Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gerrymandering: Another Good Supreme Court Decision
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 1 of 38 (761497)
07-01-2015 11:08 PM


Supreme Court Backs Arizona's Redistricting Commission Targeting Gridlock : The Two-Way : NPR
By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court has decided that "the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around". Guess who were the four dissenting justices. It's not difficult.
They're on a roll. Well, a majority of them are on a roll. The others are choking on their bitter tears, which is perfectly fine with me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 2:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 2 of 38 (761501)
07-02-2015 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-01-2015 11:08 PM


I've been reading with interest the posts on here relating to SCOTUS decisions.
Over in the UK, our judiciary isn't elected (although there have been calls for it to be, on occasion). We emphasise the importance of the separation of powers, more than we do individual accountability of the judges to the people. So we get occasional idiot judges, whose decisions can be influenced by their prejudices, being somewhat unaccountable for their decisions (though the more egregious examples do result in them being quietly retired). On the other hand, they don't end up being the politically partisan institution represented by SCOTUS - effectively, a third legislative body.
I wonder whether a middle ground is possible. I suspect not.
Edited by vimesey, : Spelling

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 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2015 11:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2015 3:30 AM vimesey has replied
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 7:16 AM vimesey has replied

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


Message 3 of 38 (761504)
07-02-2015 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by vimesey
07-02-2015 2:51 AM


Vimesey writes:
wonder whether a middle ground is possible. I suspect not.
I think our system actually IS the middle ground. Our judiciary is properly independent of government and has a very intricate system of appeals that act as a back stop for the worst individual judgements and provide precedent to prevent future errors.
But it is still responsible to the people through parliament - if it changes the law, the judges are required to follow it even if they personally disagree with it.
We also have European law sat on the top of the lot - which I think is generally very good for us, tho' not without its own problems.

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 2 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 2:51 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 6:34 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 4 of 38 (761505)
07-02-2015 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tangle
07-02-2015 3:30 AM


In many ways, much of what we do is the middle ground, having had several centuries of compromise and political evolution, rather than a moment of single creation (ok, in the US case, several moments, with the various amendments).
I was looking more at the contrast between a completely independent judiciary, separated from the politics of the executive and the legislature; and a judiciary which is elected and/or the result of political appointment. 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.
My personal preference is for judicial independence, but I understand that it can rankle with those who cannot accept an authority which isn't formally accountable to a public vote. I do see judicial authority as distinct from political authority, however.

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 3 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2015 3:30 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-02-2015 6:53 AM vimesey has replied

  
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

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


Message 6 of 38 (761507)
07-02-2015 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
07-02-2015 6:53 AM


We went with a Judicial Appointments Commission - an independent body set up to deal with judges' appointments.
(Slower than rock paper scissors, but a better outcome on the whole).

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 5 by Jon, posted 07-02-2015 6:53 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 07-02-2015 7:30 PM vimesey has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 38 (761508)
07-02-2015 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by vimesey
07-02-2015 2:51 AM


Over in the UK, our judiciary isn't elected (although there have been calls for it to be, on occasion).
Just to be clear, in the US, judges on the state and local level are elected while federal judges are appointed by the federal executive with Congressional oversight.
In some jurisdictions the state and local elections are partisan, while in others the judges have no party affiliations.
On the other hand, they don't end up being the politically partisan institution represented by SCOTUS - effectively, a third legislative body.
Again in the US, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president and vetted by Congress. The presidential appointment is accepted a very high percentage of the time, but the Justices are not elected.
How does the UK prevent the justices in their highest courts from becoming partisan. How is the Independent Commission chosen?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 2 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 2:51 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by vimesey, posted 07-02-2015 7:34 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 8 of 38 (761509)
07-02-2015 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
07-02-2015 7:16 AM


Thank you for the info NoNukes - that's helpful.
How does the UK prevent the justices in their highest courts from becoming partisan. How is the Independent Commission chosen?
The process relies very heavily upon professionalism, and a deep-rooted belief in the value of independence amongst the legal profession. There have been judges who, over the years, have probably pushed the envelope a little in the direction of their own personal morality - Lord Denning was well known for being pretty diligent in digging up obscure law to support those he felt were less powerful than their opponents - but central to any judge's views is the need for ruthless independence from politics. It's an ingrained, professional view.
Add to that, we have a reasonably large number of senior judges who are entitled to sit on the Supreme Court's hearings, and they get swapped around from case to case (partly on the basis of their expertise, and partly randomly).
The independent commission, having initially been set up by statute, partially self-selects, through interview - and accepts 20% of its membership through nomination by the judiciary itself. There must be a non-lawyer included in the commission, who is a member of the public.

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 7 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 7:16 AM NoNukes has not 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

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


Message 10 of 38 (761605)
07-03-2015 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
07-02-2015 7:30 PM


No.
We have institutions which are part of the public administration over here, and which are independent of politics. It's an extremely effective part of our 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 9 by Jon, posted 07-02-2015 7:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 7:29 AM vimesey 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

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


Message 12 of 38 (761615)
07-03-2015 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jon
07-03-2015 7:29 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.

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 11 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 7:29 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 11:37 AM vimesey has replied
 Message 27 by caffeine, posted 07-04-2015 6:23 AM vimesey 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

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


Message 14 of 38 (761627)
07-03-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
07-03-2015 11:37 AM


The use of the word political to refer to the politics of politicians is by a long stretch the most common use of the word in the UK. My apologies if it's more commonly used in its classical sense in the States.

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 13 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 11:37 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 15 of 38 (761633)
07-03-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jon
07-03-2015 7:29 AM


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.
No, they're governmental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 7:29 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 07-03-2015 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has 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