US Presidential Election 2012

I don't really think that rights should be the object of a "game", sorry. How many numbers you have shouldn't amount to jack shit when you're talking about other people's basic rights.

Also, I think that Britain's far more progressive track record on recent rights issues has far more to do with the lack of a politicized evangelical Christian lobby and the fact that even your conservatives would be decried as socialists in the U.S. than it does with the differences in the constitutional systems of our two countries.

I don't really think that rights should be the object of a "game", sorry. -Eldo

I think this is something fundementally different about our two nations. Something kind of appropriate given we are hosting the olympics.

The Uk gave the world organised sport. Its a very British thing. Its where a large group of people agree a set of rules with a small group (referress) and everyone agrees to abide by them. It is centred around in idea now called 'fair play.'
But its not a 'game' I am talking about, sport came out of the British sense of fair play, not fair play out of sport.
It runs right through people here. When Mrs Figg and I have our little disagreements, and I am sure when I speak here it is for us both, that was brings about reconcillation to a large degree is our British sense of fair play and of being 'sporting' in every sense of the word.

For an example of this in politics take the London riots. The police were completely outnumbered, the riots were out of control. The government could have sent in the army to restore order. But they didnt. Because sending in the army aganst civilians isnt fair play and even more its the police job and those are the agreed rules between civilian and government. Sending in the army is breaking the rules.

When it comes to homesexualaty or race what forced the change in Britain was a greater awareness among the people that what was going on was not fair. That goes against the British grain and had to give. If there is a strong enough sense fair play is not being had then the law will change as it did.

We apply this thinking to pretty much everything to some degree or another.

That's an interesting perspective on the matter. I'm not as familiar with the British side of things but that's definitely not how it works in America. It could certainly be that Britain's political culture is more suited to a flexible Constitution.

In any event, I still agree that many American politicians are far too rigid in their adherence to a 200+ year old document.

You're doing a great on the explanation of a complex system, Eldo. Let me add a word on the complexity.

In the USA there are of course 50 state legislatures with different constitutions, over 3000 county governments, and about 30,000 incorporated cities and towns, all charged with making regulations. There's also an equivalent of English common law which is recognized as binding but not legislated. There are tiers of courts that go with each of these levels of government before you even get to the federal level.

All this was designed originally to allow Americans to govern themselves locally as much as possible, because we hadn't enjoyed the experience of being governed by a large central government in England. The intent was to have laws made by the people who would actually live under them, and despite all the chaos it really works pretty well.

But obviously with 10's of thousands of governments making laws, some of them will inevitably contradict each other. Then the question becomes which of the thousands of courts will have jurisdiction to hear the case. The vast majority or these are handled at some level of state court. If the litigants aren't satisfied with the judgement they can appeal the case to a higher court up to the state supreme court. Only if a case arises from federal law or seems to challenge element of the federal constitution does it get to be heard by a federal circuit court. Once ruled on by the circuit court it can be appealed up to the federal supreme court.

The supreme court is supposed to respect the rulings of the lower courts unless there is a clear reason to hear the case, so most cases that make it all the way to the supreme court on appeal still get refused and sent back to the lower courts.

There are also organizations such as the ACLU that specialize in advancing cases that clearly represent an injustice, but because of the time and expense they are extremely careful about choosing test cases.

There are always new solutions to problems being tried somewhere, and their legality being tested, while thousands of other governing bodies look on and adapt to the outcomes. The system actually works remarkably well considering the 300 million people with wildly different points of view being governed.

[Of course this is all an oversimplification that any constitutional law student would tear apart easily, but I hope it gives an idea of how the system works.]

Thanks for that David. Still absorbing some of it as it at first glance it looks like it should give rise to chaos! But I will take your wor on it that it more or less works from the citizens perspective.

However I have been led by recent events to the impression any major reform a President wants to do - be it health care, weapons laws, taxes, all seem to be ending up in the hands of the Supreme Court- from the outside it looks more like another level of your political system not an independent judiciary.

What your seeing is actually an important part of the system. As Eldo pointed out, democracies often over-react and pass laws that are far too sweeping for their own good. In these cases the courts act as a shock absorber by allowing critics and minorities one more chance to say "Hang on a minute! Is this REALLY what we all want to do?"

