5 ms·

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processe

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief. Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.

keko039ndnfm 8y ago
It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...
  - thoughtstheseus 8y ago
    You can also read their published opinions to see exactly how they came to a conclusion.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership. Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India. Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    >They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.
    - keko039ndnfm 8y ago
      In a professional capacity they are. As individuals they are not, but even still they toe the line. While we revere the Founders for being outspoken of the status quo. Contemporary leadership relies on it. And note where I said it’s hardly scandalous. I was really just contrasting it with another posters view of their culture. American culture relies on hewing to what leadership finds emotionally true. Nice of y’all to white knight for SCOTUS though. And get all technical with me, as if you’re educating a moron you don’t even know. Like I said this forum just plays to its emotional biases like the others.
    - KorematsuFred 8y ago
      We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings). SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/20/south-dakota-legislature-republicans-defeat-bill-study-preschool-options/2920389002/ https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/20/s... Old men sermonizing the masses with little real reason
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ERA-Activist-Jailed-Without-Bond-for-Exposing-Breast-in-Virginia-506127361.html https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ERA-Activist-Jailed...
int_19h 8y ago
Look up "the switch in time that saved the nine".
webmobdev 8y ago
As another indian, I disagree with your stark negative characterisation of the indian judiciary. While I do agree that there are corrupt judges, and judges who acts as puppets for their political masters, this is a phenomenan common with every country (with varying degrees, and we in India perhaps do have it worse than others - a reflection of our very confused society currently going through a cultural and political disruption and change). On the flip side, the higher courts of our judiciary do have eminent jurists, who are respected internationally. India is considered to have the most powerful judicary in the democratic world. And in my opinion, they have used this power judiciously to make more far-reaching changes to empower our democracy than abused it. I do have criticisms too (for e.g., I don't like the idea of judges appointing judges as it upsets the delicate balance of power between the executive and the judiciary), but I recognize that despite their shortcomings they do a pretty decent job - in fact much better than most judiciaries of the developed democratic world when it comes to protecting the rights of indian citizens.

keko039ndnfm 8y ago

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

gamblor956 8y ago
Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...
- thoughtstheseus 8y ago
  You can also read their published opinions to see exactly how they came to a conclusion.
keko039ndnfm 8y ago
They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership. Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India. Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:
- da_chicken 8y ago
  >They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.
  - keko039ndnfm 8y ago
    In a professional capacity they are. As individuals they are not, but even still they toe the line. While we revere the Founders for being outspoken of the status quo. Contemporary leadership relies on it. And note where I said it’s hardly scandalous. I was really just contrasting it with another posters view of their culture. American culture relies on hewing to what leadership finds emotionally true. Nice of y’all to white knight for SCOTUS though. And get all technical with me, as if you’re educating a moron you don’t even know. Like I said this forum just plays to its emotional biases like the others.
  - KorematsuFred 8y ago
    We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings). SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."
keko039ndnfm 8y ago
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/20/south-dakota-legislature-republicans-defeat-bill-study-preschool-options/2920389002/ https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/20/s... Old men sermonizing the masses with little real reason
keko039ndnfm 8y ago
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ERA-Activist-Jailed-Without-Bond-for-Exposing-Breast-in-Virginia-506127361.html https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ERA-Activist-Jailed...

int_19h 8y ago

Look up "the switch in time that saved the nine".

webmobdev 8y ago

As another indian, I disagree with your stark negative characterisation of the indian judiciary. While I do agree that there are corrupt judges, and judges who acts as puppets for their political masters, this is a phenomenan common with every country (with varying degrees, and we in India perhaps do have it worse than others - a reflection of our very confused society currently going through a cultural and political disruption and change). On the flip side, the higher courts of our judiciary do have eminent jurists, who are respected internationally. India is considered to have the most powerful judicary in the democratic world. And in my opinion, they have used this power judiciously to make more far-reaching changes to empower our democracy than abused it. I do have criticisms too (for e.g., I don't like the idea of judges appointing judges as it upsets the delicate balance of power between the executive and the judiciary), but I recognize that despite their shortcomings they do a pretty decent job - in fact much better than most judiciaries of the developed democratic world when it comes to protecting the rights of indian citizens.