Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?

[Simon_Jester]

No, the difference is quite clear. Democracy is expressed at the voting booth. Oligarchy is expressed at the fund-raising dinner. Which one speaks louder tells you a lot about which kind of government you have.

[TC Pilot]

No, the difference is quite clear. Democracy is expressed at the voting booth. Oligarchy is expressed at the fund-raising dinner. Which one speaks louder tells you a lot about which kind of government you have.

Ah, I see now. For some reason I thought you were responding to Stas Bush and I lost track of the point. Whoops.

While I don't disagree with you in principle, in particulars I would still maintain there is some blurred grey area, at least in so far corporate contributions lead to electoral shifts (cause-and-effect), with the '96 Russian election being the most blatant example of it. So while corporate bodies end up weilding enormous soft power and influence over political affairs, in the end it still comes down to a choice by the voter.

That does not, however, mean I would disagree with the assertion that big business being able to pay political parties millions is undemocratic and ultimately harmful to such a spirit, particularly in a political system like that in the United States. Campaign financing, after all, is only one facet of a wider big business intrusion in politics.

[kaeneth]

Fundraising is only one aspect of it....

The 'retirement plans' of many politicians (hired as 'public speakers'), ex-Pentagon employees (hired by defense contractors), FCC handling merger approvals get hired by the people they approved (e.g. http://www.bizmology.com/2011/05/12/for ... sial-hire/), etc involve being hired by the people they were dealing when they were government officials.

Its a common bit of graft that ends up being just as important as the fundraising issue. Fundraising buys votes (through influencing people with ads, etc) while these 'retirement plans' buy the people once they are in office.

[Straha]

Ya'll missed the boat on this one, which isn't to say you're not on an important boat, but the decision in this case isn't quite relevant to what ya'll are discussing.


The reason the court struck this law down is because it impedes free speech in two ways, first it disincentivizes donations to candidates who have more money than their opponents, second if a donation is given in dilutes the 'speech' effect of the donation with the direct potential to cause the opposite of the desired effect.

Case example of how this works:

Hypothetical scenario: This Arizona law is enacted federally. Go back to 2008, Barack Obama is running for President and is crushing McCain in fundraising. Because of this disparity McCain is getting lump-sums every so often when Obama's fundraising reaches a new threshold. You are a citizen of the United States who is ardently 'pro-choice'. You are considering donating money to Barack Obama because he matches your views there, and you don't want McCain to win. However, if you donate money there is a reasonably good chance that McCain will get an equal amount of money to what you're giving Obama to use as he pleases. There is also a good chance that he will use that money to campaign on a 'pro-life' platform, there is a decent chance that McCain will use the money you effectively give him to oppose your message, while Obama will use your money for other purposes, thereby counter-acting your message. In a world where there are multiple 'opponents' this gets worse and worse. In a three or four way race it is not beyond the realm of possibility for your donation to completely swamp your message out of the field. Regardless of whatever happens, you are losing a lot of control over your speech, and if your candidate is ahead in both the polls and money-raised there is, in fact, a direct incentive NOT to give him money so that you keep his opponent(s) message from getting out.



So, yeah. There are problems with campaign finance and the power of corporations, and the Supreme court is fully aware of this and sympathetic. (They even denied cert to a challenge of Connecticut's campaign finance law, which is similar in intent to the Arizona law, which is effecitively a flat 'no' to the idea that it's unconstitutional.) This case does not fall into that realm.

[SCRawl]

Instead of implementing a retardedly government breaking body that would be just as political (or even moreso) than the current clusterfuck of a nomination/ vetting process, how about we just take away lifetime appointments and make them follow the ethics rules that govern every other federal judge?

How can you "make" a supreme court justice follow ethics rules? Are they not supreme? If they are the highest court in the land, then their decisions cannot be appealed; who is there to oversee them? I suppose that we could make these guys the "penultimate court", and appoint a "supreme court" whose only job is to oversee the guys below them. They would not be empowered as a body to hear appeals (since that would just make *them* the new unappealable body), but they could censure or expel a sitting Justice for failing to adhere to the minimum ethical standards that we expect of a judge. That would solve the current problems with Clarence Thomas' ethics issues quite handily.

In the reality we all inhabit, though, isn't the House empowered to impeach a sitting Justice, and the Senate to try one, should the need arise?

[Flagg]

Instead of implementing a retardedly government breaking body that would be just as political (or even moreso) than the current clusterfuck of a nomination/ vetting process, how about we just take away lifetime appointments and make them follow the ethics rules that govern every other federal judge?

How can you "make" a supreme court justice follow ethics rules?

The same way you make Presidents follow laws, by making violating them (in this case ethics standards) an impeachable offense, something the House and Senate could handle.

