Is the Separation of Powers BROKEN in the USA?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (165 posts)
  1. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 4 weeks ago

    In a true democracy there should be a separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature.  No democracy is perfect, but how imperfect is the American democracy?

    While browsing the web in relation to a question on the Separation of Powers in the USA (in another forum) I stumbled across this video below, which is how America is perceived by many from across the pond.

    Although the video reflects the perception of America, as generally seen by many from the other side of the pond; obviously I don’t have an insider’s (American) view on what’s said in the video, so I would be interested in your feedback and opinions on what the video says:

    The Separation of Powers is BROKEN in the USA: https://youtu.be/1FIzoxAm2IU

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is not surprising to me that you, and a great many from "across the pond" agree with this video but I am not in agreement.

      While it is true that there is at least some merging, some violation, of the separation of power in the US it is not nearly as bad as is portrayed in the video. 

      But that is not surprising, for the video was not as much about separation of power as it was negative reasons the US does not follow Europe down the road of Socialism.  That our system is set up and designed to prevent the greed of a majority (whether for money or power) to take over a minority and simply shunt those needs and wants aside is abhorrent to the speaker.  That the US refutes the "obvious" good of socialism means the whole system is faulty; that socialism is more difficult to attain here means the system needs to change until it is easier. When our "powers" (House, Senate, SCOTUS, President) all work together (seldom) to follow the Constitution it is seen as a faulty action rather than a recognition of what we are and what we wish to be.

      So, no...there is no major fault in our separation of powers, we just don't want the socialism of Europe.  Our system is designed to prevent, or at least slow, the progression towards the "equality" of socialism and that's just fine.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your thoughts wilderness:  Putting politics aside per se, I don’t see it as your “system is designed to prevent, or at least slow, the progression towards the "equality" of socialism”; I see it as a system that is designed to keep a ‘two party’ system to the exclusion of other political parties – which to me seems undemocratic e.g. stifles the ‘will of the people’ if the ‘will of the people’ is for a greater inclusion of ‘socialism’.

        The UK could have been in a similar situation today if it wasn’t for the broadminded view of one Conservative Politician (named Lord Salisbury) in the House of Lords back in 1948.

        In 1945 the people voted into power a socialist government for the first time in the UK; on a landslide victory.  At that time the House of Lords (an unelected upper chamber) was predominately Conservatives; and the Leader of the House of Lords was Lord Salisbury (Conservative).

        So in 1948, when it came for the newly elected socialist government to push their socialist polices (which they had been elected on) through Parliament to become law - Lord Salisbury reasoned with his fellow unelected Conservative politicians in the House of Lords that “as they were unelected politicians it would be undemocratic to go against ‘the will of the people’ and block the socialist policies in the socialist government’s ‘election manifesto’ that the people had democratically elected into power:

        This became known as the ‘Salisbury Convention’, and in 1949 become part of the ‘British unwritten Constitution’ e.g. that the House of Lords should not block any legislation that is in the Government’s Election Manifesto; but, as part of the ‘checks and balances’ of power in Parliament, the House of Lords are free to block any of the Government’s legislation if it was not in the Government’s Election Manifesto.

        The Salisbury Convention: https://youtu.be/AGhgq1t8gpE

    2. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Surely you don't accept that video as an honest presentation? I made it through 5:30 before enough was enough. That was a really unbalanced and biased presentation of a perspective.

      While it is true that the Founders clearly feared, and designed our constitution against, pure democracy, the video's slant misrepresents their reasoning.

      The same bias was used in all of the points that I watched. If that is the way you guys see it you need to look deeper. On our 'side of the pond' tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.

      Try this: Switch chairs, don a protagonist mantle and search for info to debunk the video. You will find plenty and much of it will be as biased as the linked video, but, you will also find good info to consider.

      As a 'for instance', the video's presentation of the Supreme Court going against the will of the majority. Given the examples provided, that is not a truthful perspective. The Court rules on the constitutionality of issues, not whether the issue is right or wrong or the will of the people.

      The Court did not rule for or against abortion, it ruled on the constitutionality of the original Roe decision. Constitutional scholars have studied and debated this new ruling. When you check those out I think you will find that most (tempted to say 'all') of the dissenting views are based on the ideology of choice as determined by the majority American opinion. That's wrong because the Court isn't supposed to be influenced by ideological reasoning, its job is solely to interpret the constitutionality of laws and their application in the public arena of 'justice'.

      The president's climate and student loans efforts presentations stated their bias in the headlines with adjectives like; very moderate' and "extremely moderate."  But, even that is an unimportant detail. The Court did not rule on whether the act was moderate or extreme, it ruled on the constitutional power of the president to arbitrarily bypass constitutional restraints.

      This side of the pond thinks that's the way it should be. Using party affiliation percentages, the majority of Americans agree on the Court's purpose.

      The rest of the examples I saw fit the same mold. Take that challenge. It probably won't change your mind, but it will inform you about the majority view on the issues I spoke to.

      Plus, the Court points are safer from political rationalizations. The politics can easily be agreed upon and set aside because an even larger majority of Americans believe our SCOTUS Justices selection process has become too politicized. One less point to argue.

      I did understand that you were just describing a perspective represented by the video, I'm simply saying you should challenge the video before you accept it (even if you do agree with it) because I think the SCOTUS  premises I mentioned can be shown as purposeful misrepresentations.

      It's not a good thing that you see the video as a common European perspective.

      Then again, maybe something changed in the other 8 minutes and my comments are really off base. I'll risk it.  *shrug*   ;-)

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        That was a mild version of the perceptions and beliefs the vast majority of Progressives (aka Democrats) have of America.

        Funny enough, everything that was accused in the video, regarding property owner's and their rights may have been fairly accurate, just expressed in the worst light possible.

        Considering the reality of that time and the inability of most people the world over to own property and have the rights provided in the Constitution and Bill of Rights... one has to be ignorant of history of course to jive with the messaging of that video.

        Which of course is why so much effort today is put on CRT, DEI, founding fathers bad slave owning evil people, etc.  rewrite or denigrate history and people will cheer as you take away their rights and freedoms.

        Clearly, it will become a lot easier to erase both the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the near future, replacing it with a Corporate-Communist government that defers to International authorities, much like we see coming into existence under the current Administration.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I think I picked the wrong door. I was expecting a different direction than that of your and Cred's responses. I'll stick with the video examples - if that direction survives.

          The video examples that I saw are so easily shown to be misrepresentations that it's a wonder informed folks (e.g. Arthur) accept it as support for their perspectives. The point isn't about holding 'that' perspective, it's about how it is supported.

          Ga

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Not really, not when you understand Arthur's political beliefs.

            Or Credence's for that matter.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              And what is wrong with taking a stand against authoritarianism and creeping despotism from the Right, on that point, Arthur and I agree.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                You believe you are fighting against injustices brought on decades, centuries ago... ensuring they do not return.

                In this fight, you are merely allowing another form of tyranny to take hold, one that will strip all Americans, black and white, of the freedoms and opportunity America had come to offer to all people, post 1960s.

                The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

                This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review.

                The difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word "republic" comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply "the public thing(s)," or more simply "the law(s)." "Democracy," on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to "the people to rule." Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.

                The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) "Men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch.

                They recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. This is the linchpin point where America sits today, the degeneration of civil obedience, law, order, and our national economic wellbeing... so that the mob-majority will beg for a tyrannical government (the one that created the distress) to save them.

                The Founding Fathers had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former.

                In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.

                Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.

                • Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. "Democracy never lasts long," he noted. "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'"

                • New York's Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

                Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

                • James Madison, who is rightly known as the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths."

                • George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government."

                • Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington's presidency. He termed democracy "a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders."

                On another occasion, he labeled democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards ... tyranny." He later opined: "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."

                And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution "intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism."

                In light of the Founders' view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word "democracy," but does mandate: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."

                These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers.

                John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos," he wrote.

                American poet James Russell Lowell warned that "democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor." Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that "democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."

                Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. "I have long been convinced," he said, "that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

                Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."

                This is exactly where we are today, and exactly how the Democrats took power in 2020, where 'Mail in Ballots' that were unverifiable as to their legitimacy decided several key swing states... any State that sends out millions of ballots to their voters is no longer a State holding legitimate elections, it's outcome will ALWAYS be decided by those that control the ballot counting. 

                Joseph Stalin: 'The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.'

                The falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States has become increasingly widespread.

                This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson's famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I "to make the world safe for democracy" — and by President Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 exhortation that America "must be the great arsenal of democracy" by rushing to England's aid during WWII.

                One indicator of the radical transformation that took place is the contrast between the War Department's 1928 "Training Manual No. 2000-25," which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:

                A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct expression." Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

                This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy ... and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic."

                But by 1932, pressure against its use caused it to be withdrawn. In 1936, Senator Homer Truett Bone (D-WA) took to the floor of the Senate to call for the document's complete repudiation.

                Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest "from private citizens." Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy "appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists."

