monomial wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:31 pm

SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:39 pm This is all new, and a bit of shock to those of us who live under the Westminster system
At the heart of this system is the concept of the separation of powers between the three branches of government: .
Hence the politicisation of the Judiciary just does not play out anything like it does it does in USA.

Of course some politics, and personal political prejudices, do come into play. But i don't think it could seriously be argued that in this system the judiciary is as politicised to any where near the degree that it is in the USA.

A sincere and respectful question - What do our american friends (and allies) see as the advantage of their system of appointing the judiciary according to such obviously partisan practices?

(edited for brevity)

Confused about your statement. How is the British system any different from the American one? The American system is taken almost directly from the British. You are telling me you think high court judges from the UK are completely unbiased?

Judges in the US are supposed to be completely removed from politics as well. There is no effective difference between the systems. The difference is simply in current cultural division....

.....(edited as the rest not relevant to this particular issue, ie the judiciary)

'Apologies, I don't know if i can help you further with your confusion, Monoto.
I thought i outlined quite clearly some of the differences
I did also say that politics do come into play under the british system (although less than USA)

The US system is not a replica of the British system even though it did stem from it. eg
- we don't elect judges.
- we don't have political leaders "stacking" the bench for obviously ideological/political reasons.
- we dont have highly charged discussions in the media and all over town on who should get the job on the basis of their ideology.

If you don't agree that the US system is more politicised, fine
or even think that politisation of the appointment process is a good thing - fine again.
But it is not because there is no difference in the systems 'cos obviously there is.

ps, nb, please note, i'm not looking for either an argument or to trash any system.
just maybe hoping for a discussion and the features and merits of each system..

as Biden said ( and Ruth asked for )
Let the people elect a president, let the president select a Judge, let the senate confirm.

Do we really need rush this? The next judge will set the tone for the next few years at the least

Great idea ...

Except....

More than likely it will turn into a disputed election result. With large numbers sending in absentee ballots by mail, there may be no resolution - not just of the president, but all the election results for a while.

Al Franken initially lost the race on Minnesota in 2008 by 215 votes to Coleman. He then sued for a recount and allowing 953 rejected absentee ballots. Franken then won by 312 votes. This is out of 2.4 million votes cast in the race.

In the 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court finally settled the recount dispute in Florida. Florida had been recounting votes multiple times due to law suits. The Supreme Court allowed the final vote certification to stand, and to Bush went the 25 electoral votes and thus the 271 necessary to win the election.

The Supreme Court will most likely be called to declare the winner of this presidential election, as well as other contests. With a split court of 4-4, it will be impossible to decide the winner.

And thus no president will be elected - possibly for months or years. As well as determining the outcome of House and Senate races. So no congressman or senators for months or years. Without an executive or legislative branch, the US government will cease to function.

So a full court is needed. Starting with deciding the results of this election.

Just my humble opinion.

khmerhamster wrote:Really? The supreme court will simply vote along party lines? Not following their interpretation of law?
Is that really how it is in USA? I can't understand that...​

They follow their interpretation of the law. Some interpret the law as written, and others believe in what the law should mean, the spirit of the law. If you say that this means party lines, then the entire world works on party lines.

The confirmation process used to whether a person was competent to be a justice. Nowadays nominees are deeply probed about their beliefs and even told how to vote on certain issues by various senators.

What part of this now highly partisan process is confusing?

SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am

monomial wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:31 pm

SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:39 pm This is all new, and a bit of shock to those of us who live under the Westminster system
At the heart of this system is the concept of the separation of powers between the three branches of government: .
Hence the politicisation of the Judiciary just does not play out anything like it does it does in USA.

Of course some politics, and personal political prejudices, do come into play. But i don't think it could seriously be argued that in this system the judiciary is as politicised to any where near the degree that it is in the USA.

A sincere and respectful question - What do our american friends (and allies) see as the advantage of their system of appointing the judiciary according to such obviously partisan practices?

