U.S. Presidential Election 2020

[StefanAVFC]

This will never end.

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, sne said:

Wayne County

[villakram]

Isn't the real problem here that the "democratic" election process is explicitly controlled by 2 parties and then requires a partizan political body controlled by the same 2 parties to ratify/certify the results of said election. We get what is paid for.

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, villakram said:

Isn't the real problem here that the "democratic" election process is explicitly controlled by 2 parties and then requires a partizan political body controlled by the same 2 parties to ratify/certify the results of said election. We get what is paid for.

Absolutely, the system is a joke.

[Rolta]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

Isn't the real problem here that the "democratic" election process is explicitly controlled by 2 parties and then requires a partizan political body controlled by the same 2 parties to ratify/certify the results of said election. We get what is paid for.

I'm not sure that's the problem that jumps to mind first. 

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

Isn't the real problem here that the "democratic" election process is explicitly controlled by 2 parties and then requires a partizan political body controlled by the same 2 parties to ratify/certify the results of said election. We get what is paid for.

I can't get over that the politicians choose the senior Judges as well so they have the judiciary in their back pocket.  Along with Presidential Pardons the more I hear about America the more it seems half way to a Banana Republic. 

[mjmooney]

5 hours ago, sne said:

Well he's woken up again and has hit Twitter as per usual. Not happy about Wayne County as expected.

 

[NoelVilla]

There is a lot of problem with any system if there is children like Trump involved.

[il_serpente]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

I can't get over that the politicians choose the senior Judges as well so they have the judiciary in their back pocket.  Along with Presidential Pardons the more I hear about America the more it seems half way to a Banana Republic. 

How are judges chosen in the UK? 

In the US, Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate over here to supposedly take some of the partisanship out of it.   In reality, particularly in the past dozen years, the Republicans have used control of the Senate to prevent vacant positions in the federal judiciary from being filled at all under Obama and used control of the White House and Senate to pack the backlog of vacancies with right wing ideologues.  Not quite having them in their back pocket in terms of being able to get away with corruption, but certainly tilting the playing field so that their legislation and executive orders are likely to be upheld.

In states and counties, judges are often elected directly.   I hardly see this as an improvement on appointments with some degree of confirmation process, as judges can be beholden to campaign donors.   I'm curious if the UK has a process the addresses the obvious faults of both of these systems.

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, il_serpente said:

How are judges chosen in the UK? 

In the US, Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate over here to supposedly take some of the partisanship out of it.   In reality, particularly in the past dozen years, the Republicans have used control of the Senate to prevent vacant positions in the federal judiciary from being filled at all under Obama and used control of the White House and Senate to pack the backlog of vacancies with right wing ideologues.  Not quite having them in their back pocket in terms of being able to get away with corruption, but certainly tilting the playing field so that their legislation and executive orders are likely to be upheld.

In states and counties, judges are often elected directly.   I hardly see this as an improvement on appointments with some degree of confirmation process, as judges can be beholden to campaign donors.   I'm curious if the UK has a process the addresses the obvious faults of both of these systems.

It’s a non political commission that selects judges in the U.K.  (though technically it’s the Queen who signs off on it). 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

[sidcow]

7 hours ago, il_serpente said:

How are judges chosen in the UK? 

In the US, Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate over here to supposedly take some of the partisanship out of it.   In reality, particularly in the past dozen years, the Republicans have used control of the Senate to prevent vacant positions in the federal judiciary from being filled at all under Obama and used control of the White House and Senate to pack the backlog of vacancies with right wing ideologues.  Not quite having them in their back pocket in terms of being able to get away with corruption, but certainly tilting the playing field so that their legislation and executive orders are likely to be upheld.

In states and counties, judges are often elected directly.   I hardly see this as an improvement on appointments with some degree of confirmation process, as judges can be beholden to campaign donors.   I'm curious if the UK has a process the addresses the obvious faults of both of these systems.

They are chosen from within their own ranks as answered above. 