                By 1952 the U.S. Army was singing the praises of democracy, instead of warning against it, in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier's Guide. This new manual incorrectly stated: "Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run...." (Emphasis in original.)

                In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of historical accuracy "At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of 'We, the People,' in the preamble.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat."

                During the 1950s, Clarence Manion, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, echoed and amplified what the Beards had so correctly stated. He summarized: "The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term 'democracy' even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to 'democracy' only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system."

                The Founding Fathers had established a republic and had condemned democracy, but powerful forces are at work to convert the American republic into a democracy, in order to bring about dictatorship.

                Democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

                A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

                From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

                As British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."

                Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well.

                In The Communist Manifesto, this enemy of freedom stated that "the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." For what purpose?

                To "abolish private property"; to "wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie"; to "centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State"; etc.

                The truth is, the power will never reside with the people, their freedoms, rights, and ability to own private property will be stripped from them, so that the elites, the oligarchs, the Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink of the world control who eats and who dies.

                Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung, who proclaimed in 1939 (a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland): "Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."

                According to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible.... The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.

                This socialist revolution has been underway in America for generations.  Of course, most who support this goal do not comprehend the totalitarian consequences of constantly transferring more power to Washington. But this lack of understanding is what makes revolution by the Mail-In ballots possible.

                The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented.

                The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc.

                Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional.

                Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...").

                This article, heavily revised, originally appeared in the November 6, 2000 issue of The New American. "A Republic, if You Can Keep It"  Written by John F. McManus

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Well damn, that was an on-point and informative read. I was going to give you credit for penning it.

                  GA

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, Ken, obviously a great deal of effort went into your reply.

                  "You believe you are fighting against injustices brought on decades, centuries ago... ensuring they do not return."
                  --------
                  It is a struggle with which I am familiar but has reaped benefits even if slowly. Why am I going to take a chance with this man who speaks of tyrannical ideas and is a racist and misogynist, can I really expect to fare any better? Reading his Agenda 2025, Trumps proposals are far worse than anything we have today. He clearly states plans to weaponise federal institutions in his seeking "retribution" such a man is not fit for the Presidency.

                  Republic refers to the idea that we are nation of laws not of men, that's fine as a way to protect dissent and minority opinion from being overwhelmed. But within that constraint Democracy must prevail, the rule of the people.


                  "Men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch."
                  ------
                  I will add to that the inordinate influence of corporate capitalists, taking advantage.

                  "They recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. This is the linchpin point where America sits today, the degeneration of civil obedience, law, order, and our national economic wellbeing... so that the mob-majority will beg for a tyrannical government (the one that created the distress) to save them."
                  ------
                  We have a representative democracy, those elected to office are to express the will of the preponderance of the people in the district they serve. No crazed mobs and all that are necessary. But I expect legislators voted in by the people to reflect their will and not that of a minority opinion or set of values. The stuff you speak of has been spoken of in the past as the "end". I  lived during  the sixties and seventies hearing much of the same ominous warnings, but the sky had never fallen.

                  "Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
                  --------
                  I don't see extreme democracy as a problem, but encroaching despotism is.

                  "On another occasion, he labeled democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards ... tyranny." He later opined: "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."
                  ------
                  It seems that we continue to take this road and the sky has not fallen, we have been working at it and its refinement for almost 250 years, I will take my chances with the status quo.

                  This is exactly where we are today, and exactly how the Democrats took power in 2020, where 'Mail in Ballots' that were unverifiable as to their legitimacy decided several key swing states... any State that sends out millions of ballots to their voters is no longer a State holding legitimate elections, it's outcome will ALWAYS be decided by those that control the ballot counting.
                  ------
                  Just like Republicans took power in 2016 when Clinton had the most popular votes. Like I said, if there is not proof of voter fraud, it remains just idle banter in my opinion. You don't say that all Presidential ballot counts have been corrupt since ballots were counted or are you parroting Trumps eternal lie?



                  In this so called mobocracy, how is it that the rich, our corporate aristocracy continue to get richer?


                  "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
                  -----
                  Somehow again the rich still get richer and you had better be grateful that much of legislation of the New Deal and Great Society took hold or you would speaking about a society that would torn down by its roots, the people will drag the fat cats down from their celestial perches to be held to account.

                  The proletariat, as the majority should be the ultimate ruling class. The bourgeoisie can by oppressive in of themselves. Is their rule any better?

                  It is erroneous to use the experiences of Communist China and Russia as a model for America.

                  Socialism and Democracy seems to work in much of Europe and in many ways their societies are better than ours.

                  Was the Constitution ignores when slavery was abolished or when women were allowed to vote? Your vision of the Constitution seems to prefer that some are more equal than others.

                  "The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc."
                  -------
                  What about Social Security, Medicare are they under the same derision you seem to assign all of the other social programs? Where did the Constitution speak of this?

                  Let's put you on the spot, Ken. Democracy has it problems, but is despotism and tyranny better? What is it you are really raising hay about do you want democracy in America abolished? What would you replace it with, and be specific.....

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    In order for even your best, most well meaning Progressive Socialist Democracy to uplift, support and better its citizens and society...

                    The Pendulum must swing.

                    America's success, such as it is, was attained because no one party, no one power, maintained control.

                    There were always corrections in the direction the country was sailing toward.  Change needs to progress slowly, with corrections made when overreach occurs.

                    If this is not allowed to continue, then tyranny is right around the corner... it is currently your Party that has the Nation so near to that precipice, the threat you harp on regarding Trump is a mirage, a fabrication of those trying to undermine the Republic and usher in the One Party despotism that America has avoided for decades now.

                    This is some 30 years in the making, with many of the same players in the game... the Clintons, Biden & Pelosi... they have been in the mix for roughly 40 years.  The Obamas for the past 20 and clearly the more popular out of them all.

                    Trump would be nothing more than what he was in 2016... a delay in the deconstruction of America, a delay in its demise as a Republic for a few years more.

                    A Trump Administration will get no closer to being a Tyranny than it did the last time he was in office, with the majority of those in DC working to undermine him and hinder his every effort.

                    The nation needs a desperate breather from the Biden Administration and all those within it and behind it.  The world needs a desperate breather from the total incompetence of this Administration's efforts that seems to be so determined to bring about WWIII.

        2. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Corporate-communist" is an oxymoron. I hardly see how that can happen

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        No I don’t accept the video as an honest presentation; it is obviously heavily biased towards socialism – and normally I don’t take much notice of any article or video that’s heavily biased, in either direction:  But nevertheless, from my perspective from across the pond, I do see a lot of truth in the video which is worthy of debate.

        Where you say in your 2nd paragraph: “On our 'side of the pond' tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.” – That sounds to me that you are saying that ‘the will of the people’ should be stifled, if the ‘will of the people’ means an element of socialism?

        Yes you are right in much of what you say e.g. “Courts must decide a case by determining the facts and applying the applicable law subject to precedent.  So public opinion surrounding a particular case is irrelevant.”

        However, it does seem to me that although it’s not public opinion that sways the Supreme Court, its politics – because in the USA there is not a true separation of powers between the Juridical and the Executive.  And even in “determining the facts and applying the applicable law subject to precedent” political slant can make a fundamental difference in the decision made by the Supreme Court.  In this respect how did the Democrat Supreme Court Judges and the Republican Supreme Court Judges vote in the recent Roe v Wade decision e.g. if all the Democratic judges voted one way and all the Republican judges voted the other way then it is clearly ‘political’?

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I better watch the rest of your link to see what truths you think are there. As mentioned in a subsequent comment, after some thought I had to agree that the video was right—our SCOTUS is intentionally undemocratic (in the sense of not weighing the public's majority sentiment), but the bias of the reasoning used to support that charge was so wrong. Maybe the other points deserve a look.

          "Tyranny of the majority" wasn't intended as a synonym for socialism. A socialist form of government isn't the same as socialist practices. One is forced and one is adopted.

          The most simplistic example is the 'Who's for dinner?' trope:
          "5 wolves and 3 sheep are deciding who gets eaten for dinner. Each get one vote. That's a tyranny of the majority. 

          That concept extrapolates throughout a society's development. Consider our early 'Wild West' history as another step up. Dodge (an early Wild West town) decides to clean up their act. They hired a sheriff, made some rules, and decided to become a society of laws.                                               

          The first lynch mob was a tyranny of the majority. Then jump to our early twentieth century—our part in WWII. A majority of citizens were for a strict isolationist policy. I say history proves that had they prevailed it would have been a tyranny of the majority.

          By the same token, a 5 - 4 SCOTUS ruling could technically also be seen as a tyranny of the majority—by the minority. But, that tyranny has been mitigated and refined by all the steps involved before it reached the Courts.

          Consider an unrefined example: the raw one-vote-each voice of the people. The majority, votes for a universal basic income that costs more than the government revenue can support—even with new confiscatory taxes. That tyranny would bankrupt the nation. But, as that voice of the majority passes through the process of its collective representatives, and through the various legislative steps, and minority challenges it becomes refined to a consensus of a UBI, but without the bankrupting number because the rules say you can't do that.


