3 ms·

The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throu

The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government. In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party lines, which is settled on top of loyalty to the government itself. Next, the executive branch's government agency appointments are vetted by the legislative branch, which is accountable to the corporate branch. The corporate branch can then cycle members via the legislative branch into the government agencies which are then intended to regulate the corporate branch. This allows for high profit margins, which can be used to fund candidacies in the executive and legislative branches, securing their loyalty on top of the already-established loyalty from lobbying. So you see, everything is perfectly checked and balanced-- against the voters having any political effect via the only legitimate outlet for their demands.

zymhan 13y ago
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant). Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge. You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.
- cryoshon 13y ago
  If judges are in fact "immune to political pressure" then that's merely one less facet of the government that the public has any kind of oversight on. It's not really debatable that the current court is heavily pro-corporation/government power, though some blips against this trend can be observed, as you pointed out. In terms of sources: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warns-corporate-capt http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warn... ; the quoted remarks by Senator Warren indicate that judicial nominees are actually not easily confirmed, and are sometimes already "captured" by corporate interest. It's very feasible that lobbyists could lobby the legislature in order to promote confirmation of judicial candidates who fit their agenda. Aside from lobbying the legislature to affect the judiciary's appointments, the judiciary can also be directly bought and sold: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judges/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judge... ; most relevantly: “According to a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period.” About 185 federal judges participated in these “educational” events which were sponsored by multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP." I do not accept that the corruption that I outlined is a "conspiracy theory"-- it is a well-documented reality.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie. Where did this idea come from? :p .. You're on to something, by the way. It's almost as if you were already kind of convinced yourself.

zymhan 13y ago

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant). Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge. You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.

cryoshon 13y ago
If judges are in fact "immune to political pressure" then that's merely one less facet of the government that the public has any kind of oversight on. It's not really debatable that the current court is heavily pro-corporation/government power, though some blips against this trend can be observed, as you pointed out. In terms of sources: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warns-corporate-capt http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warn... ; the quoted remarks by Senator Warren indicate that judicial nominees are actually not easily confirmed, and are sometimes already "captured" by corporate interest. It's very feasible that lobbyists could lobby the legislature in order to promote confirmation of judicial candidates who fit their agenda. Aside from lobbying the legislature to affect the judiciary's appointments, the judiciary can also be directly bought and sold: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judges/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judge... ; most relevantly: “According to a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period.” About 185 federal judges participated in these “educational” events which were sponsored by multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP." I do not accept that the corruption that I outlined is a "conspiracy theory"-- it is a well-documented reality.
anoncowherd 13y ago
>> You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie. Where did this idea come from? :p .. You're on to something, by the way. It's almost as if you were already kind of convinced yourself.