Mitch McConnell is openly conspiring with Trump on Impeachment

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Seems to me that the biggest problem in US politics is that your judiciary isn't independent. If that were fixed, this mess would never happen again.

Independent judges, not politically appointed and hired in competition with others by an independent body of peers and with a separate ethics body with the power to put a judge on trial for misconduct. None of the involved are at any point appointed by any politician.

As an aside, this is the way it is in Sweden, so maybe it's too socialist for y'all.

It's just not the Darwinist capitalist way.

 

[smartcooky]

It's just not the Darwinist capitalist way.

This is a bit off topic but in reply, Sweden is a capitalist country in many respects, and their system of jurisprudence as well as the way the nuts & bolts of their legal system operates, works just fine for them. Every Swedish government since 1976 has been a plurality, so people like McConnell, Trump, Gaetz and Meadows simply would not be tolerated - the opposition parties would gang up and get rid of them.

The Swedes have a system in which capitalist economics are combined with low key but hugely beneficial socialism. The result is a country that has a tax-funded virtual cradle to grave national health system , high rates of union membership, excellent relationships between government, business, employers and workers. In general, Swedish residents have a much higher standard of living, better education, better health care, and better paying jobs than Americans. Hell, I would want to live there if the place wasn't so ******* cold and dark in the winter!

Of course, cue the usual arguments that "'Merica is special and it won't work here". Those arguments are BS - Sweden is a country of humans; so is America. Anything can be made to work in any country with the right attitude.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Each judge is just another employee. Sure, he or she is an important - crucial even - part of the office, and has the power to affect the handling of any individual case within their assigned lot (a case is divided among judges using a lottery system), but they aren't untouchable bastions of unattainable glory.
.....

U.S. federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life by the President with the consent of the Senate. That hasn't been much of a problem historically, because the Senate rules required at least 60 votes to confirm a judge, which meant that the President nominated candidates who would be acceptable to both sides. Most judges have traditionally been approved by large majorities, sometimes unanimously, and their lifetime appointments protect them from passing political concerns (although I think a reasonable argument could be made for term limits).

But Trump and McConnell have changed all that, and have made the process political. The Senate has approved judges that the ABA determined were "not qualified" by experience and temperament because Trump and the Federalist Society wanted them. The problem isn't the process, but the guys running it.

And I wonder: If Swedish judges are just "employees," can they be fired if somebody gets mad at them? Turning the courts into some kind of bureaucracy that doesn't answer to any other arm of government or to the people themselves has its own obvious problems.

 

[mgidm86]

This is a bit off topic but in reply, Sweden is a capitalist country in many respects, and their system of jurisprudence as well as the way the nuts & bolts of their legal system operates, works just fine for them. Every Swedish government since 1976 has been a plurality, so people like McConnell, Trump, Gaetz and Meadows simply would not be tolerated - the opposition parties would gang up and get rid of them.

The Swedes have a system in which capitalist economics are combined with low key but hugely beneficial socialism. The result is a country that has a tax-funded virtual cradle to grave national health system , high rates of union membership, excellent relationships between government, business, employers and workers. In general, Swedish residents have a much higher standard of living, better education, better health care, and better paying jobs than Americans. Hell, I would want to live there if the place wasn't so ******* cold and dark in the winter!

Of course, cue the usual arguments that "'Merica is special and it won't work here". Those arguments are BS - Sweden is a country of humans; so is America. Anything can be made to work in any country with the right attitude.

Sweden is special. It is 34 times smaller in population than the US and much less diverse culturally. California alone has 40 million people vs Sweden's 10 million, and California is a melting pot of just about every culture, and in large quantity.

California is home to 11 million immigrants. That's more than 25% of the population.

Sweden's largest foreign born group of people are from Finland. Ya that's some real culture shock!

Probably because, as you said above, most people do not want to leave their country for Sweden. Guess where the vast majority of people worldwide want to go?

America is not necessarily better but it is a lot different.

 

[uke2se]

U.S. federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life by the President with the consent of the Senate. That hasn't been much of a problem historically, because the Senate rules required at least 60 votes to confirm a judge, which meant that the President nominated candidates who would be acceptable to both sides. Most judges have traditionally been approved by large majorities, sometimes unanimously, and their lifetime appointments protect them from passing political concerns (although I think a reasonable argument could be made for term limits).

But Trump and McConnell have changed all that, and have made the process political. The Senate has approved judges that the ABA determined were "not qualified" by experience and temperament because Trump and the Federalist Society wanted them. The problem isn't the process, but the guys running it.

Which laws were changed?

And I wonder: If Swedish judges are just "employees," can they be fired if somebody gets mad at them? Turning the courts into some kind of bureaucracy that doesn't answer to any other arm of government or to the people themselves has its own obvious problems.

They can be fired for misconduct, like everyone else. People do tend to get mad at judges, so that's not reason to fire someone. In Sweden, it's not legal to fire an anyone just because someone gets mad at them.

Also, where do you see a bureaucracy that doesn't answer to any arm of government in my description? I did mention the independent bodies didn't I?

 

[Bob001]

Which laws were changed?
....