          There will always be a danger in majority rule at any level so it is a concept that must have rules. It is only when the majority violates the rules that a majority decision becomes a tyranny.

          Our rules are our constitution and our representative form of government provides the refining process that makes the final decisions the consensus of the majority rather than the demands of a majority. Consensus rather than tyranny.

          Your points about increasing politicization of the Court aren't off base. The political corruption of the selection process has inserted an ideological test that should not be there. But that doesn't mean the concept and original design are wrong, the separation is still there—in the rules, it simply means our politics and politicians are breaking our own rules.

          GA

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            In your 2nd paragraph, where you say:  “A socialist form of government isn't the same as socialist practices. One is forced and one is adopted.”  If a socialist government is democratically elected (as is highly likely to happen in the UK later this year), how is that forced? 

            The bulk of your post quite rightly criticises ‘direct democracy’ e.g. referendums; in my view referendums (direct democracy) should only be used for constitutional changes – as is the case across Europe, including the UK; with the exception of Switzerland.

            Switzerland has been a ‘direct democracy’ since 1848, and although I don’t support ‘direct democracy’ that system of democracy hasn’t harmed Switzerland – as per video below:-

            How good are Swiss referendums really?  https://youtu.be/vECRjAJVzHc

            Like you, I support Representative democracy e.g. politicians elected by ‘the people’ to represent ‘the people’.  However, the American electoral system reinforces a ‘two party’ system to the exclusion of other political parties ever being able to share power at the Federal Government level – which to me (living in a multiparty political system) is less democratic.

            Yes, I understand the importance of a constitution, but the American constitution seems to be set in stone e.g. prevents it from change to keep up with the times; unlike the British ‘unwritten’ constitution that evolves over time to keep pace with changing times e.g. the ‘Salisbury Convention’ that became part of the British Constitution in 1949.

            The Salisbury Convention:  https://youtu.be/AGhgq1t8gpE

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              That sentence did give me some pause, it used the same word to mean different descriptions. My bad. Maybe I can make it worse.

              My thought is that socialism has no 'private' anything. Everything is communal. There is no private gain, all gain is for the community. There is no private profit, all profit is for the community. The mechanics of that system are socialist activities.

              You may have elected socialist leaders and have some socialistic institutions (NHS, trains(?), welfare, etc.), but you still have private stuff, socialism isn't your form of government. The U.S. also has socialistic institutions; police, fire dept. et al, but socialism isn't our form of government either. Do you think Brits would ever give up their property and productivity rights voluntarily?

              I share your criticisms of our two-party system. Our problem — as I see it — is the 'winner takes all' components (non-proportional judgment) of our system. It perpetuates the worst of a two-party system. As a note, the constructs of a two-party system are not part of our constitution.

              I view our Constitution as an instruction manual, not an unchangeable edict. Its concepts are (rightly so) comparable to being "written in stone" because proper basics seldom radically change, but it is stone with mechanisms for change. Our Constitution is malleable and can be changed. The citizens have the power to change it. It just takes a lot of them to agree to do so (again, rightly so). Factions should never have the power to change it (as could be the case in the "changing times" rationalizations), it should always take a mass effort of the majority to do so.

              However, the idea of it changing for changing times is a different argument for another discussion.

              As for the concept of your Salisbury Convention, we had a similar type of change in the early 1900s when our senators became popularly elected positions rather than legislative appointments.

              So, speaking of 'written in stone,' our stone has been changed 27 times already.

              GA

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yes you have made it worse e.g. using “the same word to mean different descriptions.”

                You made the same mistake that many, many Americans make e.g. in thinking that Socialism and Communism is synonymous; whereas in reality they are two completely different political systems; one evolved out of the other.

                Interestingly, the origin of Democratic Socialism was in Britain in the 19th century (so blame us for everything):  “The origins of democratic socialism can be traced back to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the Chartist movement in Great Britain”; and from Britain it quickly spread across the rest of Europe - and shortly afterwards got corrupted into Communism in Russia.

                Communism in Russia and China etc. grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe.

                The two charts below graphically show the basic differences between Socialism and Communism.

                https://hubstatic.com/17002926_f1024.jpg

                https://hubstatic.com/17002927_f1024.jpg

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yep, I screwed the pooch on that one. There is so much nuance and context between my simplistic view, as stated, and the graph's presentation, that I had to do a look-around to see how wrong I was, or to find support that I wasn't completely wrong.

                  In an effort for perspective, I'm not ready to plant my flag on what follows as the real truth. It's just some points that seem to fit my description.

                  Where I spoke to private property it was from an American understanding—private property is what you own, from real property to intellectual property to the clothes on your back. It seems private property in socialism means a couple of things: Public/Private property and Personal property. With all production and resources related to basic societal needs—essentially the entire Primary market, being public/private ownership. Those properties are also collectively controlled.

                  Personal property (stuff an individual can own) seems to be stuff such as commodities you buy: the VCR, the shirt on your back, furniture, etc.). It seems more modernized interpretations allow more open entrepreneurial and property ownership rules in the Secondary market: small non-basic needs productions and products, cafes, etc. That would also be the only area (market) where personal profit would be condoned.

                  If those basic descriptions aren't basically wrong, (as in, at least arguable), and if my "Private" property and profit is equated to your "Personal" property & profit, then my original statement doesn't seem far off.

                  "My thought is that socialism has no 'private' anything. Everything is communal. There is no private gain, all gain is for the community. There is no private profit, all profit is for the community. The mechanics of that system are socialist activities.
                  "


                  Yes, my "everything" and "anything" were too broad and encompassing as a generalization, but, when the point where it is wrong is only in a smaller non-essential secondary market it seems the context is more right than wrong.

                  Leaving room for one more error, For me, Collective and State are nearly synonymous. Not technically and not exactly, but . . . close enough.

                  GA

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I’ve read your post, thought about it, slept on it, read it, had a coffee break, and read it again:  I’m not sure if we are speaking the same language or not?  It’s one of those situations where if we had a social chat over a couple of pints of beer in a pub we would iron out any misunderstandings and come to a common understanding – me thinks!

                    So, as a social drink in a pub isn’t an option, I’ll try a different tact:  Firstly, Russia is more of the ‘text-book’ description of communion that you would read on the web than China is.  Secondly, I’m not so au fait with Russia as I am with China e.g. a close family friend and neighbours, is a Chinese couple who live two doors up from us, they immigrated from China specifically so that they could have two children.  They holiday (vacation) to China most years to see family and friends, and occasionally the husbands brother (who we’ve met) takes a holiday (vacation) from China to see his brother in Britain:  So from them I do have a good insider’s perspective of China. 

                    Also, a few years ago my son asked me to research and source some equipment for his profession (using my skills that I was trained to do in the civil service).  After a lot of research I narrowed the choice down to just two manufacturers, one in the West and one in China – we opted for the China product because it was a far better design, and a far better quality build.

                    NOW ONTO THE TOPIC MATTER:

                    Firstly, there is a clear distinction between Communism (as in China), and Socialism (as in Britain); so I’m wondering whether it would be better to focus on what democratic socialism is (relevant to Europe and Britain), rather than try to define communism (relevant to Russia and China).

                    Yep, even the two charts I posted previously is too simplistic; so for those who don’t have democratic socialism in their country, and therefore don’t have first-hand experience of democratic socialism e.g. (the USA), trying to read too much into the charts, without more detailed knowledge could be misleading.  For example, where the charts say ‘no private ownership’ and ‘no free markets’ under communism, it doesn’t mean at the personal level, and (in China at least) it doesn’t prevent ‘private enterprise’ e.g. the product I mentioned above, that we bought from China, was manufactured by a private/commercial Chinese Company.

                    And in China, personal property, such as clothes, DVD players, TV’s, mobile phones, and even cars are owned by the individual, bought using their own hard earned cash.   Personal wealth is not outlawed in China, according to ‘Forbes’ there are currently 406 billionaires in China (compared to 813 in the USA, and 55 in the UK).  And in the UK we get a lot of Chinese tourist spending money over here while on their holiday (vacation).

                    Finally, referring to your last paragraph:  Living in a country where we have ‘socialism’ I know the difference between ‘Collective (communism) and State (Socialism)’, because I live in a country where many things are ‘State owned’ or ‘State Controlled’; but putting it into words to explain in simple terms to someone who hasn’t experienced ‘socialism’ eludes me at the moment – so time for another coffee break to think.

                  2. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Ok, I’ve had my coffee break and a think; and the best analogy I can think of to distinguish the difference between ‘Collective’ (communism, as in Russia and China) and ‘State’ (Socialism, as in Europe and Britain) is the UK’s Co-op.

                    The Co-op was founded in England in 1844, it’s a private business that’s owned and run by ‘the people’ e.g. not shareholders, and not government.  In the UK today, the Co-op has businesses in Retail, Wholesale, Legal, Funerals, Insurance, and Social Enterprise. 