So whenever new legislation such as health care reform is passed, there are people who instantly start looking specifically for individuals who might be harmed by the new laws. These cases are then carefully groomed and brought up through the courts to see what the Supreme Court has to say. Often the inadvertent loopholes in a new law are detected by this process and quickly corrected before the courts have a chance to rule.

As I said it's chaotic but surprisingly effective. It wouldn't work in many cultures though.

But the rulings, at least have the appearance of, being made on partisan lines- not necessarily on the best legal interpreation. Or is that a false impression?

The press often makes it seem so, but they're really pretty well isolated from partisanship after the initial appointment process. And if you look at the administrations that appointed the the current 9 justices, there were 2 under Obama, 2 under Clinton, 2 under Bush Jr., 1 under Bush Sr., and 2 under Reagan. As even a split as you're going to get.

Several of the old guard are quite conservative and resistive to change which may look partisan, especially under a liberal administration, but they can be just as tough on the other side if they don't like the arguments brought before them.

I definitely don't agree with all of them (the Citizens United case comes to mind) but I do believe that these are 9 very intelligent legal minds who have the good of the nation at heart, and who enter into deep, spirited debates behind closed doors before ruling on any subject. I have to respect that.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1760654457001/issues-impacting-the-us-supreme-court

This is the interview I watched- perhaps my reaction to the system is in part coloured by the thought of having it run by men like him- I found him very onjectionable and seemed very partisan to me.

You know, I knew it was going to be Scalia before I even opened the link. He's always been a divisive voice on the court. More than any other, he's the one I'm ready to see retire.

He's from a different time. His views were formed during the turmoil of the 1970's and he was appointed by Ronald Reagan with a clear agenda of reining in a court that was perceived as liberal and activist.

But at the same time there's no questioning his legal ability and his personal integrity. He asks more questions than almost anybody, and there's never any doubt where he stands. He also writes more legal opinions that almost anybody, whether concurring or dissenting.

But in the end he's just one voice in nine.

Who appoints the Supreme Court?
In the UK the judiciary and the government are in theory completely independent of one another. That way the government can be held to the laws of the land by the Judiciary if need be.
Parliament of course creates the laws. But you cant just make a law which is against a current law. You would first have to get the old law removed from the statute books and then get your new law made- and in a democractic chamber that would be a long and unlikely process.
So the legal system does act as a huge balance to what the government can do here- its just its completely seperate and independent of governement.

I'm still not clear on the independence of the Supeme Court- from what you say about Scalia David it would seem he was a political appointment, put in to fight a particular viewpoint regardless of the merits- his job was to find a legal challenge to policy the Republicans did not want.

Is this the purpose for which all Judges are appointed? To represent the law only through the prism of a particular political viewpoint?

They're nominated by the President and appointed by a vote of the Senate. This only happens when someone resigns or dies, so not every president gets the chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Sitting justices have been known to choose their retirement date based on the administration at the time.

Once appointed, they're quite independent of the other branches of government. A good example was David Souter who was appointed under Bush Sr. , but once appointed became one of the most liberal justices we've seen. Yes, Scalia had an agenda coming into the position and Reagan knew that when he sent his name to the Senate, but at the time the Supreme court was being criticized for having made some interpretations during the civil rights period (William O Douglas was an extremely partisan civil libertarian)that were in effect making new laws rather than interpreting them.

Even people who were pleased with the effect of the decisions were getting nervous that the Court was straying a bit far from their intended purpose, so Scalia was seen as a correction in course. Now I think there are plenty who think it's time for him to retire.

Can you think of an appointment process that is completely removed from politics? What would that look like, and would that even be entirely good? Interesting question!

As far as I understand the Uk system (and it complicated by devolution and Scotland having its own legal system as well as parts of the UK one) but you basically get to be in the High Court (in Scotland- our highest judiciary) by being ascended by your peers.
In theory this should mean that the best, most respected and learned legal minds in the country are the ones who get appointed. (Theres a hell of a lot more to it than that but this is a very bare bones outline).
The government can't influence them only put its side of the case- judgments are made soley on interperting it according to the laws of the land.
They are lawyers of course so it always take too long, and there will always be differences in interpretation.
But generally speaking. In Scotland at least the seperation of government and judiciary is seen as completely necessay to stop government influincing decisions and politics distorting law.

I believe the English system is on the same principle. On top of the Old Bailey- the famous London Court is a statue of Justice. She wears a blind fold to indicate the law must be blind. It should never be influenced by anything other than the law.

