Re: USA Govt Cannot Stop Death

Big Dog wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:40:44 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Big Dog wrote:

We live in a society run by judges, not three co-equal government
branches, and cheered on by much of the population and the media.

Better Judges than congresscritters.


Now that is supremely anti-democratic. You want the unlimited term
unaccountable people to be on top? Yes, you do. 


They are not electorally accountable, but they are
accountable in terms of case law and peer
review. Case/common law and peer review are
what matters, anyway.


Once a judge is sitting on the bench he does not have to spread his legs any more, like those whores in Congress. Judges don't have to be popular. They just have to avoid bad behaviour. 


And they are completely the antithesis of a democracy.  Many people do
like that, since many people prefer to be told what they may do,
instead of expressing their will through the vote.  It always amazes
me when a person who sounds intelligent places his faith in an
institution that has become completely unaccountable, while
accumulating final power over the entire population and government.



In the sense that a goalie has final power over a hockey game.
They're really the final arbiter naturally - if a case is brought
to them which contradicts the meat of the law while
remaining politically beautiful, they chop it down.

In those few cases where it has gone badly, the context
was always some sea change - Dred Scott with slavery,
some of the more activist 20th century T. Marshall stuff -
and it always seems to converge on The Right Solution.

I wonder if the reason the voter turnout in the US is notoriously so
low is simply because the voters realize that the real rulers of the
nation do not have to answer to the people at the voting box.  And you
think this is good.  How anti-democratic.


The People are not technically trained to do that job. Even the
elected officials display phenomenal ignorance of the Constitution,
possibly for the same reason.

And besides, we're a federal hybrid. Not pure dmeocracy. It's
not a plebiscite.


Remember, judges command legislatures to raise taxes, because programs
they like are not funded at the level they want. Judges command the
executive to do what they want, because the judge believes that the
people were stupid is passing a referendum they voted on. 


That's not necessarily SCOTUS, but dewds like Barefoot
Sanders. I dunno the details there either, but
comedy is always a possibility in power, regardless of
architecture. The Barefoot Sanders things were also to
an extent "States Rights" hissing contests, which got
somewhat outta control.

Ultimately, the judges are constrained by law, or
they can be brought up on judicial misconduct.

You anti-democrats cheer as the judges defy the rest of the government
and the people, but have you considered the consequences? Are you so
subservient to power that you will always bow down to these judges, or
do you think it possible that some group may attain power, installing
judges who disagree with you? 

Do you only call them tyrants if you disagree with them?


Gad, no. I'm generally in favor of some sort
of meritocracy or aristocracy-of-competence, tho'.

I don't have an answer, really. I perceive that
what we have now works pretty well, and I suspect
that it working well is the main interest of everybody
involved.

Compared to what's possible in the *electoral*
sphere, judicial oddities seem outright tame.

As for your assertions of judicial purity, are you sure of that?  Have
you ever actually checked to see some evidence?  Like how rich are
judges before they become judges, and how much money do they have
after a few decades as a judge?  How do you know.  Did the judges tell
you they were honest, and you believed them.  How anti-democratic.


Judges are the classical musicians of law, not its
rock stars. You are right; it would bear some
fact finding. I, unfortunately, do not know how
to find out.

Thanks,
Big Dog


--
Les Cargill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lack of faith and trust:
    ... When judges tell juries: "The court will ... really means the judge will decide, and deciding what the law is, is ... expressly prohibited from legislating. ... Inherent in "sovereignty" is the power to legislate, i.e., to decide ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Lack of faith and trust:
    ... When judges tell juries: "The court will ... really means the judge will decide, and deciding what the law is, is ... expressly prohibited from legislating. ... Inherent in "sovereignty" is the power to legislate, i.e., to decide ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: OT - The Twilight of Freedom of Speech
    ... Abolish FISA ... A Congressional power grab, using judges as a cudgel. ... In short, the larger political battle over wiretaps is over, and the President ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Anwar on "The Rule of Law and Judicial Independence".
    ... The Rule of Law and Judicial Independence ... Hence the rule of law means the exercise of publicly justifiable power. ... Court judges then. ... travesty of justice. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: interesting sunday school discussion...
    ... judges had discretion within broad ... I don't know quite what it is, in the statement that cogge paraphrases ... >> The difference is that juries are not trained in the law and have no ... but they don't have the power to change it. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)