American Politics Discussion Thread

[T-hawk]

Changing the laws is a valid position (and of course they are often politically motivated) - but you are talking about the legislative process, not about Trump's possible response.

You (Jowy) didn't answer the question - are you going to consider it stealing if Trump wins by way of lawfully counted votes?

[Charriu]

Changing the laws is a valid position (and of course they are often politically motivated) - but you are talking about the legislative process, not about Trump's possible response.

Assuming the you here am I. Of course its the legislative process. Jowy mentioned "Undermine democracy" here

We don't get CNN here in Finland Thanks for answering.

I suppose since Republicans already perform voter suppression, it isn't really going to make a Republican voter bat an eye if they find other ways to undermine democracy.

I see no mention of Trump together with "Undermine democracy" there only towards Republicans.

[Jowy]

Changing the laws is a valid position (and of course they are often politically motivated) - but you are talking about the legislative process, not about Trump's possible response.

You (Jowy) didn't answer the question - are you going to consider it stealing if Trump wins by way of lawfully counted votes?

What's "lawful?" Let's look at what we discussed before:

1) Trump appoints henchmen to Supreme Court to get majority
2) Trump loses the election
3) Trump wants to throw out all mail-in votes (largely Democrat votes) to get him the lead
4) Trump's henchmen in the Supreme Court rule it in favor of Trump.

I suppose that's lawful. Is it democratic? Is it morally right? No and no.

[T-hawk]

It is democratic. The Supreme Court justices got there by lawfully following Constitutional procedure, not by being anyone's "henchman". If Democrats didn't want those particular justices, they should have won more senatorial elections.

You can argue the Senate itself is undemocratic because of the skewed population weighting, which is a valid position, but again that's an argument about the legislative structure and nothing to do with Trump or this election. The Senate is doing exactly what it is designed to do, protect the interests of smaller states against the mob of the bigger.

[Mjmd]

I mean henchmen when only 51 votes are required vs 60 is pretty close. Your basically saying anytime one party wins the senate and the president they can put a justice on that will make ruling for multiple administrations that have more recent votes for them than ones 20 years ago. To be fair, I'm positive Democrats won't switch this back even though its in the interest of an unbiased judiciary.

I had asked this question earlier, but is there any good example internationally of a non biased court system and if so how do they do it?

[AdrienIer]

That it is lawful and brought about by democratic means doesn't mean it doesn't undermine democracy. What happened in the past 20 years in Turkey and Hungary is a good example of that : through legal, democratic processes, these countries have undermined their democracies so much that they barely belong in the "democracy" column now. If you believe in democracy you cannot let your country go in such a direction.

And both times it was done by one leader supported by an institution (a major party) that seeked to have full control of the country. The republicans are currently doing the same thing. What may save the US is that their leader is so incompetent and obviously unfit that he'll be thrown out of office on those merits alone.

[Jowy]

It is democratic.  The Supreme Court justices got there by lawfully following Constitutional procedure, not by being anyone's "henchman".  If Democrats didn't want those particular justices, they should have won more senatorial elections.

You can argue the Senate itself is undemocratic because of the skewed population weighting, which is a valid position, but again that's an argument about the legislative structure and nothing to do with Trump or this election.  The Senate is doing exactly what it is designed to do, protect the interests of smaller states against the mob of the bigger.

If the problem is that you cannot vote, and the solution is to vote, is that really working?

Anyway good talk, I'll bow out now. I appreciate the civil discourse.

I had asked this question earlier, but is there any good example internationally of a non biased court system and if so how do they do it?

Well we have it here in Finland. Judges are required to be free of any outside influence that can affect their impartiality. The requirements are written in law. General requirements to be able to be a judge, and special requirements on case by case basis for the judge to be free of relationships that could affect their impartiality. Most judges are appointed by a commission of various levels of judges, an attorney, a prosecutor, and a representative of law education and research. I'm not an expert in the least, so here are some of the laws in English: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset...160673.pdf

Now my opinion is, is it possible to have a non biased court system that works even if all the people involved are bad people? I doubt it. Any system would have to rely on good people keeping checks and balances.

[Miguelito]

I mean henchmen when only 51 votes are required vs 60 is pretty close. Your basically saying anytime one party wins the senate and the president they can put a justice on that will make ruling for multiple administrations that have more recent votes for them than ones 20 years ago. To be fair, I'm positive Democrats won't switch this back even though its in the interest of an unbiased judiciary.

I had asked this question earlier, but is there any good example internationally of a non biased court system and if so how do they do it?

As the interent famously loves Germans lecturing everybody how they do things:

For our supreme court, half of the judges are appointed by the equivalent to the House (no 2 party system though) and the other by the federal council, which you could argue has the function of the Senate, but is appointed directly by the state governements and is representative of states' population, because of course we don't want a mob of small population states to rule over a larger total population in fewer states, that would be crazy ... Funnily, if we just gave every state 2 senators I think that would shift the whole thing very much to the left.

Now, each judge has to get a 2/3 majority in the respective chamber. So for most of the republic's history the conservatives and social democrats alternated with new judges; lately, as they don't get 2/3 in the federal council any longer, the greens get an appointment every now and then. Of course very controversial appointments are not possible under that system because the other party still has to vote for them.

Judges are appointed for a 12 year term, no reelection (meant to help their independence), or until they turn 68 (gotta hold back a snarky comment here). 

I don't know if we get a non biased court that way, it certainly has potential for bias towards the system that elected them. But there is very little controversy around them, the court is the most appreciated federal organ in public opinion, yet hardly anybody knows a judge by name. They have voted against the government several times, eg on civil rights restrictions, so there's that.

[Amicalola]

It is democratic.  The Supreme Court justices got there by lawfully following Constitutional procedure, not by being anyone's "henchman".  If Democrats didn't want those particular justices, they should have won more senatorial elections.

You can argue the Senate itself is undemocratic because of the skewed population weighting, which is a valid position, but again that's an argument about the legislative structure and nothing to do with Trump or this election.  The Senate is doing exactly what it is designed to do, protect the interests of smaller states against the mob of the bigger.

In the supreme court scenario right now, wouldn't it be more correct to argue that Trump and the senate are imposing the will of the minority (population of small states) onto the majority (population of large states)? That doesn't sound very democratic...

[AdrienIer]

Yeah in France the constitutional council (equivalent of the SC) is also for a limited time, one time only, 1/3 by the president 1/3 by the house 1/3 by the senate. Works ok, although not perfect of course.