5 ms·

So because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like). Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Make no mistake, the US judiciary is also fully captured by the two parties. Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing, Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. But the the two US parties and sometimes even one party alone can totally make anything legal. The judiciary is independent only instantenaousely, not long term. Mind you, this is because the US political system is not made to deal with parties. When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down. That, makes the two comparable.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Recent SCOTUS actions disprove your point.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I never said that the judiciary was controlled by the president, I said it was controlled by the parties through nomination. If you have control over the parties for long enough, you get total control over the judiciary. Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. In the same way, Xi Jinping doesn't have total control over China - the National People's Congress has the authority to remove the President at any time. But because the CCP is by far the most popular party in China, the party is truly in charge, and the checks and balances do not really work. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies with an unlimited amount of parties and separation of power! And actually, 20% of congressional representatives in China are independent. But in practice, it's mathematically unlikely that another party would achieve a majority. In the US, too, it's mathematically unlikely that either of the two parties get replaced by a third party. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. But, in practice, the US has more diversity between the two parties, while in China there is more diversity inside one party. In both cases, the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
      - bassman9000 6y ago
        Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. the CCP is by far the most popular party in China The CCP is the only party in china. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties. And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
        khuey 6y ago
        > The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. The CCP controls China to the extent that China doesn't even have its own military, the party does.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        >That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. If your parents could swap your identity out for any of their choosing every decade or so, I would make the case, yes. >SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. They rarely do, and party affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting. And even when they do vote against their proponents, they do so in points of ideological heterogeneity. In any case, there are also times when Chinese judges vote against the dominant will of the CCP, it is just quite rare, and is among points of ideological heterogeneity. >The CCP is the only party in china. Only in practice. There are multiple registered parties in China you can vote for, though the vast majority are under CCP control. About 20% of the congressional seats are held by independents, not members of the CCP nor any other party. >No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. This is completely besides the point. China, in theory, is a democracy. In that, there are elections every so often, and you can run as a representative, and then vote for the president. So far, there have not been any reports of violation of electoral process. This is because the Chinese electoral system is flawed to confer massive amounts of power to the incumbent. In the same way, the US electoral system is flawed in that it completely destroys any power outside the two parties. Analysis of US political decisions show that popular will has a very slim influence on policy : https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi.... >I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. Good thesis, now let's try to prove it, shall we? If this was true, it should be possible for you to give me recent (last 100 years) examples of major decisions that were outside the control of both the DNC and RNC in both process and outcome. >And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges. Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law. Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. > When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights).
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      >Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law. > Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. >>>>>>>>>>>>one person doesn't have total power means nothing >>>>>>>>>>Straw man >>>>>>>>>>no person or public servant is reliably above the law First, I don't think you can call my argument a straw man then restate the argument I was arguing in the very same sentence. Second, Xi Jinping can easily lose in a CCP court, he just has to go against the will of the party members of the CCP enough. Xi Jinping is below the Politburo as well as the National People's Congress. He simply is kindly advised not to act in ways that would lead to his removal, just as other Chinese presidents often had their hands tied. He is not reliably above the law. Also, the Department of Justice in the US de facto affirmed that the US president is above federal law. > Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. This absurd conflation. Xi <=!=> the US government. An apt comparison is to claim that the Chinese State never loses in court. Now, to the core of the claim, the US State cannot lose in courts, because the US State is the courts. More so, the US government can only ever, ever be sued with its agreement. Indeed, as Wikipedia puts it: >In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... In conclusion, the U.S. government only ever loses to a non-state entity in court when it consents to, and even then liability is severely restrained. This is, ironically, exactly the same standard as in China. The Chinese Basic Law forbids the state from legal liability unless it specifically agrees to it and states it's liability, which is stated under the Administative Litigation Law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Administrative_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Ad... In practice, this means that you can sue the Chinese State, the CCP, Xi Jinping, or any other administrative body in China, and win, as long as the Chinese State agrees to the litigation. So, yes, Xi Jinping's government can, and does lose in Chinese courts (which technically are not affiliated with the CCP or any party, in theory). In fact, there have been many cases of such loses, which can be easily googled. However, if the government ever loses, both in China and the US!, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, they can simply change the law and absolve themselves of liability. >Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights). Cases of Federal judges ruling against their parties are few and far between, judges nominated by the same party vote together the vast majority of the time, especially Republican judges. As for the cases where they do, they almost always differ on points of heterogeneity in their party. Which you'd be surprised to hear, is also the case in China - there is massive heterogeneity within the party and judges sometimes go against the dominant position and are protected because are amongst a large faction. In conclusion, there is still no real difference that can discerned.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't agree that the judiciary is captured. The Stolen Valor Act, for example, was struck down despite unanimous approval in Congress.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      My argument is that the judiciary has instantaneous independence but not real independence. If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. If your standard is that a single act of minor importance refused by the judiciary is enough to mean indépendance of judiciary, an equal application of the standard results in the conclusion that the Chinese judiciary and judicial review process is independent. Which is a conclusion I disagree with, not only because I disagree with the standard.
