3 ms·

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?

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?