Thing is, you don't have a 2 Party system - you* just treat yours like you have one. And of course the 2 big Parties don't want you to realize that you don't have to ... that also doesn't help.prizrak;n3550751 said:[...] Really a two party system was always going to end up like this, it's a simple natural consequence.
Well yes, that should be the job of congress, as a law maker. However, this is the result of adhering to a common law system that to a very large extent relies on a large amount of case law from previous judgments, rather than relying on codified law, where case law is only needed for the fine details. You could also have updated the constitution to 2018 language, and eliminated the need to interpret it's 18th century wording. As a lawyer I believe that codex law is better than common law, as that makes the law more accessible. It's easier for people who are not trained lawyers to just browse the relevant law and find the right article, rather than having to sift through tonnes of relevant, but difficultly worded case law to get a rough idea of what the law actually is.JimCorrigan;n3550724 said:I wish the Supreme Court was above politicization. Judge selection should function similar to jury selection. It shouldn’t come down to the existing process. My rationale is the judges should be as apolitical as possible, and have the ability to put the law above their own personal politics. Ideally the Supreme Court should be there to enforce existing law, not make new law (that should remain the jurisdictions of another branch).
Missed this.Interrobang;n3550857 said:Thing is, you don't have a 2 Party system - you* just treat yours like you have one. And of course the 2 big Parties don't want you to realize that you don't have to ... that also doesn't help.
Going back to the 2016 Election - wouldn't it have been interesting if Sanders and Trump ran on Independent tickets? I recon both could have won quite a lot of states, making it hard for Clinton and (I recon) Bush to win the election. But even Trump and Sanders fell back into the routine of sucking up to one of the two big parties.
Look at France! When Macron started running for President there he didn't even have a Party. He founded his own Party out of NOTHING and WON the Presidential election and the Party have a Majority in the house. That took a year. One year! And France also (pretty much) has had 2 Parties dominating the Presidential election since WW2. Macron broke all of that. People said that it couldn't be done before too. Didn't matter, he did it anyway. He found his message, occupied a political stance inbetween the two big parties - and then just beat them.
The same could happen in the Us. But you gotta have someone with the balls to start this thing and go through with it while everyone tells them it can't be done. It's this "we have a 2 Party system" nonsense that is holding you all back from having Politicians in office that really represent you and not some Compromise or lesser of two evils.
*not YOU specifically, in the broader sense.
Doesn't look like a bad pick if you ask me. Following precedent means he is not likely to overturn current rulings and does seem to not blindly follow an agenda. The quote about criminal investigations of the POTUS is a bit worrying but then SCOTUS has no power to stop any so it might not be relevant.GRtak;n3551164 said:Trump just nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court.
Here is an article about him from a few days ago.
Edit, here is a fresh article about him. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court
Well, change/amend the law then, a simple majority in the parliament can do that.prizrak;n3551151 said:Codified law doesn't allow for the same flexibility though, the benefit of case law is that it can organically change with the times.
Change/amend which laws? Constitution, which is really what the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret, requires 2/3rd majority of Congress. I don't really follow your logic here, the Constitution IS codified, case law and SCOTUS are the ones who interpret the finer details as you called them. As an example, what constitutes "arms" in "the right to bear arms".marcos_eirik;n3551181 said:Well, change/amend the law then, a simple majority in the parliament can do that.
That's a much more democratic process, rather than relying on the Judges power of judgement, and what they are influenced by. It also makes the legal system more predictable. There will always be room for interpretation (like I said, in the fine details) but it will be limited by the extent of the written law's wording.
While the constitution is codified, much of the US legal system isn't, see: Common Law, opposed to Civil Law.prizrak;n3551182 said:Change/amend which laws? Constitution, which is really what the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret, requires 2/3rd majority of Congress. I don't really follow your logic here, the Constitution IS codified, case law and SCOTUS are the ones who interpret the finer details as you called them. As an example, what constitutes "arms" in "the right to bear arms".
Vs. this:Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law, or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue (one party or the other has to win, and on disagreements of law, judges make that decision). The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants. Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch (the interactions are explained later in this article). Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
Regarding the constitution, why not change it, so that the wording gets updated to contemporary language that makes sense for most people who are not historians or lawyers? How hard can it be? We updated our constitution to contemporary language (and expanded the human rights catalogue) for it's 200th anniversary in 2014.Civil law, civilian law, or Roman law is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of Roman law, the main feature of which is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems, the intellectual framework of which comes from judge-made decisional law, and gives precedential authority to prior court decisions, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis).
I understand the differences but you don't seem to understand our legal system. We have two well defined systems of law, criminal and civil (tort). The former deals with things like personal or property crime (robbery, hijacking, murder, etc...) and the latter deals with disputes between either individual or legal entities, that's the stuff that handles class action lawsuits for example or the infamous McDonald's coffee case. The former is not heavily reliant on precedent for punishment, however it does grant certain leeway to judges to apply the punishments based on circumstances. Precedent really gets into it when there are vagueries, is it a legal duty of a police office to protect/defend a citizen? Or when it comes to procedure, for example granting bail or how a criminal is to be handled (the well known Miranda warning). Precedent can also come into play in tort courts when it comes to deciding on punitive damages and culpability.marcos_eirik;n3551186 said:While the constitution is codified, much of the US legal system isn't, see: Common Law, opposed to Civil Law.
Regarding the constitution, why not change it, so that the wording gets updated to contemporary language that makes sense for most people who are not historians or lawyers? How hard can it be? We updated our constitution to contemporary language (and expanded the human rights catalogue) for it's 200th anniversary in 2014.
This the major difference between the US and rest of the world. Neither the government nor the Constitution grant any rights, the rights are "endowed by our creator" meaning that we are all born with the same rights and the government/Constitution is there to protect those rights. Some of these rights are enumerated, however the list is not exhaustive and the Constitution specifically says that.and expanded the human rights catalogue