      - refurb 6y ago
        If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. Considering most judicial positions (with some exceptions where they are locally elected) are life time positions, yes, theoretically the gov't could nominate judges that are aligned with their view, that would be almost impossible to execute. In addition, they are nominated by the party in power, but need to be approved by a committee comprised of both parties.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Whether it's independence in some cosmic sense doesn't seem like a tremendously interesting question. (Is anyone independent from anything on a scale of decades?)
      - kelnos 6y ago
        > If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. That's a bit of a stretch. First off, SCOTUS justices are appointed (through a nomination and confirmation process), not elected. In order for either the DNC or RNC, or both of them surprisingly working together, to pull this off, it'd wouldn't be trivial. Let's assume for a moment the "easy" case: out of 9 justices, 4 of them are in favor of this thing, 5 against. The DNC+RNC then have to get one of those 5 justices to retire, or they have to get lucky, and one of them dies. Then they have to get that appointee to the president. Next we have to assume that the president agrees with this thing they want. If so, cool, the president makes the nomination. Then it goes to the Senate. Does the DNC+RNC have 51 senators that agree? Ok, cool, justice gets confirmed. Issue goes to court, makes its way up to SCOTUS, and the ruling is 5-4 in favor of whatever the DNC+RNC wants... unless someone has changed their mind and switched sides during all this. I feel like that's already happened! If you believe that the RNC alone has managed to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court in order to do nefarious things, they've largely failed. Both justices have been reasonably moderate (so far, at least), when compared to what Trump and McConnell wanted. Now, this isn't a completely implausible scenario. I'll grant you that, certainly. But: if the DNC+RNC really want something this much, then they presumably have the support of a bunch of constituents and, critically, state legislatures. It would seem to maybe be a better idea to go for a constitutional amendment. In reality, I'd say that's crazy; the three-fourths of the states agreeing on something of constitutional importance is pretty unlikely. But if we're in this bizarro world where the DNC and RNC agree that something unconstitutional really needs to get passed, this is probably a better path to take than trying to engineer some light judicial subversion. So while I think your hypothetical is an interesting thought experiment, it's not really important in practice. SCOTUS is independent in the ways that actually matter. If there's bi-partisan support among government and citizens for something, it probably should be law. Yes, there's the possibility that this hypothetical unconstitutional thing they want to make into law is tyranny of the majority of the worst sort. But at the end of the day you can only make the system so robust, and I think our system is decently ok in that regard, the past 3.5 years notwithstanding.
  - sbmthakur 6y ago
    > Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. He probably doesn't, but the CCP does. One entity having the ultimate powers, just like the Supreme leader of Iran, makes them incomparable to the US where Congress/Judiciary can take actions against the President.
tathougies 6y ago
It's not diversity of differences that matters but rather the magnitude of those differences. Being different in one substantive way is infinitely better than being different in a myriad of little ways.

