GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Forty Two]

Or better still, keep politicians away from choosing judges...

Privatize judgeships? Perfect!

[Forty Two]

Well then have fixed terms. Having geriatric judges isn't sane.

Age discrimination is the only sane way to go.

So there's no evidence in your world of reduced cognitive abilities with great age and things like senility and the like? Ok. I really must visit under your rock one day. I'm keen to know what it's like to live under one...

Like I said, age discrimination is the sane way to go. You're agreeing.

[laklak]

I just get smarter with age. And better looking.

[JimC]

Judge appointments should be in terms of legal competence and proven excellence in lower courts, not whether a group of politicians think that you will slant your rulings in their direction...

[Svartalf]

yes, yes, and who is judge of that? who has the power to decide who is a good jurist and who appoints?

I'll say definitely not the people via elections... remains either a council of judges or political authorities... and leaving the right to decide excellence in the profession to the professional themselves leaves nomination open to even more politicking than letting politicos name judges who'll be independent thereafter.

[pErvinalia]

Well then have fixed terms. Having geriatric judges isn't sane.

Age discrimination is the only sane way to go.

So there's no evidence in your world of reduced cognitive abilities with great age and things like senility and the like? Ok. I really must visit under your rock one day. I'm keen to know what it's like to live under one...

Like I said, age discrimination is the sane way to go. You're agreeing.

Well in that case, I agree with you in an agreeable sense!

[JimC]

yes, yes, and who is judge of that? who has the power to decide who is a good jurist and who appoints?

I'll say definitely not the people via elections... remains either a council of judges or political authorities... and leaving the right to decide excellence in the profession to the professional themselves leaves nomination open to even more politicking than letting politicos name judges who'll be independent thereafter.

I certainly agree about not popular elections. There are difficulties in getting good people via decisions of their peers, but you can improve that by appointing a panel which contains not only legal experts and past judges, but people who have been successful managers or public servants, and who are serious about choosing quality candidates.

[Svartalf]

and I'm highly dubious about who and how to designate such a panel ... in the end, it will always be political/administrative authorities who do that, and so political decisions, no matter how you try to shield the process from it.

[JimC]

Yes, some politics will no doubt seep in, but I would prefer it to be less nakedly obvious, and have at least a reasonable chance that excellence at jurisprudence be the primary criteria...

[Tero]

America is angry! Obama! Foreigners! Impotence!

Trump is Viagra for America.

[Forty Two]

Judge appointments should be in terms of legal competence and proven excellence in lower courts, not whether a group of politicians think that you will slant your rulings in their direction...

Often there is overlap, because whether someone has "legal excellence" is partly a function of coming to the correct decision, and often whether a judge is making the right decision is a matter of judicial philosophy, interpretation and the like. That's why Democrats are so hot on having Obama pick Scalia's replacement. They want someone that will have a certain judicial philosophy and a certain manner of interpreting the law. That's also why the Republicans want to wait for the new President, because (a) it might be a Republican President that gets to pick, and (b) even if not, Obama can more easily appoint a more radical judge than a new Democratic President, who would have all 4 or 8 years ahead of him or her to have to deal with a Republican Senate (a new President would be more likely to moderate his or her pick than Obama, who has nothing to lose in picking the furthest Left judge).

[Forty Two]

yes, yes, and who is judge of that? who has the power to decide who is a good jurist and who appoints?

I'll say definitely not the people via elections... remains either a council of judges or political authorities... and leaving the right to decide excellence in the profession to the professional themselves leaves nomination open to even more politicking than letting politicos name judges who'll be independent thereafter.

I certainly agree about not popular elections. There are difficulties in getting good people via decisions of their peers, but you can improve that by appointing a panel which contains not only legal experts and past judges, but people who have been successful managers or public servants, and who are serious about choosing quality candidates.

Sure, but the reality is that the people chosen to be on the panel have to be chosen by people who have a vested interested in furthering a political agenda.

If politicians can't fairly pick competent judges without regard for their political agendas, what makes you think they will choose members of a panel without regard for that same agenda?

[Forty Two]

America is angry! Obama! Foreigners! Impotence!

Trump is Viagra for America.

Well, there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the country about the kind of politicians we've been getting. Look at the rest of the GOP field. Cruz? Rubio? These guys spout the same horseshit that every other politicians spouts, over and over again. They pander, and they make general references to "putting more Americans back to work..." and to "ending business as usual in Washington" and all that crap. The reason Trump is striking a chord is because he is coming across differently - he has given some very specific statements and he appears willing to state his opinion without regard for whether it pleases everyone he's talking to. The guy came out in a GOP debate and totally body-slammed George W. Bush, immediately before the South Carolina primary (South Carolina being very religious, very conservative, and very pro-Bush). He is talking about economic prosperity, and cutting through BS to achieve results. That's what a lot of Americans like to hear.

Now, as to "foreigners" -- this bit really irks me, as the US is far friendlier to "foreigners" than most of the civilized countries whose denizens like to criticize the US for xenophobia. We receive a million new permanent residents and another million new naturalized citizens every single year, and that number has been stable throughout not only Obama's admniistration but also Bush's administration. We have a more diverse population than most of the civilized countries out there, and we are, quite simply, not a country that is afraid of or against immigration. What people, by and large, oppose is illegal immigration, and if your civilized countries had millions of undocumented persons walking into the country, getting government funded health care, going to schools on the public dime, receiving food and welfare assistance, and the like, without even being legally in the country, I daresay you civilized persons might reasonably identify that as a problem that needs attention.

[laklak]

Now now, don't go confusing the issue with pesky facts, 42. America is the most racist, most unequal, most murderous country on the entire planet. It has no redeeming qualities of any sort. Our food sucks, our beer is watery, and our mustard tastes of horse pee. Americans are, on average, stupider than sedimentary rocks.

Everybody knows this.

[Forty Two]

Ah yes, as a murrican, let me punish myself for my obvious misdeeds --