                    In the UK the Co-op:-

                    •    Founded in England in 1844
                    •    Has 3,160 branches across Britain
                    •    Annual Revenue = $14 billion
                    •    Annual Net Profit = $4 million
                    •    Employs 56,465 people
                    •    Has over 5 million active members (owners), which is about 12.5% of the UK adult population who are active members of the Co-op e.g. who own the Co-op.

                    In the UK a typical funeral, if you go to a private Funeral Director, costs around $4,000; whereas, if you go to the Co-op it typically costs around $2,000.

                    This short 2 minute video explains the Co-op in the UK: https://youtu.be/PIbW8b5ssKs

                    The Co-op in the UK operates more like the ‘Collective’ businesses in communist countries.

                    In Contrast, ‘State’ (socialism, as Europe and Britain) is where the central Government owns, and sometime controls, the Industry e.g. Public Transport, Electricity, Water, and Sewage etc.  E.g. the coal industry in Britain was State owned until the Conservative Government decided to close it down for political reasons; and until the 1980s many heavy industry, including steel, car manufacturer and the aeroplane industry were all State owned in Britain.

                    Today, with the Conservatives privatising most State owned Industries in the 1980s, there are relative few State owned business remaining in the UK; the most recently renationalised industries (State owned), bought back under Government ownership and control by the Conservative Government in the last couple of years is the National Grid and Trains; and of course the BBC and Channel 4 TV are also State owned in the UK:  But unlike America the State (Government) does heavily Regulate Private Industry in the UK.

                    The complete list of what Industries still remain under State ownership in the UK is:

                    •    British Business Bank
                    •    Civil Aviation Authority
                    •    Railways and Trains (and in London, all public transport)
                    •    National Physical Laboratory
                    •    Pension Protection Fund
                    •    NHS
                    •    National Grid (for electricity and natural gas)
                    •    Steel industry
                    •    Forestry
                    •    BBC & Channel 4 TV

    3. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi Arthur, have a look at the video "You have been warned" to get an idea of what Trump and his henchmen are up to.


      Thanks for your video, I agree with it in its totality.

      Conservatism, at least the American variety of it, has always at its roots  been undemocratic. From the Founding Fathers ultimate goal of maintaining their wealth and prominence and keeping human beings as property, while plying the masses with their flowery oratory about the "rights of man" and such, conservatism has defined itself from the very beginning. It took over a century before people were allowed to vote directly for their Senators 17th Amendment, 1913. Before, state legislators were allowed to appoint them and the interests of well heeled state legislators often ran contrary to the those of the masses.

      The closer and more accountable the Government is to the masses that it is to serve, the better, in my view. I don't like "undemocratic".

      Until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that conservatives, even today are trying to water down, there was still no real democracy relatively recently in America except for a chosen segment of society.

      Yes, today, with the Right Wing Tribunal that passes as the Supreme Court, when you double down on Conservatism, you double down on authoritarianism and tyranny. And with the rise and popularity of so crass a man as Donald Trump and his  lemming like followers that really believe that he capable of anything else beyond sheer mayhem, therein lies the danger.

      We struggle against a system built to promote Anglo, male corporate dominance and those who unwittingly believe that that have something to gain by supporting it. And while it may not yield immediate results, we cannot relent in the goal to speak truth to power regardless of the costs. With enough blows of the sledgehammer, we might begin to crack the edifice.

      Conservatives would love to play the victim, when they are instigators of our problems....

      Just my opinion....

      Thanks for asking so pertinent a question, Arthur.


      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mehdi-ha … 337658db1c

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I think we have seen how our Bread and Circuses, let everyone vote regardless of ID or if they are living has been working out for our "Democracy".

        If you consider how our government IGNORES the people, starts wars, opens borders and pays for non-citizens, allows companies to increase costs 100% on its citizens in one year's time on services required by law that they have (IE Car, Home, Health Insurance), etc. etc.

        I would say your version of 'Democracy' is fast tracking the entire nation into destitution and destruction... time for the Red Revolution, right Comrade?

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          But I say your version of Democracy is driving us into tyranny and despotism.... when can I say Sieg Heil ?

          Why is your Trump alternative better? Why should I believe that?

          We got issues with conservatives trying to impede voting rights of bonefide American citizens who would more than likely vote against them. Do you think that I am not aware of that?

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            The Mailing out of ballots to millions of voters is not even 3rd world laughable, most 3rd world nations don't have elections as unverifiable as America's national elections are today.

            Our elections are a disgrace, it has never been easier for those who are corrupt and willing to sell out the interests of Americans and America to steal elections.

            That they have practically made it illegal for anyone to publicly mention how obviously corrupt our elections are is surely the clearest sign that they are fraudulent to a degree never before seen in any 'Democratic' nation.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I not think that they were corrupt at all, Republicans are just sore losers. You people have always got excuses. Now every time a Republican loses, it is fraud? Has it occurred to you that a lot of people don't care for Republicans and vote accordingly?



              Because one demented man said that 2020 elections were fraud which  he couldn't prove after 60 court contrary decisions, we are all to take his word as gospel, now? I don't care what his opinion is.

              I don't want anyone like this in charge, period.

              Like the late George Carlin said, "its bullsh*t and its bad for you".

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Totality" is too broad for me, but you did prompt a second thought about the first(?) Supreme Court segment. Maybe it is fair to say it was designed to be undemocratic and that its rulings are often undemocratic. Maybe what was intended as a slanderous truth was contrarily affirming the legitimacy of the Court and its original design.

        Surely you don't disagree that the purpose of the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law, not public sentiment (the democracy of the majority), right?

        GA

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          With jest, maybe, as to 'original design' gun powder 'originally' was meant to be an elixir to prolong life. Look what happen to it.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yep, it is a cute first thought, but it doesn't hold up, the analogy isn't comparable. The original design wasn't corrupted, a different use was a redefinition of the original.

            So far the original SCOTUS design has held up. Even as one aspect of the design—the Justice selection process, has become politically corrupted, the basis of its purpose has held.

            GA

            1. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I 'could' go along with the last paragraph, but the first is pure poppycock. As 'you' like to say a lot, "You're wrong".

              Disclaimer: The following most certainly is not gospel, thus is arguable, yet it will take a lot to persuade me otherwise.

              The essence of the Supreme Court 'today', as you eloquently put in the last paragraph, "has become politically corrupted". (Period!!) Corruption is homogeneous. It mixes thoroughly with integrity, evenly throughout the body.

              Perhaps, procedure and protocol has held up, but I most definitely question the justices integrity (at least some, today and in the past, on both sides of the dastardly political fence of impartiality, justice, and fairness), faithfulness to the Constitution as written along with laws of precedence, and executing responsibility to justice and fairness.

              There are two oaths of office for a Justice of the Supreme Court. they are:

              The first:
              "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

              The second:
              "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

              Notice there is an 'out' with the second oath. That is, "according to the best of my abilities and understanding."

              Although I don't disagree with the Dobbs decision, Alito reached beyond the Constitution and present laws to 'Justify' his position. I repeat, "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." But, he had an out, "according to the best of my abilities and understanding."

              Let me, now, remind you of the disclaimer.

              Speculatively, I would say the Court in at least 70% of the cases is not political charged. Maybe? I question the remaining 30% wholeheartedly.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                So you think I'm wrong? Well, maybe. It happened once before, back in 78'. I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. ;-)

                As for your Dobb's and 70%, thought-line, I have a defense, but not an argument. I trust the consensus of the Court, even when I disagree.

                There are no perfect humans, but, if someone has reached the stature to even be considered for a justice seat my view is that their resume is proof of their credentials and integrity. For me, Alito and Ginsberg are good opposing examples. I liked that Alito was an originalist (a textualist?), it fits my view of how the Court should rule. I also liked Ginsberg, even though I felt she allowed ideology to influence her rulings. I trusted her to make decisions "to the best of her ability" because she had the demonstrated credentials and integrity to hold her seat.

                You might be right about the Court's political corruption, our politics have gotten a lot worse since the time of her appointment. However, I'm not sure it's as bad as you think. I don't recall any recent appointments that were unqualified or too politically motivated—even the ones I disagree with.

                GA

                1. tsmog profile image85
                  tsmogposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I, too, have admiration, respect, and possibly a 'presumed' trust in their credentials, professionally, when nominated.

                  However, that doesn't speak to character, integrity, honesty, nor humility. Case in point, Kavanaugh. I am 'forced' to accept what the Senate proclaimed with their 50-48 vote. Though, I accept the result as a 'good' citizen, as person with individual liberty I reject it wholeheartedly. I will keep a sharp shooter's eye on him!

                  Trusting the courts decisions has nothing to do with faith in the court's decisions. Belief is dependent on the interaction of faith and trust. If one diminishes the belief diminishes.

