US Politics Thread

[Koniec]

Could not agree with you more. All your points are just right.
At least we can hope that when it comes back to SCOTUS and Trump is long gone, the maga justices come to their senses and rule against immunity.
In the meantime, writers, lawyers and others must pressure the court with articles, letters, TV programmes etc ensuring that they are aware of the huge weight of feeling that what they doing is just wrong.
I am British but a Republican. I always cite the US and We The People as the shining example of a constitution. Thus, I am very cross with SCOTUS entertaining the idea of immunity.

Have you looked at other Republics constitutions? Not being a smart arse, but generally curious.

 

[KS55]

Have you looked at other Republics constitutions? Not being a smart arse, but generally curious.

Yes; the German constitution, for example, written by the UK has features of power dispersal to stop dominance, the French is bonkers giving too much power to the President and too little to the parliament, the Irish had to change theirs to accommodate the GF Agreement as they were still operating on the illegal constitution of de Valera.
After that, Western Europe is a bit thin on democratic republics unless you count Italy, which I know little about.
The one good thing about the British constitution is that it is uncodified common law and can be flexed as society changes. It is largely not unwritten as so many commentators mistakenly say, see Act of Habeus Corpus and the Bill of Rights on which the European Human rights declaration, the UN Declaration and many parts of the US constitution are based.
Note Magna Carta can still be sited in US courts, but not British courts.

 

[KS55]

That feeling should have gone in 2000 when the SC stole the election from Gore. The rot set in then

Maybe, a close run thing. I always felt Gore gave in too easily. You can’t beat a hanging chad to see how ridiculous the law sometimes is.

 

[KS55]

Perhaps then there is no point to a SCOTUS where the separation of powers has been subverted by partisan appointments by the other branches of the balance of power.

Action lower down would be more fruitful eg Voting rights, jerrymandering. If those abuses were eliminated, the Republicans would never have a majority at Federal level without major policy changes.

 

[Koniec]

Yes; the German constitution, for example, written by the UK has features of power dispersal to stop dominance, the French is bonkers giving too much power to the President and too little to the parliament, the Irish had to change theirs to accommodate the GF Agreement as they were still operating on the illegal constitution of de Valera.
After that, Western Europe is a bit thin on democratic republics unless you count Italy, which I know little about.
The one good thing about the British constitution is that it is uncodified common law and can be flexed as society changes. It is largely not unwritten as so many commentators mistakenly say, see Act of Habeus Corpus and the Bill of Rights on which the European Human rights declaration, the UN Declaration and many parts of the US constitution are based.
Note Magna Carta can still be sited in US courts, but not British courts.

Checks out, had to re check the polish one, got a hit much God in it. Ffs.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Action lower down would be more fruitful eg Voting rights, jerrymandering. If those abuses were eliminated, the Republicans would never have a majority at Federal level without major policy changes.

Agree - But at the federal level, the Electoral College acts to give way too much power to swing states, disenfranchising the majority.

 

[KS55]

Agree - But at the federal level, the Electoral College acts to give way too much power to swing states, disenfranchising the majority.

Yes, the college has had its day. Total popular vote needed, but you can see the right kicking against that.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Maybe, a close run thing. I always felt Gore gave in too easily. You can’t beat a hanging chad to see how ridiculous the law sometimes is.

Yeah, but democratic systems rely on politicians accepting they have lost and accepting judicial rulings. Without those two you're in trouble.

Yes, the college has had its day. Total popular vote needed, but you can see the right kicking against that.

Kick back is putting it mildly. The right in America are now openly corrupt and happy tobuse violence and intimidation.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Yes, the college has had its day. Total popular vote needed, but you can see the right kicking against that.

Who was the last Republican president that won the popular vote? Bush v Kerry in 2004? I think it’s happened once in 35 years.

Heaven forbid the Republicans might have to actually moderate their stance to stand any chance of actually winning.

 

[Blue and true]

The Justices lending credence to Sauer's belief that a president should be immune from prosecution because it can affect the legitimacy of the presidency is a dangerous precedent. Where does it end? All senators to be immune? What about lowlier civil servants?

Sizeable can of worms, which the Supreme Court need to have the good sense not to open.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Perhaps then there is no point to a SCOTUS where the separation of powers has been subverted by partisan appointments by the other branches of the balance of power.

One of many reasons why the USC is a pile of wank. The whole system is based on arbitrary vacancies being filled by placement. Small time and tin pot.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

One of many reasons why the USC is a pile of wank. The whole system is based on arbitrary vacancies being filled by placement. Small time and tin pot.

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

Yep. Been saying this for months but it seems to agitate the natives. Dont see why, some realism is needed

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

It’s the inevitable consequence of a working constitution that has barely changed in two and a half centuries. It’s actually insane the reverence this document commands when it is plainly no longer fit for purpose.

