3 ms·

The legislature is made up of hundreds of representatives who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion. Their rulings represent (ideally) what t

The legislature is made up of hundreds of representatives who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion. Their rulings represent (ideally) what the majority of the population wants. A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes. He represents his own opinion and may not have ever been elected by the people. If he “legislates” something into law like this, it’s tantamount to indirect despotism.

GavinMcG 5y ago
> who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion Really? In a huge number of legislative districts in my country, only one party is competitive, and there is little organized intraparty effort to mount a challenge at the primary stage. The judiciary is an antimajoritarian institution. There are times when what the majority wants isn't a good thing, and also times when what it wants isn't implemented by the legislature. Also, plenty of judges aren't dipshits. Plenty of legislators are. Point is: arguing from the first principles of political structure isn't terribly convincing since political reality doesn't actually match those principles.
anigbrowl 5y ago
A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes I bet you're actually a smart person who is quite familiar with the appeals process, precedent, the distinction between common and statute law, and so forth. But for some reason you've chosen to field this sort of well-poisoning argument instead.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  I would just rather the people be represented than decided for. As such, I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits and I don’t like that nine new dipshits may strike it down in the near future, none of whom were even indirectly elected. Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    That's the constitutional order that prevails in the US and most republics/parliamentary democracies have something pretty similar. I'd be fascinated to hear about alternative proposals, but if you're just going to go on and on about 'dipshits' then you're probably not here for an actual discussion.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point: Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job. This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      I disagree that they failed to do so. It was left up to the states, as it should have been.

GavinMcG 5y ago

> who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion Really? In a huge number of legislative districts in my country, only one party is competitive, and there is little organized intraparty effort to mount a challenge at the primary stage. The judiciary is an antimajoritarian institution. There are times when what the majority wants isn't a good thing, and also times when what it wants isn't implemented by the legislature. Also, plenty of judges aren't dipshits. Plenty of legislators are. Point is: arguing from the first principles of political structure isn't terribly convincing since political reality doesn't actually match those principles.

anigbrowl 5y ago

A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes I bet you're actually a smart person who is quite familiar with the appeals process, precedent, the distinction between common and statute law, and so forth. But for some reason you've chosen to field this sort of well-poisoning argument instead.

jimbob45 5y ago
I would just rather the people be represented than decided for. As such, I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits and I don’t like that nine new dipshits may strike it down in the near future, none of whom were even indirectly elected. Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That's the constitutional order that prevails in the US and most republics/parliamentary democracies have something pretty similar. I'd be fascinated to hear about alternative proposals, but if you're just going to go on and on about 'dipshits' then you're probably not here for an actual discussion.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point: Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job. This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    I disagree that they failed to do so. It was left up to the states, as it should have been.