Is Democracy A Failed System ?

[StevePalermo]

With the GOP in control of Congress at the moment, seems to me that they have control on whether or not Obama is successful at getting a severely leftist-leaning justice in place.

Off topic slightly, but as a European it always make me laugh when people from the US say things like this. For anyone to get anywhere near to being nominated to the SCOTUS they would not be "severely leftist-leaning" as the rest of the western world would define the term. 'Slightly to the right of left of centre' would be a better description. But I'm glad that you would (albeit very grudgingly) accept that Obama was elected for a four year, not a three year term of office.

 

[khairyexpat]

These statistics (68% & 70%) were not meant to explain why the stark divide of rational of different groups.
It`s in support of my OP argument that the irreconcilable divide, renders democracy as an unfixable system.
Any future NEW SYSTEM to be sought must be radically structured out of the box, .. for example one that is based on the premise of separation and segregation.

Who knows !

 

[Noesdeayer]

khairyexpat .
Separation of what and segragation of whom?

 

[ElQueso]

StevePalermo, I used the words "severely leftist-leaning" as a sort of spoof on what many Republicans think, and the opposite of what many Democrats think. However, there is actually an importance of which president gets to pick a judge, even if the perception by people outside of the US is that it doesn't make a big difference. I agree with this guy, for example:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/21/there-are-no-moderate-supreme-court-nominees/

 

[StevePalermo]

StevePalermo, I used the words "severely leftist-leaning" as a sort of spoof on what many Republicans think, and the opposite of what many Democrats think. However, there is actually an importance of which president gets to pick a judge, even if the perception by people outside of the US is that it doesn't make a big difference. I agree with this guy, for example:

http://thefederalist...court-nominees/

Sorry that I didn't pick up on your intended meaning, but as an avid student of US politics I've seen words to this effect used seriously so many times by right wingers in the USA that I assumed you meant it literally. And yes, it is important which President gets to pick a judge, it has absolutely crucial ramifications. The Constitution says that the President makes the nomination and Congress should consider it. He's done his job but Congress picks up its pay check and doesn't turn up for work. And they have the gall to criticise welfare cheats! Congress should just do its bloody job.

I clicked on your link and got as far as "[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]There is rarely any debate over how the four Democrat-appointed ‘liberals’ will decide, because they consistently rule in line with partisan political requirements" [/background]and thought this must be a spoof too! After observing SCOTUS for the last decade or so I would suggest that the four conservative judges have done exactly what it accuses these four judges of doing. A slight case of double standards surely?

 

[Noesdeayer]

khairyexpat:
I repeat my question.Separation of what and segregation of whom?

 

[ElQueso]

[...]
I clicked on your link and got as far as "[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]There is rarely any debate over how the four Democrat-appointed ‘liberals’ will decide, because they consistently rule in line with partisan political requirements" [/background]and thought this must be a spoof too! After observing SCOTUS for the last decade or so I would suggest that the four conservative judges have done exactly what it accuses these four judges of doing. A slight case of double standards surely?

Considering that 2 supposedly conservative judges voted along with all 4 supposedly liberal judges in a 6-3 decision, in which Scalia pretty much castigated the decision, to allow Obama Care to continue in a rather famous ruling that had conservatives up in arms about the ruling, I don't think so...

Also written in the article, to back up his feelings on this:

Does the Clear Air Act give the Environmental Protection Agency unlimited power to regulate any emissions of anything? Justice Kennedy swings over to the left. Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own guns? Kennedy swings back to the right. Can the provisions of Obamacare be rewritten at the will of the executive in order to make the law work? Roberts acts as the swing vote toward the liberal side on that issue, twice. Does the Constitution mandate gay marriage? Kennedy goes back left again. And so on.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican. Both sides pretty much disgust me to tell the truth. But I was completely shocked when the court ruled so strongly in favor of Obama Care, for example. And show me examples of where supposedly liberal judges have upheld something so strongly in favor of conservative values.

Having said all of that, I don't believe that it is good for a Supreme Court Justice to rule along party lines - that's just terrible. I didn't post that link to say I agree that justices should be voting along party lines, but rather that what he says about those judges and the appearance that at least a couple of conservative judges vote away from party lines while liberal judges, at least lately, have seemed to vote along Democratic ideals as opposed to either of those two groups voting along actual Constitutional lines.

I think the "framers" of the Constitution made it pretty clear in their writings, along with the Constitution itself, how they felt about government, and the court in particular, meddling in laws such as ObamaCare, for example, something that I am horrified by that 1) our congress passed such a hideous bill (all Democrat - and remember Nancy Pelosi's statement that she basically didn't care who opposed it or why, they were going to do "whatever it took") and 2) that our Supreme Court upheld the portions that obviously went against the intent of the Constitution - to control how much control the government had over the lives of its citizens, including requiring that they purchase something or get fined (and no, I don't agree that people should have to buy car insurance, either! And remember the Tea Party [the real one, in Boston back in 1773, related to what they considered were unjust taxes]).

