PM


Jon writes:
My point is that judges (the real ones, not the ones who judge talent shows) are political officials.
Then you're just plain wrong.
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.
In the UK the judiciary are completely independent of government.
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.
Aprarently it does.
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.
That would be because judges are not the political appointees of government.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 9:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 07-04-2015 8:24 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 12:40 PM Tangle has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 26 of 38 (761674)
07-04-2015 5:43 AM


Quick question
I notice that Scalia was appointed by Reagan back in the day. Has SCOTUS always been the subject of political appointments, historically, or is this something which has occurred (or perhaps become more pronounced) more recently ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 07-04-2015 11:36 AM vimesey has not replied
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2015 1:15 PM vimesey has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 27 of 38 (761675)
07-04-2015 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by vimesey
07-03-2015 7:57 AM


The judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission have no involvement in politics, and the political parties have no control or influence over them. We don't identify our judiciary as conservative or liberal (or any other shade of political leaning). They aren't appointed by reference to their political views.
Nevertheless, they are one of the key institutions in the constitution. Public, yes - political, no.
This is a bit of a stretch. The important thing to point out is that the JAC has only been in existence for a decade. Prior to this, judges were appointed by the Chancellor, who is a member of the government and an unquestionably political figure. The Chancellor still has veto powers over many of the appointments of JAC including, most relevantly for the comparison with the US, Supreme Court Justices.
There is an attempt to introduce some independent and professional selection process into who gets to be a successful candidate for the position of judge in the UK, so the government cannot just appoint anyone they like, but it's clearly a fiction to pretend judicial selection is completely independent from the government and from political influence.
---------------------
In regards the wider, and slightly meaningless, dispute over terminology, we do use the word 'government' differently in the UK. It refers specifically to the executive - the legislature and the judiciary are not considered part of government.

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 28 by vimesey, posted 07-04-2015 6:45 AM caffeine has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 28 of 38 (761676)
07-04-2015 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by caffeine
07-04-2015 6:23 AM


Granted, the JAC is fairly recent, but even before then, the process operated in an independent manner, notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor's position.
This is an extract from a lecture given by Lord Phillips, one of our recent(ish) senior judges:
Before the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 we did not have an appropriate independent process for judicial appointments, which does not mean that those appointments were flawed. They were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor who was a government minister. The Lord Chancellor’s Department made its own enquiries as to the most eligible candidates. Often these had not even applied to go on the bench, in which case the Lord Chancellor did his best to persuade them to do so.
Nevertheless, in my time in the law there was no question of the Lord Chancellor being influenced by political considerations in his appointments. He set out quite simply to appoint those who would make the best judges. Appointments to the judiciary were largely based on consultation with that judiciary. They were based on the views that the judges had formed of the abilities of those who appeared before them.
We have rightly made matters more transparent with the JAC, but judicial independence from politics has been an ingrained part of our constitution for a very long time.
Another example is that whilst our senior appeals judges have always been members of the House of Lords, and technically entitled to take part in the legislative process, they have consistently abstained from all legislative functions, as a matter of constitutional propriety.
It hasn't always been as transparent as it ideally should have been, but judicial independence from politics has long been a central feature of the constitution.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by caffeine, posted 07-04-2015 6:23 AM caffeine 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024