I guess you could argue the Judiciary could go rogue and the Government have little influence, but I would say the short term views of current Government's (especially populist ones) are more likely to start forcing corruption into the system than a bunch of highly respected judges who have worked their way up the Judiciary through years of performing their duties sensibly. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by sidcow

[cyrusr]

22 minutes ago, sidcow said:

They are chosen from within their own ranks as answered above. 

I guess you could argue the Judiciary could go rogue and the Government have little influence, but I would say the short term views of current Government's (especially populist ones) are more likely to start forcing corruption into the system than a bunch of highly respected judges who have worked their way up the Judiciary through years of performing their duties sensibly. 

This but yes and no.

Judges are picked by the Law Commission as what @LondonLax says which is made up of Judges, solicitors & barristers and lay people, though primarily Judges. Traditionally it has been more white male barristers (public school etc) that have been picked to be Judges but that is slowly changing for a more diverse selection.

Whether our judiciary could go rogue is possible, we saw it somewhat when the government tried to prorogue parliament last year. Under judicial review, you can (currently) challenge any executive decision (so government decision or Statutory Instrument). However if it is legislation (so an act of parliament) the Judges have to follow it.

As an example, if the government under their executive powers decreed that all fish must be sold with gravy, then the Judges, under Judical Review, could say that breached Human Rights for the same people and order injunctions/pay out etc. However, if the government went through parliament and made a law, say the “Fish with Gravy Act 2020” which made it a physical law of the country, whilst the Judges can still say “it’s not compatible” with common sense, they couldn’t actually do anything about it as they have to follow specifics of statute law. The government can then largely ignore it.

This is why the large Tory majority is dangerous and the suggestion of limiting Judicial Review in certain parts of their decision making, they can get away with doing what they like without any real consequence. It would significantly shift the power from both the Judiciary and Legislative (parliament) to the executive (government) and would you really want someone like Johnson and these Tories more power? 

Edited November 19, 2020 by cyrusr

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

This but yes and no.

Judges are picked by the Law Commission as what @LondonLax says which is made up of Judges, solicitors & barristers and lay people, though primarily Judges. Traditionally it has been more white male barristers (public school etc) that have been picked to be Judges but that is slowly changing for a more diverse selection.

Whether our judiciary could go rogue is possible, we saw it somewhat when the government tried to prorogue parliament last year. Under judicial review, you can (currently) challenge any executive decision (so government decision or Statutory Instrument). However if it is legislation (so an act of parliament) the Judges have to follow it.

As an example, if the government under their executive powers decreed that all fish must be sold with gravy, then the Judges, under Judical Review, could say that breached Human Rights for the same people and order injunctions/pay out etc. However, if the government went through parliament and made a law, say the “Fish with Gravy Act 2020” which made it a physical law of the country, whilst the Judges can still say “it’s not compatible” with common sense, they couldn’t actually do anything about it as they have to follow specifics of statute law. The government can then largely ignore it.

This is why the large Tory majority is dangerous and the suggestion of limiting Judicial Review in certain parts of their decision making, they can get away with doing what they like without any real consequence. It would significantly shift the power from both the Judiciary and Legislative (parliament) to the executive (government) and would you really want someone like Johnson and these Tories more power? 

Is there any way we can stop @blandy running for Parliament? 

[choffer]

Donald Trump is a genius. That’s what the J stands for. 
 

 

[sidcow]

It's pointless even trying to reason with people like that though isn't it. 

From this point on till the end of their day's they will always believe this has been a fix regardless of what evidence is put before them. 

[Davkaus]

That has to be satire. Surely?

[villakram]

So...

Seems the local election folks (R) here in Wayne have had a change of heart and are attempting to have their certification vote changed back to no.

[StefanAVFC]

I wonder why Republicans have concerns about counties of mostly black people and want to potentially disenfranchise them. I can't work it out. 

[LondonLax]

15 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

That has to be satire. Surely?

That was my first thought. Probably a sketch for a talk show. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I wonder why Republicans have concerns about counties of mostly black people and want to potentially disenfranchise them. I can't work it out. 

This is again, massively political. They refused the first time for the optics, then quickly reversed. They both know they have no legal way of refusing to certify at this point, so they're doing it for the optics.

'Brave Patriots stood up against widespread black voter fraud'

Sickening.