(edited for brevity)

Confused about your statement. How is the British system any different from the American one? The American system is taken almost directly from the British. You are telling me you think high court judges from the UK are completely unbiased?

Judges in the US are supposed to be completely removed from politics as well. There is no effective difference between the systems. The difference is simply in current cultural division....

.....(edited as the rest not relevant to this particular issue, ie the judiciary)

'Apologies, I don't know if i can help you further with your confusion, Monoto.
I thought i outlined quite clearly some of the differences
I did also say that politics do come into play under the british system (although less than USA)

The US system is not a replica of the British system even though it did stem from it. eg
- we don't elect judges.
- we don't have political leaders "stacking" the bench for obviously ideological/political reasons.
- we dont have highly charged discussions in the media and all over town on who should get the job on the basis of their ideology.

If you don't agree that the US system is more politicised, fine
or even think that politisation of the appointment process is a good thing - fine again.
But it is not because there is no difference in the systems 'cos obviously there is.

ps, nb, please note, i'm not looking for either an argument or to trash any system.
just maybe hoping for a discussion and the features and merits of each system..

Completely different.

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

Before this appointments 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. It was considered that the appointment process was open to the criticism that a member of the government should not have the sole responsibility for appointing judges. It was also considered that judges were appointed in the image of existing judges rather than solely on merit from a pool of widely drawn eligible candidates.

Despite the criticisms levelled at it the former method of appointment in fact worked rather well. Candidates were selected on merit, there was no question of any political consideration being involved, and the Lord Chancellor usually acted on the advice of the senior judiciary, who were in a position to identify able practitioners. Selection was, however as critics pointed out, from a rather narrow pool and this did nothing for the diversity of the judiciary.

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judi ... jud-appts/

Alex wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:34 pm

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:20 am The Supreme Court will most likely be called to declare the winner of this presidential election, as well as other contests. With a split court of 4-4, it will be impossible to decide the winner.

That's not how it works. Each individual disputed result might end up in court, that court will make a decision and that decision can be appealed. If the case - finally - ends up at the Supreme Court, there will or there won't be a majority to overturn the lower court's decision. If the Supreme Court is split, that simply means that the lower court's decision in that individual case will stand.

The sum of all those undisputed results and disputed results resolved by court decisions, with or without Supreme Court involvement, will determine the winner.

That's a robust system that has proven to work - as long as all parties submit to the rule of law.

Which means that both sides will be venue shopping for the lower level federal appeals courts most likely to side with them when they bring cases. To some degree, this will be limited by region. They won't be able to bring a challenge in Florida, for example, in a court in California. However, where a challenge would be allowed anywhere, it will be brought in an area where the court bias is predominantly in their favor.

This is the hazard of not having a final, national court of appeals to hear a case of universal consequence. You risk that one section of the country submit to the opinion of a court in an entirely different region. Under normal circumstances, that might even be reasonable. In today's atmosphere, that will only inflame the situation.

You can argue that a tied SCOTUS is not the same as no SCOTUS, and you would be correct. But somehow I doubt the average person on the street is going to see it that way. This has the potential to break up the country.

Why are some people consistently Mis-spelling her name as RGB?
Is this some kind of Q code?

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:45 am as Biden said ( and Ruth asked for )
Let the people elect a president, let the president select a Judge, let the senate confirm.

Do we really need rush this? The next judge will set the tone for the next few years at the least

-------------------------

I'm not Trump supporter and have little use for McConnell (nor Schumer for that matter). I'd also point out that the people did elect a President. They also elected a Senate. Its quite clear that with Ginsberg's passing the president nominates a replacement and the Senate can either confirm or reject said nomination.

Public institutions are supposed to work all the time. Not just during some "quiet period" when the politicians are supposedly paying attention to doing work as opposed to running for office. If people are outraged by the choice they can flood the polls and vote out all the Republicans.