                  Personally, my 'Belief' in the Court as being representative of the ideals I was taught and accepted 'today' fall short. I definitely do not have full trust in it nor do I have full faith in it. Done deal!!!

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I think you are being too cynical. I also think "belief" and "faith" work well as descriptors if the connotations are defined for the issue, as in not as applied in religious faiths. Maybe I'll try to offer you some faith another time.  ;-)

                    I do have a belief in the institution because I believe in its purpose and structure. I also place an initial faith in the appointed justices. Their credentials earn that respect. A bad apple can certainly lose that faith, and an admitted ideological coalition can also lose it. But those failures don't taint the concept. The concept is what I have faith in.

                    The current political corruption in the selection process challenges that faith a little, but there hasn't yet been an example, in modern times, that shakes it.

                    GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I think Americans are seeing what is becoming the norm in our Democratic led states... it will be interesting to see what people want come Nov 2024.

          An increase in what we have been seeing the past 3.5 years...

          Or an alternative that promises a return to Law, Order, Borders, and Americans put first.



          https://hubstatic.com/17000041.jpg

          LA



          https://hubstatic.com/17000042_f1024.jpg

          San Fran



          https://hubstatic.com/17000043_f1024.jpg

          NY



          https://hubstatic.com/17000045.jpg

          1. IslandBites profile image89
            IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            That's disingenuous.

            Is it the Federal Goverment?

            Your photos

            First photo - 2019
            Second photo - 2017
            Third photo -2023
            Fourth photo - Riot 1992

            Or the states?

            Florida 2020

            https://www.gainesville.com/gcdn/authoring/2020/01/11/NTGS/ghows-LK-6a2846e9-be64-4c5e-a51e-e0f1ca6c9aaa-bdc67c68.jpeg?width=660&height=441&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

            Texas 2019
            https://www.texasstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/48800762081_1b9a6b137e_b.jpg


            That's an all colors problem.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Didn't say it wasn't.

              Did say it is a sign of systemic failure, your additional photos only re-affirm that.

              Sorry about the 1992 photo... considering there are hundreds of others from the common occurrence of flash mob robberies and daily shop lifting thefts you would think that when I searched for a photo it would have presented one from the last few years... guess the Search Engine filters didn't scrub that far back, that was why it was one of the first photos to pop up.   

              Search Engines are getting increasingly better at hiding articles and photos that they don't want you finding, it is becoming an art form being able to find particular information on the internet these days.

        3. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          GA, I don't know that we want undemocratic. What once passed as the Aristocracy in the 18th Century and replaced with corporate capitalists today, acting as arbiter? We are all supposed to believe that they are benevolent overseers of the "system". I did not trust their motives in the 18th century no more than I do their 21st century counterparts. They are going to move things in their advantage and against that of masses, why wouldn't they? Right now, the franchise is the only protection society has to keep this group under some control. Does the court really impartially interpret the law, specifically conservatives, or are they protecting the "system" and its economic, social and political hierarchies?

          I don't know, it seems that even the Roe vs Wade recission was not a good idea. As it was said in the 19th Century, the country cannot remain being half slave and half free. Regardless of what conservatives always say about states rights and such, there is such a thing as bodily autonomy, everyone's most personal affairs should not be subject to the whims of state legislators. Conservatives always evade this issue, where is the line drawn, do I have to invite state legislators into our bedrooms every night? The decision the Court made is just going to have women frantically moving from one state to another to acquire abortion rights. There is a big picture, I can bring up to 4th amendment, which basically says that people have a certain right to be left alone, as was once explained by SC Justice. That is my point of view.

          Yes, I agree that the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law not public sentiment, but their rulings are not as Constitutionally flawless as we are asked to believe. They have and can continue to make mistakes, and who can realistically shut their eyes to the world around them today, as opposed to the world of knee breeches and powdered wigs? I would always prefer democracy of the majority than to have the interests of an aristocratic few take precedence. From the beginning that has been a primary struggle of this nation since its founding.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Yes, I agree that the Court was to be the arbiter of questions of law not public sentiment..."

            Are you sure?  Do you really agree with the purpose of the Court?  Because your entire second paragraph is one long complaint that the people do not like the decision, that the people want bodily autonomy (meaning the right to murder), etc.  Nothing there even begins to address the law of the country; only what you think people want.

            So do you actually agree that the Court is not there to make law but to interpret what Congress (and the people in some cases) have decided?

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              It is possible for the SC to get it wrong as they did with the Plessy ruling back in 1896. There is alway a subjective factor in the act of  interpretation. It's only conservatives that believe that rulings from their perspective reflects the correct bonefide interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder about that.

              Yes, the people did not like the decision, but I can question the wisdom of the decision based on Constitutional ideals. Look how fast the court "interpreted" the constitution regarding whether Trump could be excluded from state ballots. They deviated from the letter and verse of what was clearly stated therein. They came to their conclusions based on impeding anarchy if states could exclude candidates they believed as defined in the Constitution were a part of insurrection.

              Interpretation is subjective, no matter how it is done,

      3. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the article link – it makes for a chilling read.

        In the UK it took many centuries for our political system to slowly evolve from the medieval feudal system introduced in Britain in 1066 to our present democratic system; but we got here. 

        One major disappointment in recent times was when the UK Conservative Government (as part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats) did a referendum on ‘proportional representation’ in 2012 (which would have meant ‘Proportional Representation’ rather than the existing ‘First Past the Post’ system – 67.9% of the voting public voted against Proportional Representation (Fools).

        Anyway, it does amaze me on how divided the American people are; especially considering that from a European perspective Democrats and Republicans are political close together ideologically compared to the wide political spectrum we have in Europe and the UK on this side of the pond e.g. ideologically there is a much bigger gulf between the Labour Party (Socialism) and the Conservative Party (Capitalism) in the UK than there are between Republicans (Capitalism) and the Democrats (Mixed economy); the Democrats being middle of the road (in the centre between left and right) from a European perspective.

        In spite of the wide ideological gulf between Labour and Conservatives in the UK; both sides can and often do find common ground to work together in Parliament – Something we don’t seem to see much of in the USA these days between Republican and Democrats.

        Although the UK House of Commons (Parliament) does have its amusing moments of chaos (3 minute video):  https://youtu.be/1zC3BwQBRMk

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          "One major disappointment in recent times was when the UK Conservative Government (as part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats) did a referendum on ‘proportional representation’ in 2012 (which would have meant ‘Proportional Representation’ rather than the existing ‘First Past the Post’ system – 67.9% of the voting public voted against Proportional Representation (Fools)."

          I am lost on this example, assume that I know little if anything about the English Parlimentary system. What was the significance of this?

          With your parlimentary system and parties across the ideological spectrum, the Democrats and Republicans here could probably seen as skewed toward the Right.

          Do you have an equivalent of our Republican Party in British politics (extreme right)?

          Yes, Arthur, the parties here are so polarized that I fear that common ground may well be an elusive goal.

          I consider myself 2 standard deviations toward the left, in this environment. With most democrats somewhat left of center, that could be defined by the current administration in power. I am a magnitude beyond them. The next magnitude beyond me and that are the anarchists. I have not reached that point of desperation with this society as of yet and still hold out hope. I am not a socialist, while those in the next magnitude probably are. I believe that all able bodied  people should work and not exist from the public dole. In a full employment economy, I support Capitalism while more concerned about reining in abuses. Everybody should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed, with the appropriate merit bestowed associated with differences in income be attainable by anyone with the desire to get there. Grinding poverty and homelessness is not the Capitalism I envision. I believe in a reasonable safety net for people who through no fault of their own fall upon hard times. But that safety net should not be hammock. The constant struggle between have and have not needs to be balanced and moderated as one does not take advantage of the other. I have no issue with Government assisting in that role.

          Which party do you believe that I would be most comfortable with in Britain?

          I leave you with a quote from John Adams at the Founding of this Republic
          Most of his words reflects my sentiments.

          "The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed thro' all time. Whether the power of the people, or that of the aristoi should prevail, were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions…. To me it appears that there have been party differences from the first establishment of governments, to the present day…. Everyone takes his side in favor of the many or the few."

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            I’ll answer you post in two parts, to keep the posts shorter.  The first part is in answer to your first question:  “What was the significance of this?”

            Keeping it simple:

            In the UK there are 650 seats; therefore in a General Election a political party needs to win 326 seats (an overall majority) to be able to form Government.

            The UK is divided into 650 regions based on population size (called constituencies) with each constituency containing approximately 70,000 voters. 

            In the 2010 General the different political parties won the following number of seats:

            •    Conservatives = 306 seats
            •    Labour = 258 seats
            •    Liberal Democrats = 57 seats
            •    Other Political Parties = 29 seats

            Therefore, in order to form a Government the Conservatives had no choice other than to form a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats – And the Liberal Democrats would ONLY support the Conservatives on the condition that the Conservatives held a referendum for ‘Proportional Representation’ – which they did in 2012.