> because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like). Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Make no mistake, the US judiciary is also fully captured by the two parties. Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing, Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. But the the two US parties and sometimes even one party alone can totally make anything legal. The judiciary is independent only instantenaousely, not long term. Mind you, this is because the US political system is not made to deal with parties. When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down. That, makes the two comparable.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Recent SCOTUS actions disprove your point.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I never said that the judiciary was controlled by the president, I said it was controlled by the parties through nomination. If you have control over the parties for long enough, you get total control over the judiciary. Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. In the same way, Xi Jinping doesn't have total control over China - the National People's Congress has the authority to remove the President at any time. But because the CCP is by far the most popular party in China, the party is truly in charge, and the checks and balances do not really work. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies with an unlimited amount of parties and separation of power! And actually, 20% of congressional representatives in China are independent. But in practice, it's mathematically unlikely that another party would achieve a majority. In the US, too, it's mathematically unlikely that either of the two parties get replaced by a third party. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. But, in practice, the US has more diversity between the two parties, while in China there is more diversity inside one party. In both cases, the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
    - bassman9000 6y ago
      Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. the CCP is by far the most popular party in China The CCP is the only party in china. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties. And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
      - khuey 6y ago
        > The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. The CCP controls China to the extent that China doesn't even have its own military, the party does.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        >That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. If your parents could swap your identity out for any of their choosing every decade or so, I would make the case, yes. >SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. They rarely do, and party affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting. And even when they do vote against their proponents, they do so in points of ideological heterogeneity. In any case, there are also times when Chinese judges vote against the dominant will of the CCP, it is just quite rare, and is among points of ideological heterogeneity. >The CCP is the only party in china. Only in practice. There are multiple registered parties in China you can vote for, though the vast majority are under CCP control. About 20% of the congressional seats are held by independents, not members of the CCP nor any other party. >No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. This is completely besides the point. China, in theory, is a democracy. In that, there are elections every so often, and you can run as a representative, and then vote for the president. So far, there have not been any reports of violation of electoral process. This is because the Chinese electoral system is flawed to confer massive amounts of power to the incumbent. In the same way, the US electoral system is flawed in that it completely destroys any power outside the two parties. Analysis of US political decisions show that popular will has a very slim influence on policy : https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi.... >I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. Good thesis, now let's try to prove it, shall we? If this was true, it should be possible for you to give me recent (last 100 years) examples of major decisions that were outside the control of both the DNC and RNC in both process and outcome. >And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges. Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law. Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. > When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights).
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law. > Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. >>>>>>>>>>>>one person doesn't have total power means nothing >>>>>>>>>>Straw man >>>>>>>>>>no person or public servant is reliably above the law First, I don't think you can call my argument a straw man then restate the argument I was arguing in the very same sentence. Second, Xi Jinping can easily lose in a CCP court, he just has to go against the will of the party members of the CCP enough. Xi Jinping is below the Politburo as well as the National People's Congress. He simply is kindly advised not to act in ways that would lead to his removal, just as other Chinese presidents often had their hands tied. He is not reliably above the law. Also, the Department of Justice in the US de facto affirmed that the US president is above federal law. > Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court. This absurd conflation. Xi <=!=> the US government. An apt comparison is to claim that the Chinese State never loses in court. Now, to the core of the claim, the US State cannot lose in courts, because the US State is the courts. More so, the US government can only ever, ever be sued with its agreement. Indeed, as Wikipedia puts it: >In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... In conclusion, the U.S. government only ever loses to a non-state entity in court when it consents to, and even then liability is severely restrained. This is, ironically, exactly the same standard as in China. The Chinese Basic Law forbids the state from legal liability unless it specifically agrees to it and states it's liability, which is stated under the Administative Litigation Law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Administrative_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Ad... In practice, this means that you can sue the Chinese State, the CCP, Xi Jinping, or any other administrative body in China, and win, as long as the Chinese State agrees to the litigation. So, yes, Xi Jinping's government can, and does lose in Chinese courts (which technically are not affiliated with the CCP or any party, in theory). In fact, there have been many cases of such loses, which can be easily googled. However, if the government ever loses, both in China and the US!, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, they can simply change the law and absolve themselves of liability. >Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights). Cases of Federal judges ruling against their parties are few and far between, judges nominated by the same party vote together the vast majority of the time, especially Republican judges. As for the cases where they do, they almost always differ on points of heterogeneity in their party. Which you'd be surprised to hear, is also the case in China - there is massive heterogeneity within the party and judges sometimes go against the dominant position and are protected because are amongst a large faction. In conclusion, there is still no real difference that can discerned.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't agree that the judiciary is captured. The Stolen Valor Act, for example, was struck down despite unanimous approval in Congress.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    My argument is that the judiciary has instantaneous independence but not real independence. If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. If your standard is that a single act of minor importance refused by the judiciary is enough to mean indépendance of judiciary, an equal application of the standard results in the conclusion that the Chinese judiciary and judicial review process is independent. Which is a conclusion I disagree with, not only because I disagree with the standard.
