Legal to murder a prostitute for non-compliance in the US?

[Vuk]

....And my argument is that if we've progressed so far that a would-be tyrant is able to control the judges, we're screwed anyway. If he's able to do that, he's able to do a whole number of other nasty things we won't be able stop.

Conclusion: the jury system isn't a safeguard against tyranny, and should thus be judged solely on its ability to serve justice.

We are at that stage and have been for decades. Free countries are always teetering on the edge, above an abyss of tyranny. As long as enough people realize that and are willing to do something about it, we will not fall.

[Strike For The South]

The X is silent

[HoreTore]

We are at that stage and have been for decades. Free countries are always teetering on the edge, above an abyss of tyranny. As long as enough people realize that and are willing to do something about it, we will not fall.

The US President is able to control US judges?

What planet do you live on?

[HoreTore]

The US President appoints federal judges. Tons of them, not just the Supreme Court. While I think it is unfair to say that the President controls judges, it is well-known that some judges are cronies. Some are thought to be cronies, and then backfire on the president. It is a life-time appointment, and the only check and/or balance is the confirmation by congress, which is usually not a problem but sometimes can be.

Judges are mostly appointed by the cabinet/president in most countries, and they are almost always unfireable(a higher court can usually remove you for committing crimes or gross negligence though).

But to suggest that they are therefore controlled by the US president, suggests that vuk lives on Pluto.


I'd also add that their job security is a wonderful tool to stop any political interference dead in its tracks.

[Vuk]

I never said that and I don't know where you got the idea I meant that.

[HoreTore]

I never said that and I don't know where you got the idea I meant that.

I said that my argument was "when we get to the stage where the would-be tyrant is able to control the judges".

You replied that "we're already there and has been for some decades".

Yeah, I have no clue where I got that idea from.... If your point was something different, please elaborate.

[Husar]

That sounds good.

So since judges are meant to be cronies according to the wise founding fathers, the people get the power to declare criminals innocent in advance in case they think the judge may actually sentence them to a year or two more than they deserve.
Checks and balances - check!

[Fragony]

Related enough for posting it here, 6 months of community-service??

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...act-prostitute

It doesn't get any lower than this unless you flip over the Mount-Everest

[HoreTore]

You really ought to study our system more. Crony judges are a part of our system, and it goes all the way back to the actual court rulings that allowed the executive branch to appoint federal judges in the first place. It is not a crazy thing to suggest at all, because there are lots of judges who are cronies of one administration or another.

....And these judges will rule in favour of Obama's(or Bush or whatever) wishes after a simple telephone call? No?

That's what a real crony was, that's how things worked in soviet Russia(and still does today, to some extent). Call me when you get there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, we have had a bit of a problem with judicial vacancies.

There are 18 out and out vacancies (deceased, retired, new position, or elevated) and 63 further slots held by "senior" judges who are past retirement age and often do not handle a full caseload; the oldest of these senior judges is 93). Currently, there are only 27 nominations pending (only 9 of which are for the out and out vacancies, including one that has been sans nominee for 41 months since that judge was elevated).

4 of these vacancies became vacant during the Bush43 administration...one of them in 12/2004.

[Papewaio]

What can an evil overlord do when there is a lack of lackeys?

You'd think they could call on a friend, but they are afraid their call records would be impeached.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, the democrats constantly cried foul when Bush tried to appoint anybody. I'm no expert, but I don't think any of them have proven to be lackeys--Roberts has even proven that he has quite a spine. Regardless, the Republicans have taken that concept and run with it as part of their general policy of obstructionism. In truth, the kind of 'lackey' that a judge tends to be has more to do with ideology and the long game than any kind of actual corruption. For corruption, look at Congressmen and lobbyists.

If a judge is politically appointed, being a lackey is part of the job description.