The same ideals are held here, and Presidents are very aware that their personal legacy will be judged in part by their judicial nominations, so there is a real effort to choose quality nominees that are well respected by their peers.

I know there was a feeling 200 years ago that the courts of England had become a bit isolated from the people they supposedly served. Our justices are often chosen not only for their legal minds but for having lived and worked in diverse areas. Appointment by our Senate is intended to be a way of reminding our Justices that although they're independent, they ultimately are expected to serve the good of the people.

It's not a bad system.

One of the reasons why Justices (and in fact all federal judges) are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate is to maintain checks and balances on all three branches of government. The judiciary has a great deal of oversight of the executive and legislative branches, so to balance that out, they are appointed by the other two branches. Like David said though, once appointed, they are not bound to follow a certain political viewpoint.

I agree that the law should be paramount, but not all cases involve criminal justice. The Supreme Court is first and foremost a constitutional court, which means that it is their job to interpret the Constitution as it relates to present circumstances and issues. They are in practice the ones who have done the bulk of the updating of the constitutional system since amendments are so rare. Interpretation of that sort is inevitably affected by politics because there are many different perspectives on the Constitution. You can't realistically expect even the most educated legal minds in the country to share all the same opinions about it.

Now, do I think the Court can be too political at times? Absolutely. But I don't think that the system of a constitutional court is inherently flawed. It provides a very important form of oversight that has as lot of benefits.

I think why it struck me as so odd is partly conditioning to my own system. In Scotland the idea that the State and Judiciary should be seperate is as fundemental as the idea that the State and Religion should be seperate.
Its a basic principle.

The judiciary is supposed to function separately from the rest of the government in the United States too, it's just that there is mutual oversight between all three branches. I don't think it's a bad system since it puts limits on what any branch can do without the consent of the others. The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about tyranny so they deliberately put a lot of limitations and restrictions on what any part of the government could do. It adds inefficiencies but that was deliberate. For example, it's not supposed to be easy to pass laws because the government is supposed to consider them very carefully.

This doesn't always happen in practice but I suppose it was a nice idea. Subsequent governments in the past 200 years have created all sorts of loopholes. The notion of checks and balances between the three branches of government is still mostly intact though.

That kind of brings things back to my original thought- about the benefits or not of having a written constituition. As that seemes to be the mean reason for the differences in our sytems appproaches.
For me if it means the Courts being involved in politics and vice versa I'd much rather not have one. And as a Brit I have never felt without one that I was not 'free' in any way or that my rights were not protected.

David H wrote:The press often makes it seem so, but they're really pretty well isolated from partisanship after the initial appointment process. And if you look at the administrations that appointed the the current 9 justices, there were 2 under Obama, 2 under Clinton, 2 under Bush Jr., 1 under Bush Sr., and 2 under Reagan. As even a split as you're going to get.

Several of the old guard are quite conservative and resistive to change which may look partisan, especially under a liberal administration, but they can be just as tough on the other side if they don't like the arguments brought before them.

I definitely don't agree with all of them (the Citizens United case comes to mind) but I do believe that these are 9 very intelligent legal minds who have the good of the nation at heart, and who enter into deep, spirited debates behind closed doors before ruling on any subject. I have to respect that.

I have to agree, they are vessels of deep learning and experience and we Canadians admire their strength and even versatility when the occasion demands it.

'Romney also specifically responded for the first time to remarks he made at a fundraiser in Israel Monday implying that Israel's economy is stronger than Palestine's because of culture. The comments were branded as "racist" by some Palestinian leaders, but Romney denied he was being culturally insensitive.
"I'm not speaking about it, did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy." Instead, he said he's pointing out "that the choices that a society makes has a profound impact on the economy and the vitality of that society."

Ah I see. I assume he means the choice they made to back us in WW2 and fight and die by our side and then to have an entire people transplanted onto their land in return for it. The choice they made to havemore than half of their land illegally stolen. The choice they made to watch the worlds only super power pour money and weapons into their opponents to further the land stealing and to hold the stolen land. The choice they made to be walled in and to have no freedom of movement, often even for the sick needing treatment. The choice they made to have all imports and exports of goods resricted and monitored by a hostile outside force that wants to make sure they cannot be financially successful.

