Text 6869, 98 rader
Skriven 2010-04-11 12:31:36 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 6838 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Robert,

On Saturday April 10 2010 08:46, you wrote to me:

 RB> 1. The Supreme Court Judges, nine of them, are proposed by the
 RB> President and confirmed by the Senate. They are appointed for life to
 RB> protect them against political pressure, i.e. they are only
 RB> responsible to the law (Constitution) and their own conciences.

What you are saying is that they are accountable to no one and are appointed
for life. How does that differ from the position of a dictator?

 RB>>>>> And who controls parliament?

 RB>>> [No answer, as ususal...]

 MV>> I gave you an answer; the people. But that is not what you wanted
 MV>> to hear.

 RB> It was a very naive answer,

I can't help it that you do not like the answer, but that nevertheless IS the
answer.

And my opinion is that having the abilty to punish decision makers for bad
choices in the next election is a lot better than have appointees for life,
that are acountable to no one.

 RB> talking about Switzerland, where public referendums are possible, the
 RB> answer would have been reasonable and correct. But not in our
 RB> countries, where "the people" get exactly _one_ chance at an opinion
 RB> every four or five years, and after that are expected to keep their
 RB> mouths shut and take what the elite decides.

An oversimplification.

 RB> It's about as good as you can get without having a national election
 RB> on each case. Anyway, what dou you mean "awry"? If all you mean is
 RB> that a decision doesn't please you, join the club: there are plenty of
 RB> people around who don't like individual decisions.

IOW: live with it.

No different from the situation here. Many decisons are taken that I do not
like. But if they are taken according to the democratically accepted rules, I
just have to live with the result.

 RB> Try the one that banned the "separate but equal" laws in the American
 RB> South. Try the one that allows abortions up until (I believe) the 26th
 RB> week (Roe vs Wade if I remember properly). Plenty of people didn't and
 RB> don't like those.

No different from the situation here. The abortion law is a good example. Here
abortions are allowed under conditions. IIRC one of these conditions is not
after the 26th week after conception. It took many steps over many years to
arrive at this result. There are check and balances, iretation loops to go
through, etc, etc. When the last step is taken, the result is final end then
whoever does not lik it just has to live with it.

The abortion law is a good example as ther is a substantial faction that does
not like it. Mostly Christian fundamentalists.

What is important for a stable society is that an effort is made to minimize
the number of people that do not agree and to find some modus of making them
accept it anyway. A binding and final test for constituionality MAY be one of
those steps, but not a necesasy one. In the US the people obviously find this
important. If it helps them accept somethoing theu do not aree with: fine.

Here we have a different attitude. An explicit, binding test for
constitutionality is not oart of the decision process. We have other things
that we consider more important. Ward's summary was not all that bad. We talk
until we reach consensus.

 MV>> As I understand it, their rulings do not have to be unanimous. A
 MV>> simple majority will do.

 RB> That's correct, and is also the reason why there are nine and not
 RB> eight Justices.

So why not 7? Or 13? Or 121? Any uneven number will prevent a tie as long as
there are no abstentions. And what if one is ill?

It all sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

 MV>>  So what if 5 out of the 9 go bananas?

 RB> That's about like asking what would happen if a majority of Parliament
 RB> would simply go bananas one fine day. The question is really
 RB> senseless.

So why did you ask me what happens if parliament passes a law that violates the
constitution? In my POV it is a question just as senseless.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)