It had been a Senate rule -- not a law -- that 60 votes were required to end a filibuster to block a vote. The Republicans changed that to a simple majority, so the Republicans by themselves can approve a nominee without a single Democratic vote.

Senate Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" to gut the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees Thursday, a historic move that paves the way for Neil Gorsuch's confirmation and ensures that future high court nominees can advance in the Senate without clearing a 60-vote threshold.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to change the Senate rules after Democrats blocked Gorsuch's nomination minutes before, 55-45. All 52 Republicans then supported the vote to go nuclear, and Gorsuch subsequently advanced to a final confirmation vote with a simple majority.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937

They can be fired for misconduct, like everyone else. People do tend to get mad at judges, so that's not reason to fire someone. In Sweden, it's not legal to fire an anyone just because someone gets mad at them.

Who defines "misconduct" for a judge? I suspect making unpopular decisions could inspire allegations of misconduct. And I suspect that if a boss gets mad at any employee, they can find or manufacture grounds to support termination. In the U.S. the employee can then file an expensive, years-long wrongful termination suit which, statistically, he is likely to lose.

 

[uke2se]

It had been a Senate rule -- not a law -- that 60 votes were required to end a filibuster to block a vote. The Republicans changed that to a simple majority, so the Republicans by themselves can approve a nominee without a single Democratic vote.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937

And that's what I'm talking about. You can't run a country on the honor system.

Who defines "misconduct" for a judge? I suspect making unpopular decisions could inspire allegations of misconduct. And I suspect that if a boss gets mad at any employee, they can find or manufacture grounds to support termination.

You suspect wrong, I'm happy to say.

In Sweden, we have very strong worker protection laws. They include working judges. By the nature of their job, judges are often forced to make unpopular decisions because they need to follow the law. If they don't, that's misconduct. If a judge is alleged to have broken the law, or failed to take it fully into account in a decision, there is a formal process for how that is handled. There is a sort of a trial where the facts are scrutinized by the independent body of peers I talked about earlier. If the judge is found to have violated the law, there are several possible remedies, one of which is termination (from office - not life). Otherwise the possible outcomes range from a hefty fine up to jail time, all dependent on the severity of the misconduct.

A boss that gets mad at an employee and fires said employee is liable to get prosecuted in Sweden. We have very good trade unions that try to ensure that firing is only for proper reasons - and the boss getting mad isn't a proper reason. I'd say most if not all judges are unionized.

 

[Bob001]

.....Also, where do you see a bureaucracy that doesn't answer to any arm of government in my description? I did mention the independent bodies didn't I?

What you said was:

....
Independent judges, not politically appointed and hired in competition with others by an independent body of peers and with a separate ethics body with the power to put a judge on trial for misconduct. None of the involved are at any point appointed by any politician. ....

Somebody has to hire them, promote them and supervise them. How are those people selected? How are those "independent bodies" created and managed? Theoretically, elected politicians in a democracy represent the people. If judges stand apart from the legislative and executive branches, they become closer to a closed priesthood than a division of the government.

 

[uke2se]

What you said was:

Somebody has to hire them, promote them and supervise them. How are those people selected? How are those "independent bodies" created and managed? Theoretically, elected politicians in a democracy represent the people. If judges stand apart from the legislative and executive branches, they become closer to a closed priesthood than a division of the government.

I suppose you could call people who are educated and charged with applying the letter of the law a priesthood of sorts - if you're being very cynical.

Judges don't represent the people. They enforce the law.

The independent bodies are described by Swedish law, as is their composition and responsibilities. They are the only touch point with politics, as they are appointed by the government for a three year term. There are nine people making up the deciding council and they are all trained as judges.

ETA: If you have further questions about this, we should probably take it to another thread. This is getting wildly off topic.

 

[smartcooky]

They can be fired for misconduct, like everyone else. People do tend to get mad at judges, so that's not reason to fire someone. In Sweden, it's not legal to fire an anyone just because someone gets mad at them.

America is a country with less than 10% of the workforce unionized (at least in the private sector. I would think its probably higher in the public sector) - I think Sweden has about 65%, so most Americans won't understand that in most western countries, an employer actually has to have a legal reason to fire an employee, and even then has to go through a specific procedure to terminate a person's employment.

 

[Bob001]

...
You suspect wrong, I'm happy to say.

In Sweden, we have very strong worker protection laws. They include working judges. By the nature of their job, judges are often forced to make unpopular decisions because they need to follow the law.

But a judge doesn't just "follow the law." If that's all that's involved you wouldn't even need a trial. A judge decides how to apply the law in any particular case, how to weigh evidence and testimony, even what evidence and testimony may be offered. If the loser doesn't like a decision, he can appeal to a higher court. But if supervisors in a bureaucracy can decide whether a judge "followed the law," that's not much different from requiring him to decide the way they think he should.

A boss that gets mad at an employee and fires said employee is liable to get prosecuted in Sweden. We have very good trade unions that try to ensure that firing is only for proper reasons - and the boss getting mad isn't a proper reason. I'd say most if not all judges are unionized.

