We Need To Talk About Donald

[Scot Dutchy]

A'sG?

[pErvinalia]

Attorneys General.

[Forty Two]

Like electing the dog catcher. No other country does that never mind civilised or not. These are civil service jobs and should be appointed on merit.

Dude, stop talking about things you are absolutely pig-ignorant about.

Whether a given state-level position is elected or appointed varies from state to state, and there really aren't that many of them which are elected.

First of all, you people bitch no matter what. If the US elects a position, it's not what any other country does. If the US appoints the position, you can't believe the position would be appointed. it's clear to me that hardly any of you Euros know how positions are filled in your own countries, and you just go off on what goes on in the US as if you know what you're talking about. You have some strange, naive (or probably ignorant) notion that politics doesn't enter into into appointments in your countries.

We can show you the ballots in our voting districts if you want. Usually, you'll see the federal positions - Senate, Representative, President, and that's it. The local positions might be mayor, judicial vacancies, and that kind of thing. We have city, county and state level positions that are elected, if the city/county ordinances or state law provides. But, these are mostly higher level positions.

Further, dog catcher or animal control officer is not an elected position in the United States, which shows how lacking in any real knowledge you people have. I've been voting for 30 years in three states and many counties. Never have I seen dog catcher or animal control officer, or equivalent, on a ballot. In my county, for example, the county commissioner (like town council) positions are elected. So what? What's wrong with that? That's our county government. Shouldn't they be elected?

There are a very few positions which are elected. In my state, Florida, there are Mosquito Control officers which are elected. And, before you go off on an ignorant rant about how such a position would never be elected in any other country, the reason it's an elected position is that it holds a lot more power than the name alone implies. It's not just a guy who goes around spraying for mosquitos. The position involves the power to raise and lower taxes. The mosquito departments have the power to raise and lower ad valorem taxes on residents in the district, so under the Florida Constitution the people have to have a say in it.

The issue of election of judges is not a black and white issue, and there are reasons advanced for appointing them, like the US does with all federal judges, and there are reasons advanced for electing them, like some US states do. Neither side is perfect. Of course, if the US uses an appointment system, it's wrong because the governor or President doing the appointing obviously will favor those politically sympathetic to him or her. However, if the US elects the judges, then it's allowing the great unwashed to determine things beyond their ken.

[Svartalf]

LOl, in a country where judges get elected by the great unwashed, you're surprised that federal prosecutors should be politically appointed?

Federal judges are appointed. State judges are generally elected. So what?

So, your beef is that some judges in the US are elected, and that's bad. And, you're "surprised" that US Attorneys are "appointed." What would you prefer? That they be elected? By the unwashed?

What alternative option is there? How do they do it in France? I assume they are neither appointed, nor elected by the great unwashed. Please, describe the enlightened, effective system used by the French...

I don't know if the federal judge appointment system ensures that decent jurists get to the magistracy, but electing judges and district atorneys guarantees that politicos, not proper jurists, get to such important magistracies... serioussly, if I had a legal problem in the US, and lost the suit, I'd sic my lawyer on the whole procedure on grounds that my consitutional right to a fair and competent trial has been violated.

[Forty Two]

I'm not sure how other countries do it, but in Australia the A'sG are elected to government as ordinary members of parliament serving their electorates, and then appointed by the party/party-leader to their positions.

You let the great unwashed elect them? And, then they are political appointees, serving at the pleasure of the party leader? How horrible.

[Scot Dutchy]

We dont have them. If we did they would not be political appointments and have nothing to do with politics. The whole of the judiciary is kept completely independent.

[Tero]

Take the skin heads bowling

But this wooing of Congress doesn't stop with the Freedom Caucus. President Trump is inviting so many members of Congress over to the White House, they might want to consider setting up a shuttle from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. Take last Tuesday when Trump met with two Republican senators. And had lunch with one more, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

During the contentious Republican primary, Trump read Graham's cellphone number out loud at a rally that was carried live on TV. Graham got swamped with calls and had to change it.

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/13/519888191 ... -care-bill

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure how other countries do it, but in Australia the A'sG are elected to government as ordinary members of parliament serving their electorates, and then appointed by the party/party-leader to their positions.

You let the great unwashed elect them? And, then they are political appointees, serving at the pleasure of the party leader? How horrible.

It's never seemed the most sane approach to me. The other cabinet ministers (secretaries, in the US) aren't expected to be experts in their portfolios. That's what the bureaucracy is for. To advise them on the pros and cons of any decision. But for the Attorneys General, it's different. Aside from them, the parliament appoints a non member of parliament as Solicitor General who represents the government in any lawsuits.

edit: Just looked up wiki. Apparently it's only convention that the AG be a sitting member of parliament. It could be anyone.

The Attorney-General for Australia is the first law officer of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia and a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General is usually a member of the Federal Cabinet, but need not be. Under the Constitution they are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister, and serves at the Governor-General's pleasure. In practice the Attorney-General is a party politician and their tenure is determined by political factors. By convention, but not constitutional requirement, the Attorney-General is a lawyer by training, either a barrister or solicitor.

edit 2: actually it says that they need not be a member of the Federal Cabinet. That doesn't include all members of parliament, so I'm not sure whether the AG has to be elected first or not. Can't seem to find that info.

[Forty Two]

LOl, in a country where judges get elected by the great unwashed, you're surprised that federal prosecutors should be politically appointed?

Federal judges are appointed. State judges are generally elected. So what?

So, your beef is that some judges in the US are elected, and that's bad. And, you're "surprised" that US Attorneys are "appointed." What would you prefer? That they be elected? By the unwashed?