I don't believe in a "living Constitution", aside from the Congress needing 66% approval to advance an amendment and the requirement for the States to approve it with 75% of their state legislatures - it shows how difficult they intended for revisions to the Constitution to be, not to allow the court to make rulings that effectively allow the government to get around the Constitution by legal near-fictions, if not outright fictions. No matter how good the cause people think they are "fighting" for.

 

[ElQueso]

khairyexpat:
I repeat my question.Separation of what and segregation of whom?

I meant to respond to this as well. Not to put words in Khairy's mouth or anything, but I have my own thoughts on the matter (surprise!).

One of the ideas of libertarianism is the freedom of association. I don't know that this is what Khairy was referring to, but it seemed to be. But if so, how he worded it seemed to be a misunderstanding of libertarian principles. Maybe he meant something else. I wanted to expound a bit on what libertarians mean by this.

If I don't want to associate with anyone who wears bright orange t-shirts and green shorts with white socks and open-toed sandals, I shouldn't have to. I deliberately used such a silly image because it's not too controversial when talking about not having to associate with such people on a social scale, but the same can be said to have equal validity when applied to race, religion, politics, or anything else that may divide one group of humans from another.

I'm not talking about forced segregation/separation, but if someone doesn't want to be around Muslims, for example - why should he or she be forced to? Or a conservative forced to associate with a liberal. Or a white man with a black man (or vice versa!). Many people think that no one should have the right, for example, to hire whom they want and to not hire whom they don't want. I couldn't disagree more.

I'm about as far away from racist as a person can be, I feel. Maybe I'm fooling myself. But I never said I would be the one who would choose not to associate with someone - I just can't see anyone being forced to do so. And before people go off and start talking about how the government did so well 1) ending slavery, 2) integrating slaves into the population and 3) ensuring that ex-slaves and their descendants were not prejudiced against - haha think again. It's the forced association and concentration of power via government that caused these problems from the very time of allowing and encouraging slavery to how people were forced to deal with the breakup of slavery that has caused so many lingering problems in the US related to black-white race relations.

At least in the US, which I'm most familiar with, we've always forced people to associate with each other, sometimes with good intentions and sometimes with idiotic intentions. If I remember Khairy's original statement correctly, he seemed to be talking about the polarization of politics in the US, brought on by Liberals vs Conservatives, two supposedly polar opposites trying to get more and more control of the government and people's minds as time passes. And one of the reasons is because the democratic manner of electing representatives in a republican system requires narcissists and sociopaths to get the approval of the people to step into power where they can basically rule unimpeded by the masses, as long as they control the mindset.

We can't have a diluting of power by allowing States, or other political entities, to break off and form their own country, of course (this statement was definitely meant tongue-in-cheek - that is a prime example of forced association). Allowing people to associate, or not, with whom they please should be a basic freedom and it isn't. It is one of the basics of force that a government uses, forced association, whether you like it or not. And it causes so many problems.

 

[semigoodlookin]

If I don't want to associate with anyone who wears bright orange t-shirts and green shorts with white socks and open-toed sandals, I shouldn't have to. I deliberately used such a silly image because it's not too controversial when talking about not having to associate with such people on a social scale, but the same can be said to have equal validity when applied to race, religion, politics, or anything else that may divide one group of humans from another.

I'm not talking about forced segregation/separation, but if someone doesn't want to be around Muslims, for example - why should he or she be forced to? Or a conservative forced to associate with a liberal. Or a white man with a black man (or vice versa!).

I suppose it depends on what associating with someone actually means. If you mean hang out and have professional relationships, then no you do not have to and should not have to associate with any group through force (although professionally the law disagrees in some aspect).

However, isn't forced segregation and seperation the only way to truly solve the issue of someone not wanting to associate with a certain group? I mean, if by association you mean see them on the street, in the same places as you?

My understanding is that you are using "associate" in the truest sense of the word and you should indeed not be forced. That word is also used more loosely as just to be around someone or something, regardless of personal interaction and for me the only solution would either be to segregate oneself, or the whole group. Some kind of social interaction is inevitable surely, so you cannot really avoid the guy in the orange t-shirt, forced or not.

 

[StevePalermo]

El Queso, considering supreme court decisions over the last decade or so, I think its undeniable that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito tended to vote as a block. I'm busy and don't have time to do the research atm, but I would say they split their vote on very, very, few occasions. And The Affordable Care Act is here to stay, however much right wingers hate it.