Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Courts are the government.

And that's the problem in the USA, because they are supposed to be 3 independent branches of government. The lack of independence is/should be troubling.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S., AOC, apparently Slobodan's nightmare because he can't help it to bring up her name, wasn't talking about the 3 branches of government, that's why she chose other (inaccurate) words.

[JoeKitchen]

And that's the problem in the USA, because they are supposed to be 3 independent branches of government. The lack of independence is/should be troubling.

Cheers,
Bart

Explain how there is no independents in the courts from the other two branches of government?  I am curious to know of examples. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "The justice system is one of the three branches of the state....

Most people use "state" and "government" interchangeably, in their broadest meaning.

[Rob C]

Are all you other guys secretly retired as I am publicly, unemployed, uemployable or just skiving off at work when you should be sweating in service to the master?

So much time on your hands!

;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... He won't tell us his age or where he is, but it's pretty clear he's very young and not in the U.S., and likely not in Canada...

Russ,

Jeremy is a Brit, just of the Kim Philby type, I presume  

[jeremyrh]

Most people use "state" and "government" interchangeably, in their broadest meaning.

You surprise me, Slobo. I didn't suppose you were decent enough to apologise for your mistake, but I did think you were smart enough to shut up. As Russ seems to have done, Or perhaps he has no internet in his library.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Are all you other guys secretly retired as I am publicly, unemployed, unemployable ...

All of the above, Rob.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Explain how there is no independents in the courts from the other two branches of government?  I am curious to know of examples.

Sure Joe,

Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?

* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.

You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You surprise me, Slobo. I didn't suppose you were decent enough to apologise for your mistake, but I did think you were smart enough to shut up. As Russ seems to have done, Or perhaps he has no internet in his library.

What mistake? As I said, "state" and "government" are used interchangeably for most intents and purposes. I just forgot for a moment that "Brits and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." 

[Alan Klein]

On the contrary, the courts (not the government) took a decision in the interests of the child.  Parents don't have the right to subject their children to needless suffering.

That's a slippery slope.

[Alan Klein]

That is the most utterly ill-informed, ignorant misstatement that I have yet seen on this site, and it's certainly faced stiff competition. Even the article you cite doesn't support the conclusion you draw. Read the judgments, Alan; learn a little about the medicine; give the matter thought rather than using it for your own propaganda; and then apologise.

Jeremy

From the article:  [size=78%]"Against his parents’ wishes, the hospital where he was receiving care withdrew life support; his parents were barred by British courts from seeking care for Alfie elsewhere."[/size]


Also, "Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"

I favor trying to keep government out of these decisions. We don;t turn our kids over to the government.   Certainly the article showed there's a lot of support for this point of view from millions of people across the globe.  Certainly, you have a right to disagree and have your point of view.  But I would not call your view "...utterly misinformed, ...propaganda...ignorant..."  Nor would I demand an apology from you.   This case certainly has plenty of room for reason to believe one way or the other without you calling people names. 

[RSL]

Sure Joe,

Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?

* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.

You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.

Cheers,
Bart

And how are judges chosen in the Netherlands, Bart? Does God point to them and say: "You're appointed?" ALL appointments of this sort are political, no matter where they're made. The United States method of "advise and consent" in the Senate probably is the best method. It allows both sides into the act, and the result usually is a compromise. If you want a classic example, check the history of Clarence Thomas's appointment.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As long as you understand that air superiority was crucial to the defeat of Cornwallis of Yorktown you’re qualified in my book. 

Hi James,

One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):

Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.

[JoeKitchen]

Sure Joe,

Why is it that the Supreme court justices, the highest ranking judicial body, are chosen* based on their political affiliation rather than their impartiality?

* chosen in the sense that they are :
1. Nominated by the President (who is in practice not independent, but partisan), and appointed
2. with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate (which is dominated by one of two parties), again partisan.

You may feel differently, which is fine because you choose your own destiny, but for the rest of the world, it looks a mockery.

Cheers,
Bart

Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.  Also, since they are appointed for life this means they are not engaged in politics either, leaving them to think independently instead of trying to constantly appease the change in tides. 

Furthermore, many Supreme change their mind once on the bench.  The most famous was Sandra Day O'Connor who became pro-choice even though she was very pro-life prior to her appointment.  Also, some recent court cases have shown that it is impossible to really figure out how a justice will vote on any given subject. 

[faberryman]

...but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke.

How exactly do you accidentally say that the continental armies took over airports?

[jeremyrh]

Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.   

But the ones that appoint them sure are !!

[Alan Klein]

Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.  Also, since they are appointed for life this means they are not engaged in politics either, leaving them to think independently instead of trying to constantly appease the change in tides. 

Furthermore, many Supreme change their mind once on the bench.  The most famous was Sandra Day O'Connor who became pro-choice even though she was very pro-life prior to her appointment.  Also, some recent court cases have shown that it is impossible to really figure out how a justice will vote on any given subject. 

Beside being appointed for life (they can't be fired, only impeached by COngress for bad behavior), their salary cannot be reduced.  These protections give them license to decide however they want without fear of outside pressure, making them extremely independent.  These protection extends to all Federal judges not just the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court.

[Alan Klein]

But the ones that appoint them sure are !!

To a degree you're right.  But parties change  (Obama was a liberal Democrat and Trump is a Conservative Republican at least when it comes to appointing judges).  So the Federal court system balances out between conservatives and liberals.  But as Joe said above, you never know how a justice will vote regardless of how you perceived them before they were appointed.  The independence given to them by our Constitution often causes them to change their views of things.  Although, liberal judges tend to not change their liberal views as often as conservative judges change their conservative views.

[faberryman]

But as Joe said above, you never know how a justice will vote regardless of how you perceived them before they were appointed.

Never?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

How exactly do you accidentally say that the continental armies took over airports?

Easily. He meant "ports."