What alternative option is there? How do they do it in France? I assume they are neither appointed, nor elected by the great unwashed. Please, describe the enlightened, effective system used by the French...

I don't know if the federal judge appointment system ensures that decent jurists get to the magistracy,

Oh, in the US you can rest assured that the system does not ensure decent magistrates get appointed. It's the US. Everything is wrong here.

but electing judges and district atorneys guarantees that politicos, not proper jurists, get to such important magistracies...

O.k., so US attorneys should not be elected. Great. They aren't. They're appointed. So, the US is wrong either way, right? They're appointed, and serve the officer who appoints them - i.e. the President (confirmed by a majority of the Senate) -- and that's wrong, because it's a political appointment. But, we shouldn't elect them, because that would guarantee that politicos become US attorneys. So, how should we get them in office?

In the US, all federal judges are appointed, so I assume you're cool with that. Although, I thought you did say that appointing such offices meant that it was a political appointment...but, it seems now you think appointing them is good. So, we do that bit right, I guess.

serioussly, if I had a legal problem in the US, and lost the suit, I'd sic my lawyer on the whole procedure on grounds that my consitutional right to a fair and competent trial has been violated.

Wait, so what's unfair about your federal lawsuit loss, since the judges are appointed, not elected?

And, in Europe, the European Parliament elects the Judges on the European Commission of Human Rights. Shouldn't those judges be appointed? Or, is election of by a Parliament o.k?

The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen. So, is that method good? Or, is there a problem with judges being appointed based on political affiliation with the appointing government? My guess is that in the US, the appointments are political and thus tainted, but in Europe, the appointments are by merit. Am I close?

[Forty Two]

I'm not sure how other countries do it, but in Australia the A'sG are elected to government as ordinary members of parliament serving their electorates, and then appointed by the party/party-leader to their positions.

You let the great unwashed elect them? And, then they are political appointees, serving at the pleasure of the party leader? How horrible.

It's never seemed the most sane approach to me. The other cabinet ministers (secretaries, in the US) aren't expected to be experts in their portfolios. That's what the bureaucracy is for. To advise them on the pros and cons of any decision. But for the Attorneys General, it's different. Aside from them, the parliament appoints a non member of parliament as Solicitor General who represents the government in any lawsuits.

edit: Just looked up wiki. Apparently it's only convention that the AG be a sitting member of parliament. It could be anyone.

The Attorney-General for Australia is the first law officer of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia and a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General is usually a member of the Federal Cabinet, but need not be. Under the Constitution they are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister, and serves at the Governor-General's pleasure. In practice the Attorney-General is a party politician and their tenure is determined by political factors. By convention, but not constitutional requirement, the Attorney-General is a lawyer by training, either a barrister or solicitor.

In the US, the Attorney General is a Cabinet level position, advising the President of the US directly.

The US Attorney positions are different, and they are not the same as the AG. There are 93 US attorneys, either covering a district, and they are policy level positions who are tasked with implementing the AG (and hence the President's) priorities and policy goals and objectives. The reason they are appointed by the executive branch in the US is that having political enemies in those positions would undermine the sitting administration. I.e., you wouldn't want to have Bush loyalists in those positions during the Obama administration.

[Brian Peacock]

In the UK the legal representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service are civil servants who are graduates in Law and are appointed via a regular application/interview process. The head of the CPS is appointed by the government and remains in situ until they retire/choose to move on or are sacked (for misconduct or error etc). Judges are appointed by an independent committee under the oversight of the Lord Chancellor, a Minister acting as speaker of the House Of Lords (and who is therefore a political appointee). The Lord Chancellor is the government's highest legal official and must be a sitting Judge. Once appointed Judges remain in situ across parliaments/administrations. The principle of an independent judicial system is that the administration of the law remains largely insulated from governmental and/or political interference.

The US's highest legal official lied under oath to the Senate btw. Just thought I'd mention that again - the Elephant in the White House, so to speak. As soon as Breibart has developed its apologetics I'm sure we'll hear why this is a non-issue and/or a controversy in a tea-party-cup whipped up by Democrats out of spite and for political gain, etc etc.

[Brian Peacock]

Kellyanne Conway: 'microwaves that turn into cameras' can spy on us

Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway says she doesn’t have any evidence to support Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phone lines during the election.

Instead, Conway is pointing to recent revelations about other government surveillance to suggest it was possible Obama used a different technique.

Her response was unlikely to tamp down criticism of Trump’s tweets earlier this month. The House intelligence committee has asked the administration to provide evidence of the allegation by Monday.

“The answer is I don’t have any evidence and I’m very happy that the House intelligence committee [is] investigating,” Conway told ABC’s Good Morning America. She later tweeted that the administration was “pleased” with the ongoing congressional investigation and “will comment after”.

Trump’s critics have slammed the president for making the explosive wiretapping claim on his Twitter account without evidence. Wiretapping a US citizen would require special permission from a court, and Trump as president would have the ability to declassify that information...

more...

In other words: "Spies can do this, therefore Obama did do it."

If the President has the power to spy on citizens, who is Trump spying on?

[Scot Dutchy]

“What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately,” including “microwaves that turn into cameras, etc,” Conway told New Jersey’s the Record newspaper in an interview on Sunday. “So we know that that is just a fact of modern life.”

[tattuchu]

My question is, how can someone so obviously mentally unfit to become president become president? Do we need to implement a mandatory psychological evaluation as a safeguard??

[Tero]

That would be up to the party that nominates.

Or you could pass a law:
-taxes
-psychiatrist exam