You misunderstand. We have unions here, too, and union contracts generally provide than an employee can only be terminated for "just cause," particularly for government employees. But if a boss gets mad at you he can usually find grounds to build a case for just cause. You come to work a couple minutes late? You take a longer lunch than you're allowed? You call in sick without providing a doctor's note? You break something? You claim something questionable on your expense account? You're a little slower in your work than some of your colleagues? Many trivial infractions that would ordinarily be tolerated or even unnoticed can be used against you if somebody wants to.

I don't know anything about the Swedish judicial system. But I would be surprised if Swedish judges haven't made some decisions that were broadly seen as questionable.

 

[Mumbles]

He would if McConnell didn't give him every benefit he can possibly provide. But let's say the rapist did say no; Trump still doesn't have the juice to stop Koch and other Republicans with huge money from supporting their little turtle.

I won't pretend to know that game they're playing. But having RNC money cut out, *plus* Ctp.' Swirleyhair out ranting against you, when your PR is bad, and your approval rating is low, *and* if you win another term you either face him, or a dem?

That's a bit much.

If screwing over their base kept Republicans from being reelected, they'd lose their incumbents every election cycle. While Democrats may support workers' rights, it's not like they're going to even say that they support the coal industry over, you know, every other energy source. Republican coal miners will vote Republican, both because they're, in general, true believers and because they can't read the writing on the wall...because their Republican representatives won't properly fund their schools.

You're confused. White people^TM are not thinking too much of their own well-being, so much as unleashing their anger at anyone who isn't like them. Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, whoever. They're organized far more by their skin color, and by their anger, than any other group, and their "interest" is to harm other groups.

(Again, White people^TM does not refer to every white person, but it does refer to many white people in the US - men, in particular. Think of it as a rand-name item. Despite what you say, y'all are the most emotional group of adults in the US - and I suspect it's because you face the least penalties for freaking out in public.)

 

[smartcooky]

(Again, White people^TM does not refer to every white person, but it does refer to many white people in the US - men, in particular. Think of it as a rand-name item. Despite what you say, y'all are the most emotional group of adults in the US - and I suspect it's because you face the least penalties for freaking out in public.)

I always regarded your "White People^TM" as those who, in another time, would likely have fought for, or at least supported, the Confederacy.

There are a few of them right here on this forum.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But Trump and McConnell have changed all that, and have made the process political. The Senate has approved judges that the ABA determined were "not qualified" by experience and temperament because Trump and the Federalist Society wanted them. The problem isn't the process, but the guys running it.

If the process is that easy to subvert and turn political, then there's a problem with the process.

Especially as the politicisation was going on before the rule change you mention, with the filibustering of Obama's picks for judge. In that, that filibustering was the impetus for the Democrats changing the rules.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I always regarded your "White People^TM" as those who, in another time, would likely have fought for, or at least supported, the Confederacy.

There are a few of them right here on this forum.

We are going though the same problem we saw in the great Depression all Republican caused. Republicans made it easier for Agricultural workers to get sponcerships to stay in the United State, so they could use them for Union Busting in right to work States.
That started the new trend of Hate when Imigrants started taking over the dwindling Trade Jobs, like Roofing and Rough carpentry and other skilled trades.
With modern access to information anyone can learn a Trade fairly easily any many people simply feel that they will lose out to Imigrants who work for less, because they are focused on survival not profit.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

History is written by the victors

An old adage that's not even true.

What world are you living in?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Democracy isn't a good thing so that is a plus.

Democracy is the ONLY moral system of government.

That pesky idea that the government must have the consent of the governed and all that.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

What you said was:

Somebody has to hire them, promote them and supervise them. How are those people selected? How are those "independent bodies" created and managed? Theoretically, elected politicians in a democracy represent the people. If judges stand apart from the legislative and executive branches, they become closer to a closed priesthood than a division of the government.

Whatever negative spin you try to put on it, it works better than our system.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Democracy is the ONLY moral system of government.

That pesky idea that the government must have the consent of the governed and all that.

It is the most morally defensible form of government - that doesn't automatically make it the most moral one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are limits on every democracy, in part because we recognise that a pure democracy would be a bad thing. If everybody got to vote on every single issue then that would mean that whoever is the best at rhetoric would get the decisions to go their way, rather than whoever has the best actual policy. Furthermore, the tyranny of the majority would be a very real problem. 55% of Americans supported Trump's Muslim ban. Does that mean that it was the most moral of all the stances on the issue?

No, every democratic country limits democracy, for both practical and moral reasons. The question, then, is simply how much and in what ways does limiting democracy provide the best balance between morality, practicality, and ensuring that the people have a voice that is listened to? Everybody seems to agree that electing people whose job it is to represent to power their constituents is a limitation that is better than the alternatives.

I think the fact that there are real concerns that Trump is going to get away with conspiring against/defrauding/whatever America for his own personal gain due to the partisanship of both the Senate and the Supreme Court (and the AG), while Boris Johnson had the limits of his power enforced by the UK Supreme Court demonstrates that, at the very least, there is a reasonable argument that an independent, non-political judiciary can be superior in some situations to a judiciary system made up of political appointees.