Us Supreme Court

**J'Pol** · 07-02-2003, 07:01 PM

In Scotland The Lord Advocate is responsible for all Criminal Prosecutions, he does this via his Crown Office and the Procurators Fiscal.

The Lord Advocate is a political appointment, in the gift of the Scottish Executive, I believe it is the Justice Minister who picks the Lord Advocate.

Therefore our entire judicial system is politically influenced (at least at the top).

I believe there is a similar situation in England.

**Rat Faced** · 07-02-2003, 07:13 PM

Unfortunately you are correct JPaul, they are appointments.

I think Judges are also appointments, but actually picked by someone other than the Government..with the Government rubber stamping the choice.

I remember a few funny episodes of "Yes Minister" making fun of the system

**J'Pol** · 07-02-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2003 - 20:13
Unfortunately you are correct JPaul, they are appointments.

I think Judges are also appointments, but actually picked by someone other than the Government..with the Government rubber stamping the choice.

I remember a few funny episodes of "Yes Minister" making fun of the system

Wasn't that picking the Bishop - which sounds vaguely like onanism to me.

**j2k4** · 07-02-2003, 08:02 PM

Ideally, the paramount qualification to serve on the Supreme Court would not be intellectualism, at least as it applies to creative ability; that is to say, to create out of whole cloth that which does not already exist in the constitution.

Examples of which would be the right to privacy, and the right to abortion.

This is not to choose sides on either issue; I merely point out that neither right existed nor was implied anywhere in the original document before the Supremes decided they were "rights".

The "creative interpretation" argument, however, predates the "birth" of either of my examples.

**j2k4** · 07-04-2003, 05:04 AM

This thread seems to be dying, but I found this in a recent copy of the "National Review", which, I will hasten to add, is a neo-conservative publication.

I meant to include it earlier as an adjunct to my other post, relative to recent congressional efforts to stall Bush's judicial nominees, as well as other matters currently pending before the court:

"The liberal converts to "judicial restraint" insist on adherence to precedent. Anything else, they say, is "activism."

But, the shoe is on the other foot.

A decision that elevates judicial power over republican government without a constitutional warrant is plainly activist.

A decision to reverse that precedent is the opposite.

Such a reversal might be termed "activist" in the trivial sense that it involves a change in the status quo.

But the Supreme Court must on appropriate occasions overrule it's own precedents.

A consistent failure to do so would signal that the Supreme Court considered it's own edicts, rather than the Constitution itself, to be the supreme law of the land."

**Neil__** · 07-06-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2003 - 18:46

We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.

Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity )

If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

Sorry realy off topic.

Neil

**clocker** · 07-06-2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Neil__@6 July 2003 - 12:49

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

A Mexican?

Given the current economy and very tight job market, a Mexican would probably find it rough going.

Hispanic Americans seem to be doing all right, however.

**Neil__** · 07-06-2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by clocker+6 July 2003 - 20:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 6 July 2003 - 20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@6 July 2003 - 12:49

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

A Mexican?

Given the current economy and very tight job market, a Mexican would probably find it rough going.

Hispanic Americans seem to be doing all right, however. [/b][/quote]
I get the impression that bothers you.

Neil