            Currently in British elections a candidate wins the seat on the ‘1st past the post’ system; which for a two party system works fine, but for a multiparty system is undemocratic. 

            As a not untypical example in British Politics, under the ‘1st past the post system’ in a multiparty system:

            •    Labour = gets 35% of the votes
            •    Conservatives = gets 34% of the votes
            •    Liberal Democrats = gets 21% of the votes
            •    Green Party = gets 8% of the votes
            •    Other political parties = gets 2% of the votes.

            In the above example Labour would win the seat even though two thirds of the voting electric did not vote Labour – which is undemocratic.

            Whereas under a Proportional Representation system a candidate can only win the seat if more than 50% of the voters vote for that candidate. 

            There are various forms of Proportional Representation; the simplest is the ‘transferable vote’ e.g. each voter votes for three candidates in order of preference e.g. on the ballot paper you might mark Labour as your 1st choice, The Green Party as your 2nd choice and the Liberal Democrats as your 3rd choice.

            Another type of Proportional Representation (used in many counties across Europe) is more complex, but democratic e.g. each political party gets a number of seats based on the percentage of votes they get – so that if a political party gets 5% of the votes the get allocated 5% of the seats.

            Although we don’t have Proportional Representation for local and general elections, we do have Proportional Representation for Mayoral Elections, as demonstrated in this short video:  https://youtu.be/ChY4nooWgGs

            The significance of all this is as follows:-

            In the 2015 General Election – under the current 1st past the post system:

            •    Conservatives won 50.8% of the seats on just 36.8% of the votes.
            •    Labour won 35.7% of the seats on 30.4% of the votes.
            •    Liberal Democrats won 1.2% of the seats on 7.9% of the votes.

            Under a Proportion Representation system the numbers of seats would roughly equate to the percentage of votes each party gets.  Therefore if the British Public had voted in favour of Proportional Representation in the 2012 Referendum, then in 2015 rather than the Conservatives winner just over 50% of the seats on just 36.8% of the votes – the General Election results would have been more like this below:  Remembering that 326 seats are required to form a Government:-

            •    Conservatives = 239 seats
            •    Labour = 197 seats
            •    UKIP = 82 seats
            •    Liberal Democrats = 51 seats
            •    Scottish National Party = 31 seats
            •    DUP (Northern Ireland hard right-wing) = 8
            •    Other political parties = 42 seats

            So if the 2015 General Election had been done under Proportional representation the Conservatives would probably have formed a coalition government with UKIP and DUP (the only other two right wing parties in that general election) – and that would have only given them a 3 seat majority, so although UKIP was single issue party (Brexit) and DUP was strongly in favour of Brexit) – with just a slim majority of just 3 seat coalition government, the Conservatives would have struggled to get Brexit through Parliament at that point – and history would have been different e.g. at the time there was a large handful of Conservative MPs that were pro EU.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Thanks for the video, it laid out some of the numbers. Everyone was so well mannered, totally English.

              Sounds like the 1st past the post system assigned used in a district seem like the plurality gets to take it all, as the other 65 percent is split between other parties.

              What would happen in your atypical example under a proportionate representative system if no one party received 50 percent of the vote?

              Obviously, the proportional representative system was preferred by the British electorate. Was it the Conservatives that resisted the idea and compromised only as a condition of liberal support?

              So, I can presume that which party gets to 326 gets to select it choice as Prime Minister?

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yep, that’s the big flaw in the ‘1st past the post’ in a multiparty system “the plurality gets to take it all, as the other 65 percent is split between other parties” e.g. opposition vote is split.

                Proportional Representation is designed in such a way as to ensure that all elected candidates are elected by the majority.  Proportional Representation comes in many forms; the one in the video was the simplest form of Proportional Representation.

                The Proportional Representation system used in Northern Ireland to elect the Northern Ireland local and national Governments is one of the more complex forms of Proportional Representation, as explained in this short (4 minute) video:    https://youtu.be/lwh0mdtBSZU

                I think I might have confused things by referencing both Mayoral elections and General/Local election in the UK, as they have two completely different voting systems e.g. the Mayoral elections currently is done by Proportional Representation (introduced in the UK by Labour in 2000); while General & Local Elections still use the old ‘1st past the post’ system.

                Yes, you are right in that the Conservatives had to run a referendum on ‘Proportional Representation’ in 2012, as a condition for Liberal support; but unfortunately the proportional representation system was NOT preferred by the British electorate e.g. 67.9% of the British electorate voted against proportional representation in that referendum.  But it’s only a matter of time e.g. another time will come when either Labour or the Conservatives will need the support of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government – and when that time comes the Liberal Democrats will have that as a non-negotiable condition – and most likely, next time, the British electorate will vote in favour of it.

                Yep, you presume right – “whichever party gets to 326 gets to select it choice as Prime Minister” e.g. the leader of that party.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the video, it seems like in proportional representation to get to the quota (over 50%) several rounds of casting ballots are necessary to eliminate other candidates eventually arriving a majority for a single candidate?

                  Like you said, the winner takes all can work with only two candidates which is what we have hear, but over several candidates a plurality is not the majority of voters, and can explain the difference in overall vote count for each party when everything is compared in 1st past the post vs proportional representation, I would prefer the latter.

                  Why would the English people oppose the idea initially?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Just as a note, Our Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) systems—the movement and the municipalities (states?) that use them, are similar to the video's Proportional vote system. And as Nathanville noted about Ireland, RCV seems a lot less complicated.

                    Here's a pro-RCV explanation:
                    What is Ranked Choice Voting?


                    And an anti-RCV:
                    Heritage Foundation: Ranked Choice Voting EXPLAINED: Confusing, Chaotic Election “Reform”

                    GA

                  2. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It’s not several rounds of casting ballots, its several rounds of counting the ballots – a complex counting process; but the system, as complex as it is, is as close to true democracy that you can get in a multiparty system:  Proportional representation is done in every country in Europe except Britain – Even Australia does Proportional representation.

                    Yep, I too would prefer proportional representation. 

                    In answer to your question “Why would the English people oppose the idea initially?”  It’s one of the sad facts that people all too often do ‘initially’ vote the wrong way’ in ‘referendums’.  A couple of Prime Examples being Scotland’s and Wales Devolution Referendums:

                    SCOTLAND:-

                    1979:  The 1st referendum failed to get a sufficient majority from the Scottish voters, to vote in favour of Scotland having its own ‘National Government’.

                    1997:  However, a 2nd referendum held in 1997 did receive the required majority, when 74.29% of the voters voted in favour of Scotland having its own ‘national government’ (Scottish Parliament).  And since 2007 Scotland has been ruled by the SNP (Scottish National Party), the SNP being a socialist government.

                    WALES:-

                    1979:  Only 20.26% of the Welsh voted in favour of Wales having its own ‘national government’.

                    1997:  Only 50.3% of the Welsh voted in favour of Wales having its own ‘national government’, so instead they had just a Welsh Assembly, which gave Wales some autonomy, but Wales was still largely under the rule of the UK Government.

                    2011:  A third referendum on devolution in Wales was held in 2011; and this time the Welsh voted 63.49% in favour of having their own ‘national government’; so Wales got there in the end:  But unlike Scotland the Welsh National Party (Plaid Cymru) (socialist party) don’t yet have a majority in the Welsh Government – at the moment it’s a coalition government with both Labour and Plaid Cymru sharing power.

                    The Welsh National Government (Welsh Parliament) has 60 seats (31 seats required to form a government), as follow:-

                    •    Labour = 30 seats
                    •    Conservatives = 16 seats
                    •    Plaid Cymru = 12 seats
                    •    Liberal Democrats = 1 seat
                    •    Independent = 1 seat

          2. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Part 2:

            Yep, from a European perspective “the Democrats and Republicans in the USA are seen as skewed toward the Right.”

            Excluding Northern Ireland, currently we have two right-wing political parties in Britain, namely:

            1.    Conservative Party (capitalist party), and
            2.    Reform UK Party (hard-right – further right than the Conservatives) e.g. the Reform UK Party is more like your Republican Party than the Conservatives.

            With the UK General Election due this year, the latest voting intention opinion poll results (17th April) puts the main political parties as follows:-

            •    Labour (left-wing) = 44% of the votes
            •    Conservatives (right-wing) = 21% of the votes
            •    Reform UK (right-wing) = 14%
            •    Liberal Democrats (politically in the middle between left and right) = 8%
            •    The Green Party (left-wing) = 8%

            So currently, only 35% (about a third) of British voters are intending to vote for right-wing parties in this years General Election.

            Reading your “I consider myself…” paragraph, I can see a lot of common ground in our political views; but obviously I am far more left-wing than you – covering each point that you raise, in more detail:-

            •    Where you say:  “I believe that all able bodied people should work and not exist from the public dole.”  Yeah, all political parties in the UK support that.

