Originally posted by dryhumpWe all know the legal system of the US is a joke, but that's hardly the EPA's fault, is it?
Of course not. We're not talking about a park ranger, this is a whole agency. They have the power (as no1 pointed out) to act without the approval of congress. Essentially, they can pass laws without going through the normal process. To be honest, I don't know whether congress could overrule the EPA or not.
Originally posted by dryhumpWell if the Supremes say so then it most be OK.....unless Obama and the rest of the progressives disagree that is, but I think that is only common sense. 😛
I see that the supreme court gave approval for the epa to do this, my information was outdated on that point.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamInefficient (too many lawyers), too much based on jurisprudence rather than democratically passed laws (allowing activist judges), SCOTUS a political tool, and juries and punitive damages should be abolished.
OK I'll bite.
How is the US legal system a joke compared to your wonderful country?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot sure why an elitist like yourself has a problem with too many lawyers, but your criticisms are self-contradictory; complaining that established legal principles should always yield to the temporary whims of legislative majorities is ideologically inconsistent with a wish to do away with juries (which afford a check on judges).
Inefficient (too many lawyers), too much based on jurisprudence rather than democratically passed laws (allowing activist judges), SCOTUS a political tool, and juries and punitive damages should be abolished.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNot at all. Established legal principles can be protected by requiring a supermajority to amend them (i.e. a constitution). Juries are a check on judges, but an abysmally poor one considering the average person is a retard and you can achieve the same check on judges much more efficiently using internal checks and balances.
Not sure why an elitist like yourself has a problem with too many lawyers, but your criticisms are self-contradictory; complaining that established legal principles should always yield to the temporary whims of legislative majorities is ideologically inconsistent with a wish to do away with juries (which afford a check on judges).
Also, I may be an elitist, but I am so elitist I look down on lawyers.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the "average person is a retard", why have democratic elections at all?
Not at all. Established legal principles can be protected by requiring a supermajority to amend them (i.e. a constitution). Juries are a check on judges, but an abysmally poor one considering the average person is a retard and you can achieve the same check on judges much more efficiently using internal checks and balances.
Also, I may be an elitist, but I am so elitist I look down on lawyers.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraJust have smart people like you command the "retards" what to do. After all, if they are far too stupid to make factual judgments in legal cases (most of which are reasonably straightforward) they are certainly far too stupid to make judgments between candidates in elections.
Because there is no better alternative to proportional representative democracy, at least none that I have been able to think of.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut it's not going to be easy to find an effective way to determine which people are as smart as me, and even if you do, it will be difficult to convince the retards that we know best. And it's difficult to implement sound policies when people are unwilling to do so.
Just have smart people like you command the "retards" what to do. After all, if they are far too stupid to make factual judgments in legal cases (most of which are reasonably straightforward) they are certainly far too stupid to make judgments between candidates in elections.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn addition, the reason to have democratic elections might be not that the majority "knows best", but that the majority, at least to an extent, has a legitimate right to determine what sort of society they wish to live in, whether their decisions are "smart" or not.
But it's not going to be easy to find an effective way to determine which people are as smart as me, and even if you do, it will be difficult to convince the retards that we know best. And it's difficult to implement sound policies when people are unwilling to do so.
Originally posted by TeinosukeAt least people think it's important to have their say, so a system where people feel they have no influence is going to be less effective due to demoralizing the people.
In addition, the reason to have democratic elections might be not that the majority "knows best", but that the majority, at least to an extent, has a legitimate right to determine what sort of society they wish to live in, whether their decisions are "smart" or not.