How can anyone justify a system that by weight of happenstance a particular President (who didn’t even win the popular vote) can load the judicial dice in his favour and change the balance of power in relation to the interpretation and application of law, for a generation?

If a country was being formed today, and someone came up with that as a suggestion for the constitutional framework, they’d be roundly mocked.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

It’s the inevitable consequence of a working constitution that has barely changed in two and a half centuries. It’s actually insane the reverence this document commands when it is plainly no longer fit for purpose.

How can anyone justify a system that by weight of happenstance a particular President (who didn’t even win the popular vote) can load the judicial dice in his favour and change the balance of power in relation to the interpretation and application of law, for a generation?

If a country was being formed today, and someone came up with that as a suggestion for the constitutional framework, they’d be roundly mocked.

The best you can say is that it was a great constitution for the 1770s. Probably a hundred years ahead of its time in many ways. You could say they almost did too good of a job, leading to their work being revered instead of revisited as they intended.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Yep. Been saying this for months but it seems to agitate the natives. Dont see why, some realism is needed

It agitates the natives because you bitch and moan and offer no alternatives.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

It agitates the natives because you bitch and moan and offer no alternatives.

The alternative is to stop the SC from being so political, I make the point clearly. And stop local judges from being affiliated with either political party and being elected along party lines

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The best you can say is that it was a great constitution for the 1770s. Probably a hundred years ahead of its time in many ways. You could say they almost did too good of a job, leading to their work being revered instead of revisited as they intended.

Seems like it’s worked okay for a bit longer than that. But — I agree about revisitation, which is why I object to strict constitutionalist judicial interpretations and tend to prefer activists, or pragmatists.

The alternative is to stop the SC from being so political, I make the point clearly. And stop local judges from being affiliated with either political party and being elected along party lines.

How do you do that? Ensure 100 percent non-political impartiality? And plenty of local judges aren’t elected or affiliated with political parties — it depends on the state.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It’s the inevitable consequence of a working constitution that has barely changed in two and a half centuries. It’s actually insane the reverence this document commands when it is plainly no longer fit for purpose.

How can anyone justify a system that by weight of happenstance a particular President (who didn’t even win the popular vote) can load the judicial dice in his favour and change the balance of power in relation to the interpretation and application of law, for a generation?

If a country was being formed today, and someone came up with that as a suggestion for the constitutional framework, they’d be roundly mocked.

Because the SYSTEM WORKS ON TRUST.

It absolutely baffles me how the lot of you cannot for the lives of you figure out that rogue actors abuse public trust. EVERYWHERE. In EVERY nation. In ALL forms of government.

You keep blaming the system instead of blaming the ACTORS. Trump and his ilk are the ultimate bad faith actors — far and away the worst the nation has ever seen. They make Nixon and his cronies look like parking scofflaws. They are the exception, not the rule.

Does the system fail if the actors aren’t rogue, if they work in the best interest of the public in perception and reality? No, or it hasn’t done.

It’s more insidious when comes to the SC, granted. But they aren’t gonna live forever either, which means the laws they interpret will have different interpretations under different justices some day. As it ever was.

I understand the frustration. I am frustrated. But you think the problems are structural. Maybe some are but that is NOT the root cause of what has happened here. It is motherfucking rogue actors. And by fixating on the “broken” system you in part absolve them of THEIR responsibility.

Get your heads back in the game, y’all.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Because the SYSTEM WORKS ON TRUST.

It absolutely baffles me how the lot of you cannot for the lives of you figure out that rogue actors abuse public trust. EVERYWHERE. In EVERY nation. In ALL forms of government.

You keep blaming the system instead of blaming the ACTORS. Trump and his ilk are the ultimate bad faith actors — far and away the worst the nation has ever seen. They make Nixon and his cronies look like parking scofflaws. They are the exception, not the rule.

Does the system fail if the actors aren’t rogue, if they work in the best interest of the public in perception and reality? No, or it hasn’t done.

It’s more insidious when comes to the SC, granted. But they aren’t gonna live forever either, which means the laws they interpret will have different interpretations under different justices some day. As it ever was.

I understand the frustration. I am frustrated. But you think the problems are structural. Maybe some are but that is NOT the root cause of what has happened here. It is motherfucking rogue actors. And by fixating on the “broken” system you in part absolve them of THEIR responsibility.

Get your heads back in the game, y’all.

To be fair, the current 'system' has allowed the recent crop of rogue/bad actors to flourish. It desperately needs fixing, but I fear it may be too late. Bush v Gore should have been the trigger for change, but that ship sailed and the opportunity was missed.