            •    Where you say:  “In a full employment economy, I support Capitalism while more concerned about reining in abuses.”  Yeah, even the Labour Party (socialists) recognise the importance of Capitalism as an essential part of the economy; but where we may differ is that Labour will heavily Regulate Private businesses, while the Conservatives prefer to deregulate; and Labour believes that ‘essential services’, such as the Utility Companies and Public Transport, should be State owned, and State run e.g. nationalisation.

            •    Where you say “Everybody should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed, with the appropriate merit bestowed associated with differences in income be attainable by anyone with the desire to get there.”  Yep, all the political parties in the UK would support that sentiment.

            •    Where you say “Grinding poverty and homelessness is not the Capitalism I envision.”:  In the UK the Conservatives are less keen on tackling poverty, but have proven to be far more generous in government handouts (not just to the poor, but to everyone) during the ‘cost of living crisis’ than the Federal Government in the USA.  Also, Labour is far more committed to tackling homelessness than the Conservatives.

            •    Where you say: “I believe in a reasonable safety net for people who through no fault of their own fall upon hard times. But that safety net should not be hammock.”  That’s where the UK (and Europe) differs from the USA quite fundamentally.  In the UK, not all government benefits are just for the poor or those in most need e.g. ‘means tested benefits’, but even the Conservative Government supports a broader social benefits system e.g. non means tested benefits that everyone are entitled to regardless to their social class or income – such as child benefit, disability benefits etc.  So that it’s not just the poor and working classes that benefit, but also the middle classes.  But obviously, those in most need do get the most benefits.

            •    Where you say: “The constant struggle between have and have not needs to be balanced and moderated as one does not take advantage of the other. I have no issue with Government assisting in that role.”  Yep, all political parties in the UK support that concept; albeit Labour are more inclined to tax the wealthiest 5% slightly more, so as to redistribute some of that wealth to the rest of society, especially those in most need e.g. whenever Labour come to power they always raise the income tax on the 5% highest earners by 2%, and whenever the Conservatives come to power they always reduce the income tax on the 5% highest earners by 2%.

            In answer to your question “Which party do you believe that I would be most comfortable with in Britain?”  Most defiantly the Liberal Democrats.  In that respect, you might find the Liberal Democrat’s 2019 Election Manifesto of interest (10 minute video): - https://youtu.be/Or-Ftl4GVsk

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              I could not help to notice that in your examples, the Conservative (Capitalist) party seems to be doing quite well.

              Wow, you have to go so far to the right that their is virtually nothing left to find the equivalent to the American GOP. Now that's scary.

              While I don't want to regulate American business to death, but the need for regulation is crucial to prevent abuse of labor, the environment, etc. I lean toward more regulation rather than less. While utility services (Gas-Electric) are not socialized they are required to go to a public board to justify any rate increases. I am satisfied that there is oversight to prevent price gouging on essential services.

              You can see in the photos as part of this thread how many shantytowns appear in American cities. Capitalism in America is the lingua Franca for both parties as it is accepted, but the Republicans are just more crass about it, always speaking in terms of laissez faire.

              In regards to the paragraph speaking of safety nets. As flinty as American politics and culture has become, the idea of a universal income can never take hold here. Only the most extreme of the Democratic left would dare propose it and it lies well within the 3rd deviation left of the middle of which I am not a part.

              Taxation is always an issue on either side of the pond. Conservatives Republicans resist imposing taxes on the wealthy, while Democrats believe that they don't pay their fair share under a progressive income tax system, which offers so many loopholes. I would be surprised if any of them paid anything. I can expect a certain amount of blow back over this comment.

              I am a liberal Democrat, so I am home, thanks for the video. I will check it out and see how much we are on the same page.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yep, over the past 14 years “the Conservative (Capitalist) party have done quite well.”  But that will end in this year’s General Election:

                In the 2019 General Election the Conservatives won 365 of the 650 seats; but current prediction is that in this year’s General Election they will struggle to win just 150 of the 650 seats – which will be a humiliating defeat for them.  Also, in the Local Elections, due to take place on 2nd May, it is expected that the Conservatives will lose half their seats e.g. lose about 500 of their existing 1,000 seats in local governments that’s due for election this year –

                Again this will be a humiliating defeat for the Conservatives; so much so that it is expected that the Conservative MPs will revolt against their leader (Prime Minister), forcing him into an early snap General Election in July:  We shall know within a couple of weeks.

                Yep, I agree, there is need for Regulation of businesses “to prevent abuse of labour, the environment, etc.”; and that is certainly the case in the UK.

                As regards our utility services in the UK, water was nationalised (State owned, and State run) in 1884; electricity and sewage were nationalised (State owned and run) in 1947 by Labour:  Unfortunately privatised ‘all’ utility services in the 1980s:  However, as a means to an end e.g. for the UK Government to be able to have better control over its legal requirement to meet the ‘carbon net zero’ by 2050, the Conservatives re-nationalised the National Grid (electricity and natural gas) this year – although utility companies who sell electricity and gas from the national grid to the domestic home will remain in private hands. 

                Our system of regulating the price of gas and electricity in the UK is slightly different to how it’s done in the USA.  Instead of the utility companies going to a public board to justify any rate increase, an Independent Government body, called Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) sets a price cap every three months e.g. Ofgem dictates what the maximum price is – Ofgem got it horribly wrong a couple of years ago resulting in a staggering 40 of the 55 utility companies in the UK going bankrupt:  So last year the Government stepped in and bailed out any utility company that was struggling to make a profit because of the price cap imposed by Ofgem.

                Yep, I’ve seen plenty of photos and videos of the shantytowns in American cities – fortunately something we don’t have in the UK.

                UNIVERSAL INCOME
                You raised an interesting topic; we don’t have ‘universal income’ as such in the UK – although during the energy crisis a couple of years ago (due to the war in Ukraine) the Conservative Government gave every single household a $500 handout to help pay the rising cost of electricity and gas at that time.  Since then the cost of electricity and gas has fallen back significantly so the ‘universal income’ was just a ‘one year wonder’.

                However, I did stumble across a scheme where ‘Universal Basic Income’ is currently being trialled, as part of a two year trial, in two places England (which might make for interesting reading):  https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 … in-england

                Yes, “Taxation is always an issue on either side of the pond.” But I don’t think it’s such an important voting issue in the UK as in the USA.  Currently (16th April Opinion Poll) only 12% of British voters see tax as an important issue.  Looking at the data more closely, it’s around 12% regardless to gender, politics, region or social class – where there is a stark difference is in age e.g. those under the age of 50 are far more concerned about taxes than those over the age of 50; 16% of those under 50 see tax as an issue, whereas only 8% of those over 50 see tax as an issue.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Need to take a brief hiatus, Arthur, we will pick this up tomorrow...

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  So, the tide has turned against the Conservatives as of late, what has got the people to change course?

                  Republicans will tear across protected lands and habitats, whose importance was recognized as long ago by Theodore Roosevelt. Trump talks about "drill baby drill", he remains an Anachronism  in a world where the best and brightest appreciate the finite nature of natural resources and the planet's delicate balance in maintaining habitability.

                  It is the American aristocracy, corporate capitalists that are the most put upon by any mention of increased taxes..

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Yep, I was horrified during the 2016 Presidential Campaign of Trump’s staunch support for fossil fuels, and how anti-renewable energy he his.

                    In answer to your question: “So, the tide has turned against the Conservatives as of late, what has got the people to change course?”

                    The rot set in (sharp decline in support of the Conservatives) with ‘Liz Trust’ as being Prime Minster in the autumn of 2022:

                    Prior to the summer of 2022 the Conservative was riding high in the opinion polls because of Boris Johnsons (the Prime Minister) popularity with the voting public over his handling of the pandemic.  Over 80% of the voting public supported Boris Johnson’s handling of the pandemic.

                    However, in the summer of 2022 the Conservative Party deposed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister because of his constant lying to Parliament – and not long afterwards Parliament suspend Boris Johnson from the House of Commons for 90 days, for the same crime of lying to Parliament.  At this point Boris Johnson took the decision to resign as a politician, rather than face the embarrassment of being sacked by his Constituency (voters) e.g. under rules bought in by the Conservative Government in 2015 any MP (Politician) who is suspended from the House of Commons for more than two weeks can be sacked by his own Constituency if more than just 10% of voters in that constituency (seat) sign a petition to sack him/her.

                    The Conservative Party then elected Liz Trust to be Prime Minister:  She became Prime Minister on 6th September 2022 – but within days of being Prime Minister she spectacularly trashed the ‘British Economy’, an economic downturn that still haunts the Conservative Government to this day.

                    Needless to say, just six weeks later (on the 20th Oct 2022) the Conservative Party kicked Liz Truss out of Office, and replaced her with our current Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) (a Hindu Indian).

                    After Liz Truss spectacularly trashing the British economy in just days, we’ve had the economic downturn (cost of living crisis and fuel crisis) caused by the Ukrainian war – So the Conservatives just haven’t had a chance to recover from the damage that Liz Truss (as Prime Minister) did to the economy:  So ever since then the Conservatives popularity has stayed very low in the opinion polls, regardless to any attempts to appease the voting public e.g. in March this year (about six weeks ago) the Conservative Government reduced income tax (NI) by 2% for everyone, as a way to try to buy votes – but it’s made no difference whatsoever in the opinion polls.