    - refurb 6y ago
      If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. Considering most judicial positions (with some exceptions where they are locally elected) are life time positions, yes, theoretically the gov't could nominate judges that are aligned with their view, that would be almost impossible to execute. In addition, they are nominated by the party in power, but need to be approved by a committee comprised of both parties.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Whether it's independence in some cosmic sense doesn't seem like a tremendously interesting question. (Is anyone independent from anything on a scale of decades?)
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it. That's a bit of a stretch. First off, SCOTUS justices are appointed (through a nomination and confirmation process), not elected. In order for either the DNC or RNC, or both of them surprisingly working together, to pull this off, it'd wouldn't be trivial. Let's assume for a moment the "easy" case: out of 9 justices, 4 of them are in favor of this thing, 5 against. The DNC+RNC then have to get one of those 5 justices to retire, or they have to get lucky, and one of them dies. Then they have to get that appointee to the president. Next we have to assume that the president agrees with this thing they want. If so, cool, the president makes the nomination. Then it goes to the Senate. Does the DNC+RNC have 51 senators that agree? Ok, cool, justice gets confirmed. Issue goes to court, makes its way up to SCOTUS, and the ruling is 5-4 in favor of whatever the DNC+RNC wants... unless someone has changed their mind and switched sides during all this. I feel like that's already happened! If you believe that the RNC alone has managed to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court in order to do nefarious things, they've largely failed. Both justices have been reasonably moderate (so far, at least), when compared to what Trump and McConnell wanted. Now, this isn't a completely implausible scenario. I'll grant you that, certainly. But: if the DNC+RNC really want something this much, then they presumably have the support of a bunch of constituents and, critically, state legislatures. It would seem to maybe be a better idea to go for a constitutional amendment. In reality, I'd say that's crazy; the three-fourths of the states agreeing on something of constitutional importance is pretty unlikely. But if we're in this bizarro world where the DNC and RNC agree that something unconstitutional really needs to get passed, this is probably a better path to take than trying to engineer some light judicial subversion. So while I think your hypothetical is an interesting thought experiment, it's not really important in practice. SCOTUS is independent in the ways that actually matter. If there's bi-partisan support among government and citizens for something, it probably should be law. Yes, there's the possibility that this hypothetical unconstitutional thing they want to make into law is tyranny of the majority of the worst sort. But at the end of the day you can only make the system so robust, and I think our system is decently ok in that regard, the past 3.5 years notwithstanding.
- sbmthakur 6y ago
  > Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. He probably doesn't, but the CCP does. One entity having the ultimate powers, just like the Supreme leader of Iran, makes them incomparable to the US where Congress/Judiciary can take actions against the President.

tathougies 6y ago

It's not diversity of differences that matters but rather the magnitude of those differences. Being different in one substantive way is infinitely better than being different in a myriad of little ways.