Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    05 Jan '12 07:41 / 1 edit
    From an article in Slate:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/
    montana_supreme_court_citizens_united_can_montana_get_away_with_defying_the_supreme_court_.html

    Montana is defying SCOTUS on campaign funding:

    "...while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

    In particular, we don't send a whole corporation to prison -- as we would a "person" if they do something really shady.

    Also interesting that judges in Montana are elected, while Supreme Court justices are appointed -- perhaps the Montanans are better qualified to weigh-in on this point?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 15:09
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    From an article in Slate:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/
    montana_supreme_court_citizens_united_can_montana_get_away_with_defying_the_supreme_court_.html

    Montana is defying SCOTUS on campaign funding:

    "...while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not ...[text shortened]... ices are appointed -- perhaps the Montanans are better qualified to weigh-in on this point?
    If a tree falls in Montana but no one is within 300 miles to hear it, does Montana really exist?

    Incidentally, corporations are subject to the death penalty (in a manner of speaking) and Hell probably doesn't exist at all.

    As for being accountable, the people who make the decisions are accountable and that's all that matters.
  3. 05 Jan '12 15:20
    Supreme Court justices are elected indirectly since they are appointed by an elected official. Of course this is also why the SCOTUS is a (bad) joke.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 15:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Supreme Court justices are elected indirectly since they are appointed by an elected official. Of course this is also why the SCOTUS is a (bad) joke.
    How would you suggest judges be appointed other than being elected or being appointed by elected officials?
  5. 05 Jan '12 15:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    How would you suggest judges be appointed other than being elected or being appointed by elected officials?
    By an independent judiciary.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 15:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    By an independent judiciary.
    And how are the independent judiciary appointed?
  7. 05 Jan '12 15:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    And how are the independent judiciary appointed?
    By the independent judiciary.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 16:51
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    By the independent judiciary.
    Are you intentionally using circular logic or is there an explanation coming?
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    05 Jan '12 17:29
    Originally posted by sh76
    Are you intentionally using circular logic or is there an explanation coming?
    The independent judiciary will explain.
  10. 05 Jan '12 22:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    Are you intentionally using circular logic or is there an explanation coming?
    What is there you don't understand? As long as the judiciary is truly independent, there is no reason why it would be biased in its appointment of new judges. And since the judiciary has an incentive to protect its reputation, it will want to appoint good judges rather than poor ones.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 23:03
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What is there you don't understand? As long as the judiciary is truly independent, there is no reason why it would be biased in its appointment of new judges. And since the judiciary has an incentive to protect its reputation, it will want to appoint good judges rather than poor ones.
    Okay, KN. You're writing the Constitution for a brand new country. As soon as you write the Constitution, 50 million people are going to move in and start living in accordance with your constitution. There is no pre-exisitng anything.

    Okay, now. Who appoints the judges?
  12. 05 Jan '12 23:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    Okay, KN. You're writing the Constitution for a brand new country. As soon as you write the Constitution, 50 million people are going to move in and start living in accordance with your constitution. There is no pre-exisitng anything.

    Okay, now. Who appoints the judges?
    The government establishes a judicial branch. This branch then selects competent judges.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jan '12 23:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The government establishes a judicial branch. This branch then selects competent judges.
    Who in the government chooses the initial judges? How do we know the identity of the people who initially compose the judicial branch?
  14. 06 Jan '12 00:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    Who in the government chooses the initial judges? How do we know the identity of the people who initially compose the judicial branch?
    Perhaps KN envisages something along these lines:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commission
  15. 06 Jan '12 01:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    Are you intentionally using circular logic or is there an explanation coming?
    That's kind of the way that SCOTUS got to have the final say on whether law is or is not Constitutional. They ruled on a case, and declared it to be so. The Constitution is silent on the matter of final say as to the propriety of any law.

    Jury nullification appears to be the proper constitutional means of invalidating bad law, whether state or federal.