                    A Timeline of Liz Truss’s 45 Days as U.K. Prime Minister:  https://youtu.be/6GiJ8iqycLg

    4. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I started watching the video and stopped.

      This is the viewpoint of the left.

      NO, President Donald Trump did not "stack" the Supreme Court.  He filled vacancies on the court following the rules of the US Constitution.  For those of you who don't know, (and this includes many on the left).  Stacking the Supreme Court would involves CREATING more positions on the Supreme Court and filling them with justices of a particular view point.  This was not done.  I stopped watching the video there.

      The Supreme Court are not made up of elected officials.  Their job is not to follow a particular political view point but to interpret the constitution.

      Why did the Court reverse Roe v Wade?  It was based on faulty law.  It was decided to give the decision back to the individual states and have individuals elected by the people decide on the question of abortion.

      What the video refers to the student loan and climate decisions were denied because they don't fall in place with the standards of the US Constitution.  Most people believe students who take out loans should be responsible to pay them back.  The climate case was a bit ridiculous.  The United States is not as gullible as those in Europe when it comes to the climate issue.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        The problem is clear... you cannot have true separation of powers when you are trying to usher in a corporate-communist regime.

        In order to have a One Party system, in reality if not in practice, every part of your government must follow the same ideology.

        What they want, is for all of America to be like New York, you see how NY uses the Courts to prosecute political opponents. Laws aren't made for Justice in a One Party system, they are meant only to be used against enemies of the State and/or Party.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          You are absolutely correct.

          When there was a USSR, and you visited there, there was a game the police played with people new to a city.

          A wallet would be placed on a sidewalk.  If you picked it up, a man would come out and scream how you had stolen his wallet, the police would arrive and you would have to pay them a "fine" or go to jail and pay a fine.  It was not only something the government didn't address, they encouraged it.

          It's the same with democrats.  They will scream about illegalities and gaslight the political world to get what they want.  This is not discouraged by the democrat party, but openly encouraged by it.

          democrat party = USSR

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Complete with Oligarchs, Czars (Obama had more czars than the Romanovs), and the MIC acting as a corporate and more civil version of the State Military.

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        As I said to GA, I recognise that the video is heavily biased towards socialism – and normally I don’t take much notice of any article or video that’s heavily biased, in either direction:  But nevertheless, from my perspective from across the pond, I do see a lot of truth in the video which is worthy of debate.

        I’m not talking about Trump ‘stacking’ the Supreme Court by creating more position; I’m talking about the fact that vacancies on the Supreme Court (the Juridical) are appointed on the basis of their politics by the President (the Executive) e.g. Republican Presidents will appoint Republican Judges and Democrat Presidents will appoint Democrat Judges – and hence the risk of the Executive gaining political influence over the Juridical; unlike the UK where candidates are selected by an Independent Committee, and not the Executive – ensuring a true separation of powers between Juridical and Executive.

        How do I know whether the Court Reversal of Roe vs Wade, the Student Loans, or the Climate Case, were not politically motivated?  One thing that would give me some assurance would be knowing how the Judges voted in the Court Reversal of Roe vs Wade e.g. if all the Republican Judges voted to reverse Roe vs Wade and all the Democrat Judges voted not to reverse Roe vs Wade then it would (in my mind) clearly demonstrate that there is not a ‘Separation’ of ‘Powers’ between the Executive and the Juridical in the USA – which would be a dangerous thing, and a threat to democracy in America. 

        What Would Happen Without Checks and Balances?  https://youtu.be/4zYY0m_BHtc

    5. MizBejabbers profile image88
      MizBejabbersposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I can't get it to connect. I really would like to view it. Right now it seems to me that the U.S. Supreme Court and our Congress is working in cahoots with each other. The court has become political and, therefore, is little or no separation of powers between it and the Republicans in Congress. We are being taken over by a group of people who want our civil rights to go back to the 19th Century. I never thought I'd live to see this day. The hypocrisy of this is that anyone who doesn't agree with the Republican Party is called "a communist", but it isn't the Democrats and Biden who are sidling up to the leaders of the communist countries. It isn't the Democrats and liberal leaning people who are in favor of this self-proclaimed wannabe dictator. I know that the reputation of the U.S.A. is tarnished in the European world, but I also see that some of the Americans in the forum are saying that this video has got it all wrong. I would like to see for myself, since most of them are Republicans.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Truer words have never been spoken.....

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Try this link - a different link format to the same video: 

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FIzoxAm2IU

  2. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 4 weeks ago

    Firstly I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts; makes for an interesting read.

    I apologise for not responding to any of the posts yet; but this month has suddenly become hectic (extremely busy), so I haven’t got much time to use the computer, and therefore for the next few weeks I’ll only be able to respond in dribs and drabs when I get a spare moment.

    In the meantime; another aspect of the American Juridical system that always baffles me is (as with the current Trump court case), the American jury selection process - in that in the UK it’s the court who selects the 12 jurors at ‘random’, and neither the defendant nor prosecutor has a say in it.

  3. Vlado - Val Karas profile image69
    Vlado - Val Karasposted 4 weeks ago

    In my VERY modest opinion, both sides presented here are idealizing your respective ideologies, excluding one most prominent thing -- the reality of the human factor, which is known to screw up anything that's so nicely planned on any paper.
    So, how about the crude reality of corruption, lobbyism, loopholes in laws, and a sheer tendency in politics to lie and to manipulate?
    What I am reading here is a two-fold story of "how things SHOULD look according to this or that plan", and you are arguing over some opposing ideals -- leaving the reality out of it.
    And the reality is that politics in the United States -- and possibly in UK and elsewhere -- is a sheer joke, and my simple proof for that is that it OBVIOUSLY isn't working, considering the national debt, a rotten foreign politics with intimidation, coercion, non-defensive wars, all out of an ambition for a global hegemony, and the national divide that is on a brink of a civil war.
    Discussion I am seeing here reminds of a hypothetical debate between believers of two different religions about which one is closer to God -- while there is a religious war going on which has nothing to do with any religious basic tenets advertising love, tolerance, and harmony.
    Likewise, you are both lost in the abstractions of the desirables, not seeing the reality in which the corrupted human nature is making a joke of all of it.
    We might as well discuss about a due loyalty between spouses, while ignoring the statistics of divorces.
    So much from my side. Now, feel free to ignore this comment and continue with your fancy idealizing routine.

  4. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks ago

    Talk about a perfect landing spot for this doozy:

    Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act ensures Inspector General for SCOTUS
    https://omar.house.gov/media/press-rele … bility-new

    Amazing that the most corrupt and criminal branch wants to ensure it can handicap the least corrupt and biased branch, to gain leverage and control over it.

    Brought by Reps Omar, Raskin, and Stansbury.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      You are right about the perfect opening for your link.

      The direction should be less political involvement, not more. It says the office would be within the judiciary — implying non-partisan — yet gives the office no autonomy. It's not independent, it's a political legislative tool that is not only a bad idea, it is also double-edged.

      GA

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

    Nathanville: "I’m talking about the fact that vacancies on the Supreme Court (the Juridical) are appointed on the basis of their politics by the President (the Executive) e.g. Republican Presidents will appoint Republican Judges and Democrat Presidents will appoint Democrat Judges – and hence the risk of the Executive gaining political influence over the Juridical; unlike the UK where candidates are selected by an Independent Committee, and not the Executive – ensuring a true separation of powers between Juridical and Executive."

    Oh, God! Why didn't we model our process by yours? How much damage would be avoided!!! The business of filling a SC vacancy by whatever president happens to be in office when a justice dies (or is bought off like Kennedy was*) is nothing more than political Russian Roulette with the highest court in the land at stake.

    *The New York Times reports, the 81-year-old’s announcement was the culmination of a carefully orchestrated 17-month campaign by the Trump administration to remake the Supreme Court before the 2018 midterms, when there is an outside chance that Republicans could lose their majority." Vanity Fairr

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yep, I remember the shenanigans of what you say at the time, from the New on British TV, as the events played out of Trump wrangling to ensure the Supreme Court has a Republican majority – viewed as being very undemocratic from this side of the pond.

  6. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 6 days ago

    In 2013, Schneider switched political parties from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

    In an interview on Larry King Now in 2017, Schneider said he was an independent but leaned more conservative.

    In 2023, Schneider endorsed candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

    In 2024 Rob Schneider endorsed RFK Jr. for president.


    Hopefully more "independents" like him vote for whoever instead of Trump.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 5 days agoin reply to this

      Hopefully the largest majority in the history of elections chooses to vote anyone but Biden/Democrat in 2024.

      That would be a nice, unifying moment to see an overwhelming majority of America reject this Administration and it's twisted ideology.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)