Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Eu Referendum, In Or Out - Looks Like Blackburn Wants Out !

yoda

How will you vote on June 23rd  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union?

    • Remain a member of the European Union
      41
    • Leave the European Union
      37

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Steve Moss Champions League

Steve Moss

Posted
Posted

Great answer from Paul above. It is a similar story in the US. Once appointed politically (usually by the President for supreme court or governor for state) Judges are beyond reproach unless they are impeached. Impeachment is very rare and has nothing to do with public approval, it requires a judge to have comitted and be convicted of a crime.It has only happened once over 200 years ago.

No one has managed globally to figure out a system where judges can both be independent yet accountable to an electorate. Its a fundamental problem without a solution as far as I can see.

You are describing a portion of the federal system.

And the federal system courts are accountable to the President and the Congress. The Congress controls the purse strings. And the President and Congress can always add more justices to the Supreme Court, which was what FDR proposed when the USSC ruled against his administration a few times. The USSC then caved.

State systems vary greatly. For example, in Arizona we have two systems. Small county judges are elected. Large county and appellate judges are appointed after review from the Merit Commission. They then have to run for retention (i.e no opponent, just a yes or no on whether they should serve another term).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoda

yoda

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Today everyone's in debt in the Uk but is Germany and France ?

Who's right and who's wrong ?

I wish I could type in an Irish accent, ah well here goes.

It's not often your right but your wrong this time

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joey_big_nose World Cup

joey_big_nose

Posted
Posted

You are describing a portion of the federal system.

And the federal system courts are accountable to the President and the Congress. The Congress controls the purse strings. And the President and Congress can always add more justices to the Supreme Court, which was what FDR proposed when the USSC ruled against his administration a few times. The USSC then caved.

State systems vary greatly. For example, in Arizona we have two systems. Small county judges are elected. Large county and appellate judges are appointed after review from the Merit Commission. They then have to run for retention (i.e no opponent, just a yes or no on whether they should serve another term).

Great post, learned a lot.

I suppose the example of FDR is a electoral brake on supreme court power but interesting that no one has used it since?

I wonder what would happen if the new president tried to pack the supreme court to meet their agenda? I suppose it is feasible with wild cards like Cruz, Saunders and Trump? Is there literally no legal way this is preventable (presuming the President had control of the Congress)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAL World Cup

JAL

Posted
Posted

I wish I could type in an Irish accent, ah well here goes.

It's not often your right but your wrong this time

:D

Like amarilo pointed out earlier we don't know enough to be in a position to vote just spoon fed titbits.

What we do know is that the Transfer Atlantic trade agreement (TTIP) that Cameron negotiated on behalf of the EU with the US received the middle finger from France and Germany, no surprise there when the agreement allows companies from the US to be able to sue governments in Europe including the British government or even you or me.

Who would want that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Moss Champions League

Steve Moss

Posted
Posted

Great post, learned a lot.

I suppose the example of FDR is a electoral brake on supreme court power but interesting that no one has used it since?

I wonder what would happen if the new president tried to pack the supreme court to meet their agenda? I suppose it is feasible with wild cards like Cruz, Saunders and Trump? Is there literally no legal way this is preventable (presuming the President had control of the Congress)?

I believe it has been discussed a few times, but not seriously. It would take a no holds barred President backed by strong majorities in Congress to make it a real possibility. And so long as the USSC shows deference to the legislative branch and the President, there is no motivation to pack the Court. It would take a perfect storm before it became an issue again. But if it did, they could break the Court.

Which is one of several methods the judicial branch is checked by the legislative and executive branches at the federal level. Another check is that if a federal judge (short of the USSC) wants a promotion (ex. from a district court judge to an appellate court), the only method is appointment via the President (executive) and confirmation from the Senate (legislative). All in all, federal judges are fairly well fenced off from getting out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joey_big_nose World Cup

joey_big_nose

Posted
Posted
Being appointed is very different to being accountable to. Once in post a supreme Court judge can judge as he pleases outside of breaking the law. The one threat being - as Steve pointed out - that the President could pack the bench with more supporters. However to do that he would need to hold considerable sway over both houses and a major affront to convention.

Garland's nomination puts the GOP in an interesting position. If - like Steve - they are bullish about Trumps election prospects then delaying seems a sensible option. However a lot of people in the Republican party must have started having nightmares that Hillary will win easily and they lose control of the senate also as democratic turnout is boosted hugely by Trumps nomination. Then they could have a much more liberal appointee fostered upon them in 2017.

Dangerous times for the GOP. A lot of eggs are in a very volatile basket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Moss Champions League

Steve Moss

Posted
Posted

Agreed.

But keep in mind there is a Plan B. The Senate will likely remain Republican. If the nominee is too liberal, then the Republicans can hold the vote and simply vote No. This forces the President to send another.

The Dems did this to Robert Bork. So there is precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baz World Cup

Baz

Posted
Posted

Common sense would need to be applied and the rules relaxed on work permits for sportsmen.

As a country we'd have to completely re-write the rules on immigration, thats one of the keystones of the leave campaign, so for me its more nonsense from a campaign bereft of facts from either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.