US Politics Mega-thread - Page 837

On October 12 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
It is very hard to limit civil servant’s actions once they leave office through regulation. Especially if the job they will be getting is outside government sphere. We have the current problem with elected officials and lobbying. That sort of hand waving solution of "regulation or whatever" shows you might not be familiar with the problems created by electing/appointing judges for specific terms and why lifetime appoints has been seen a the solution to those problems.

On October 12 2018 01:29 Plansix wrote:

No Judge before Kav was a political operative before becoming a judge. Many of them worked at the Justice Department or were a state AG, but that does not fit the definition of a political operative. That is just working in the justice system.

On October 12 2018 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:


I am not saying this change is as simple as a petition. I am saying if we were to allow ourselves the flexibility to make actual changes, we could totally design a system where being on the supreme court means you waive your right to decide your own career after your time on the court.

What if supreme court appointees had strict rules regarding what they can contribute to? What if they all had to just be professors after? That would totally be incompatible with a variety of existing laws and whatever, but my point is that none of those laws or whatever are created by god.

On October 12 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:

What I am saying is that you can’t do that, legally. People are free citizens after their time in civil service is over. Governors, elected officials and judges can do whatever they want after. The President can run to become a senator or open a private law firm, they just don’t do it. The government can’t even have you sign an NDA(this excludes laws handling classified information) because it is unenforceable. The government is limited in how it can prohibit speech and free association(getting a job).

It has been one of the larger problems for government. Even limiting lobbying is restricted to 1 year for house members. And the regulation can only limit them taking a job lobbying congress. So companies hire them and they do something else for 1 year and then become a lobbyist.

On October 12 2018 01:36 On_Slaught wrote:


Perhaps operative was the wrong word. Let's go with hyperpartisan. Every year it becomes more apparantly you cant get a fed judgeship under a Republican Congress if you haven't played the political game of joining the Federalist society and staying close to the party line with every decision/speech/law review article you've made. Saying stuff like "Roe was properly decided" would literally be disqualifying. A similar process is true for the Democratic nominations.

So really saying political operative vs hyperpartisan is a distinction without a difference. As I said before, the only real difference with Justice Dilly Dilly is how overt his political nature is. That judges rule in favor of their "side" so often is a symptom of the political requirement to get the job, not a coincidence.

On October 12 2018 01:51 Plansix wrote:
I bet their salaries as professors will be very impressive and come with a bunch of very nice perks donated to the law school by the finest American citizens. For their civil service.

On October 12 2018 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:


And we can change that. None of this is determined by a higher power. The whole shitty ass system was designed by humans and some other humans could make another one, but better. I guarantee you that there are people who would agree to be a supreme court justice, even if it meant they were only allowed to serve in professor roles after their time on the court.

On October 12 2018 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:
Welcome to human civilization and inertia.
Many systems can be improved upon. And it can be fun to try and design a better judiciary system or a better form of Democracy or just a better filling system for documents.
But the trick is getting people to agree on what the problem is, how to solve it and whether its worth solving at all.
The US system in particular is set up in a way that is almost impossible to implement real change. Not only do you need a super majority, you also need 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
The US can barely (or not even) reach a consensus on the theory of evolution, let along sweeping changes to the Constitution.

On October 12 2018 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:


So then these professor judges are paid through the government, at a fixed salary, and can never be done on an individual basis. Salary determined by ____ for all former justices. You'd still find an enormous amount of people who would take that deal just for the honor of serving the country.

On October 12 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:

So to end life time appointments and corruption we are:

Limiting who judges can work for
Limiting the nature of their job
Limiting their income and paying their salary

For the rest of their life.

At this point wouldn’t it be simpler to keep them as judges and pay them the same amount? It is much easier to keep track of their finances when they are serving judges.

On October 12 2018 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:


What year would you say we started wondering if people of all races are equal and should be treated equal? Gender equality? Daughters used to be sold into marriage as a way to unite rival towns. Marriage is different now. We should never decline progress in the face of social inertia. Things happen, but you need to be willing to start.

On October 12 2018 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Which leads back to my earlier comment about fighting symptoms instead of causes.
The problem is not the political nature of the SC.
The problem is the increasing divide and polarization of politics in the US.

You will never get anything changed while the 2 sides are not willing to talk and negotiate in good faith working towards a better America.

On October 12 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:


This is an entirely different topic that i am actually writing a more formal piece on currently. In short, the civil war never actually ended, but we did sign a treaty. Both sides have found a lot of ways around this treaty and the treaty needs updating. The supreme court is a part of that treaty. We will never be a single, united set of states. We never have been and never will be. But we are stronger together and we require a certain set of shackles to keep us working together. Similar to the treaty between Klingons and the federation, two very different groups can work together with the proper framework. The solution isn't too make Klingons and the federation achieve societal unity.

On October 12 2018 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is that a peace treaty is between 2 sides to leave each other well enough alone while they go about their business.
If the deep south was free to exile gays and teach creationism while the liberal equivalent fines discriminating bakers and opens gender identity bathrooms it wouldn't be such a problem.

But the US lives under one government and one law.
You say its an entirely different topic, but I think your very wrong there. Its the heart of your problem.

On October 12 2018 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:


I agree that it is the heart of the problem, but my point was that I was addressing the ways the supreme court interacts with that problem rather than how to solve the problem. In my eyes, the system I have loosely described does a better job at mitigating the core problem of south vs north than our current one.