Yes. Its definently the Palestinians fault their economy is in a bad way.

edit add- The Palestinian response: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas saying, "This man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation." Duh Mitt!

edit add 2- from Romneys own book - "No Apology"-- page 248. "How could Israelis have created a highly developed, technology-based economy while their Palestinian neighbors have not yet even begun to move to an industrialized economy?" Romney wrote, "his examination concludes 'culture makes all the difference,'

One of the agricultural scientists we used to work with was a Palestinian who came to America as a college student after the war on a Trans Jordanian passport to study how to modernize his country's agriculture (as Israel later did). But in 1948 his whole country officially just disappeared! He was never able to go home for the rest of his life, so he applied his knowledge in America.

And people wonder why Palestine's agriculture and industry lag behind Israel's....

I have no beef with the Jews in partcular- I dislike them only as much as I dislike all other organised religious groups- I'm an equal loather of them all. But I know a severe wrong when I see one staring me in the face.
And sure theres real bad on both sides, and there is real hatred there too- but there can be another way. Northen Ireland has proved that. It can be done.
But the starting block is for each side to recongnise the equality and legitamacy of the other, and both sides have yet to do that.
The problem is also one side is hugely rich and heavily armoured and the other poor and weakly armed. So Israel doesn't have to make any compromsises. But country or person, a bully is a bully and I dont like them.''

On another note was on CNN and read this;

"A Mississippi church that wouldn't allow a black couple to marry in its sanctuary because of the couple's race appears to be trying to right a wrong, as officials with the church's denomination decried the incident.
Charles and Te' Andrea Wilson, regular attendees at First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Mississippi, were forced to relocate their wedding this month at the last minute. Their pastor, Stan Weatherford, made the relocation request on behalf of some congregants who didn't want to see the couple married there."

I dont know whether to celebrate it has at least been decried or to be horrified that such a thing is still going on in America in the modern world.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

I dont know whether to celebrate it has at least been decried or to be horrified that such a thing is still going on in America in the modern world.

Both.

The thing that saddens me about Israel/Palestine is that I've met intelligent people from each side who say in almost exactly the same words, "We've tried talking with them, but the only language they understand is violence!" Do you think you could hear these same words in Ireland?

The feeling I get from the people I've met is that there is a desire for peace on both sides among a large group of moderates, but that the extremists on both sides have hijacked the dialog. It's going to take strong, courageous leadership on both sides to move forward. They need leaders, not politicians. But sadly I don't seem to be seeing that, especially on the Israeli side. I think Begin might just have been able to pull it off, but since then it's been mostly just more politicians pandering to the peoples' fears.

Do you think you could hear these same words in Ireland?- David

Its all you heard and from some still do.
The Irish protestant catholic thing is hundreds of years old. And it was deep. Segregated communities. Continulal violence. Army perminently stationed there and patrolling the streets.
And when I was growing up the IRA were at their most deadly. Terrorist bombs going off somehwere in the UK and killing lots of innocent people sometimes several a year. It was almost exclusively targeting England as the IRA saw Scotland as another subjected country. But they pounded the English.
They nearly got Maragret Thatcher and the a chunk of the Conservative cabinet too when they bombed the hotel they were in for the party confernece. They assassinated members of the Royal family.
On the British Side there were incidents like Bloody Sunday, where our troops were responsable for opening fire on unarmed civilains in a peaceful protest march. And our secret service carried out targeted killings. Catholics were treated with suspicion and as second class citizens. On the mainland you used to see signs in doors of B&B's and Hotels that read "No Irish or dogs"

But it ended. And what ended it was getting both sides round the table and making compromises. Now the former leader of the IRA leads his party in the devolved government of Northern Ireland alsongside his old Unionist enemies. Men who at one time would not have enetered the same room as one another.

It hasn't been easy. There are still problems. You dont just lose all those generations of hatred- but there has been two generations of Northern Irish who have grown up for the ifrst time in peace and without fear and without soldiers on the street. And they dont want to go back to war and thats the hope you give the future. You just need to create enough breathing space to break the cycle.

edit add- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

And idea of the scale of it at its peak- 'In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings'

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont know whether to celebrate it has at least been decried or to be horrified that such a thing is still going on in America in the modern world.

It's Mississippi: the state that is 50th in everything. Calling it a part of the modern world is a bit of a stretch.

Spoiler: