Discussion of current events
Repealing Roe v Wade will be a huge boon to Democrat support, right when they need it the most.
Absolutely wrong, Steve!
One reason I gave up on the ideal of Australia becoming a republic.High Court judges are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... %2DGeneral.
Although it helps that Australia has a mandatory retirement age to maintain turnover. The US doesn't have that, and at one point the Supreme Court comprised the same nine individuals for over a decade.
neverfail wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pmYou see, if a vacancy comes up due to death or retirement during the incumbency of a Republican Administration they will always appoint a "conservative" judge. If the vacancy comes up during a Democrats incumbency they will normally appoint a "progressive".
Conceded, that it a sensible provision within the context of your constitution yet it can be, and has been, misused.SteveFoerster wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 amThe Supreme Court is a constitutional court, among other things, and yes, if a relevant case is before them they can determine that legislation or executive orders are unconstitutional. That's on purpose, as it's meant to be a check on the power of both Congress and the president.
neverfail wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pmDuring the four years that Trump was incumbent he had the good fortune that no less than three judges on the S C bench passed away and Trump gleefully appointed conservative replacements to give this faction an unassailable majority - thereby as much as planting a time bomb to explode in the face of any subsequent Democrats presidency.
Is that so? Then I stand corrected!
neverfail wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pmYou are unduly optimistic if you believe that freely and fairly elected government always reflects "the will of the people" Cass. Indeed, I consider this will of the people doctrine to be in practice nothing other than a myth and a fantasy. But having had my say on the US Supreme Court above I do not want to delve into the complexities of democratic government now. Cheers!
Since our rights are protected by the accumulated weight of our inherited English Common Law I see no particular reason to add a single clause to our constitution guaranteeing it. But that digresses from my point.
Where Cassowary perceives wrongly is that he believes that elected government's spend their time in between elections pandering to public misconceptions and prejudices. They can't afford to as any elected government with the finite time allowed it until election time comes around is on probation. It it therefore in its best interests to govern as well as it knows how; even though at times their policy decisions might ostensibly go counter to public hopes and expectations. (i.e. the general public is neither all seeing nor entirely wise.)
As I see it "democracy" is only the means to an end: the facilitated end itself being the provision of good government.
Democracy is imperfect. It does not provide a gilt-edged guarantee that good government policy will always ensue. But compared to non-accountable tyrannies it is in practice a vast improvement in that regard.
I need only quote Winston Churchill. "Democracy is NOT a good form of government. It is the worst form there is - except for all of the others."