In Montana, Corporations Aren’t People

Originally posted by sh76
Who in the government chooses the initial judges? How do we know the identity of the people who initially compose the judicial branch?

You've never heard of the divine rights of judges? 😀

Seriously, do you not think that a separate career path ought to exist between lawyers and judges? There is an uncomfortable coziness between trial lawyers and the judges who are supposed to be impartial referees.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Perhaps KN envisages something along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commission

Great.

Who chooses the commission?


My point is that sooner or later someone elected has to appoint the people who supervise the judiciary unless you want to have some sort of monarchy or nepotism-based dynasty.

Originally posted by sh76
Great.

Who chooses the commission?


My point is that sooner or later someone elected has to appoint the people who supervise the judiciary unless you want to have some sort of monarchy or nepotism-based dynasty.

I think KN is thinking that 'Justice' is a government branch which then hires the judges it needs.

So the short answer is, government functionaries choose the judges.

KN has to explain, though, how that agency can be independent of the government which appoints the Minister of Justice at their head.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I think KN is thinking that 'Justice' is a government branch which then hires the judges it needs.

So the short answer is, government functionaries choose the judges.

KN has to explain, though, how that agency can be independent of the government which appoints the Minister of Justice at their head.

By not giving the MoJ the right to directly inferfere with the rulings of judges.

Come on people, it's not that hard.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By not giving the MoJ the right to directly inferfere with the rulings of judges.

Come on people, it's not that hard.

OK, they have no right.

However, what happens if the judge presiding over a trial gets called into the Minister's office one day and is told that 'certain highly placed people' will be 'very disappointed in him' if the result isn't 'not guilty'?

The judge would be putting his career at risk.

Originally posted by spruce112358
OK, they have no right.

However, what happens if the judge presiding over a trial gets called into the Minister's office one day and is told that 'certain highly placed people' will be 'very disappointed in him' if the result isn't 'not guilty'?

The judge would be putting his career at risk.

Well, the only highly placed people capable of putting this judge in trouble are other judges (since a judge can obviously be fired). If this is the case, then the judiciary is obviously not independent. It could happen, of course, but those guilty of the conspiracy would themselves put their career at risk if the conspiracy is revealed somehow.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I think KN is thinking that 'Justice' is a government branch which then hires the judges it needs.

So the short answer is, government functionaries choose the judges.

KN has to explain, though, how that agency can be independent of the government which appoints the Minister of Justice at their head.

I still don't get it.

Who are these government functionaries and how do they get the job of choosing the judiciary?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By not giving the MoJ the right to directly inferfere with the rulings of judges.

Come on people, it's not that hard.

Who appoints the Minister of Justice? An elected official presumably, no?

Incidentally, judges in the US do have independence. Federal judges can be removes only by impeachment (extremely rare) and nobody can reverse a federal judge's decisions except for a higher court.

Originally posted by sh76
Who appoints the Minister of Justice? An elected official presumably, no?

Incidentally, judges in the US do have independence. Federal judges can be removes only by impeachment (extremely rare) and nobody can reverse a federal judge's decisions except for a higher court.

I suspect that when discussing the fact that GWB had power to appoint judges that KN would be very aware of the shortcomings of man. How could GWB be entrusted with that much power?

But when he is engaging in wishful thinking about his pet judiciary idea, human nature can be ignored.

Even if we manage to appoint good judges for the initial judiciary, their successors might not be as good. KN suggested they'd appoint good judges to protect their reputation. Well, there are other ways to protect ones reputation. They could rule that criticism of the judiciary is not compatible with democracy and therefore it is illegal to criticize them.

Would they really be that concerned about their reputation, or would they be more concerned with their power? Well, what have other humans done when given the same choice?

And of course, a corrupt police chief (or politician that appoints the police chief), just might not look the other way if a judge who got on his bad side gets assassinated. What have other humans done when given the opportunity to change rulings by assassinating or threatening to assassinate a judge? And what have other human judges who face the threat of assassination done?

No way a judiciary is ever completely independent of other power brokers.

But perhaps we can pretend that human nature won't interfere with KN's idea.

Originally posted by techsouth
I suspect that when discussing the fact that GWB had power to appoint judges that KN would be very aware of the shortcomings of man. How could GWB be entrusted with that much power?

But when he is engaging in wishful thinking about his pet judiciary idea, human nature can be ignored.

Even if we manage to appoint good judges for the initial judiciary ...[text shortened]... ower brokers.

But perhaps we can pretend that human nature won't interfere with KN's idea.

Except that you're forgetting that such systems are already in place, and do not, as a rule, produce the excesses you've described.

Originally posted by spruce112358
From an article in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/
montana_supreme_court_citizens_united_can_montana_get_away_with_defying_the_supreme_court_.html

Montana is defying SCOTUS on campaign funding:

"...while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not ...[text shortened]... ices are appointed -- perhaps the Montanans are better qualified to weigh-in on this point?

On a local bumpersticker - "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."

Originally posted by Kunsoo
On a local bumpersticker - "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."

lol! classic.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
lol! classic.

There actually are proposals for a "corporate death penalty."

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2010/05/halliburton-bp-it-time-corporate-death-penalty

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Supreme Court justices are elected indirectly since they are appointed by an elected official. Of course this is also why the SCOTUS is a (bad) joke.

SCOTUS is a far cry from what it was envisioned by the Constitution. It is presumed to have the right and duty to determine the legality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. While I might hope for the repeal of Obama care by SCOTUS, the Constitution is silent on the court having such a power. That power it usurped in the decision Marbury v. Madison.

That would have been tantamount to Washington declaring himself king, or Congress assuming dictatorial powers and lifetime terms.

The primary means of determining Constitutionality before Marbury v. Madison was nullification, and it happened routinely. The second was threatening secession, following nullification, first done by Massachusetts and the other New England States in 1815, 45 years before the CSA did so.

Now some justices have stretched their duties to interpreting and applying international law, and the laws of other nations.

Originally posted by normbenign
SCOTUS is a far cry from what it was envisioned by the Constitution. It is presumed to have the right and duty to determine the legality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. While I might hope for the repeal of Obama care by SCOTUS, the Constitution is silent on the court having such a power. That power it usurped in the decision Mar ...[text shortened]... ched their duties to interpreting and applying international law, and the laws of other nations.

I'm not sure what you mean by nullification, but threatening a split of the union every time there's a Constitutional question just doesn't seem very practical.

Mind you, I also think Marbury v. Madison created the power out of a precedent vacuum, but clearly it was a huge hole left in the process by the drafters. Whether they had the power to assert, their solution makes sense for an orderly quasi-democratic Republic.