[evilsoup]

Flagg, the House and Senate are full of corporate pimps (spreading your country's legs nice and wide for their paymasters). Why on Earth would you trust them to impeach the judges when they make pro-corporate decisions? If anything, you'd be giving the corporations a tool to get rid of uppity judges.

Case example of how this works:

Hypothetical scenario: This Arizona law is enacted federally. Go back to 2008, Barack Obama is running for President and is crushing McCain in fundraising. Because of this disparity McCain is getting lump-sums every so often when Obama's fundraising reaches a new threshold. You are a citizen of the United States who is ardently 'pro-choice'. You are considering donating money to Barack Obama because he matches your views there, and you don't want McCain to win. However, if you donate money there is a reasonably good chance that McCain will get an equal amount of money to what you're giving Obama to use as he pleases. There is also a good chance that he will use that money to campaign on a 'pro-life' platform, there is a decent chance that McCain will use the money you effectively give him to oppose your message, while Obama will use your money for other purposes, thereby counter-acting your message. In a world where there are multiple 'opponents' this gets worse and worse. In a three or four way race it is not beyond the realm of possibility for your donation to completely swamp your message out of the field. Regardless of whatever happens, you are losing a lot of control over your speech, and if your candidate is ahead in both the polls and money-raised there is, in fact, a direct incentive NOT to give him money so that you keep his opponent(s) message from getting out.

If the only way you can win the argument with the public is by deception (lie of omission here), then you don't deserve to win. True democracy (like true capitalism) requires everyone to have as close to perfect information as possible. It is not enough for the vote to be cast: it must be cast freely, and with knowledge of all the alternatives. Anyone who would lie to get their view represented is an enemy of democracy, an enemy of the people and a traitor to their country.

[Flagg]

Flagg, the House and Senate are full of corporate pimps (spreading your country's legs nice and wide for their paymasters). Why on Earth would you trust them to impeach the judges when they make pro-corporate decisions? If anything, you'd be giving the corporations a tool to get rid of uppity judges.

So? They're the ones appointing them in the first place, so they should have the power to remove them. Setting up some "higher" body to police the police would be just as corrupt so who would be appointing them?

[evilsoup]

Blahface suggested a method of having a congress of all the lawyers in the country selecting the supreme court judges. This is similar to what we have in the UK, and there doesn't seem to be endemic corruption (in that particular area of government). Of course, the UK is different to the US: it is smaller, and our 'Supreme Court' doesn't have the same level of power as yours.

[SCRawl]

Flagg, the House and Senate are full of corporate pimps (spreading your country's legs nice and wide for their paymasters). Why on Earth would you trust them to impeach the judges when they make pro-corporate decisions? If anything, you'd be giving the corporations a tool to get rid of uppity judges.

So? They're the ones appointing them in the first place, so they should have the power to remove them. Setting up some "higher" body to police the police would be just as corrupt so who would be appointing them?

They can be impeached by the House, just like a president.

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

The whole "during good behaviour" thing -- notice that they still spelled things properly in the old days -- is key here. If a Justice fails to meet this fairly mild standard, then he can be impeached in the usual way. He does not have to commit the "high crimes and misdemeanours" necessary to turf a president or VP.

The problem with this is that in this political environment there would be no appetite to push for such a vote, and if it were held it would certainly fail while the Republicans control the House. And anyway, there's no chance of getting rid of a Justice for just voting against the preferences of the Congress, and that's the way it should be. The powers must be separate.

[blahface]

Case example of how this works:

Hypothetical scenario: This Arizona law is enacted federally. Go back to 2008, Barack Obama is running for President and is crushing McCain in fundraising. Because of this disparity McCain is getting lump-sums every so often when Obama's fundraising reaches a new threshold. You are a citizen of the United States who is ardently 'pro-choice'. You are considering donating money to Barack Obama because he matches your views there, and you don't want McCain to win. However, if you donate money there is a reasonably good chance that McCain will get an equal amount of money to what you're giving Obama to use as he pleases. There is also a good chance that he will use that money to campaign on a 'pro-life' platform, there is a decent chance that McCain will use the money you effectively give him to oppose your message, while Obama will use your money for other purposes, thereby counter-acting your message. In a world where there are multiple 'opponents' this gets worse and worse. In a three or four way race it is not beyond the realm of possibility for your donation to completely swamp your message out of the field. Regardless of whatever happens, you are losing a lot of control over your speech, and if your candidate is ahead in both the polls and money-raised there is, in fact, a direct incentive NOT to give him money so that you keep his opponent(s) message from getting out.

I understand the argument, I just don't think it holds water. If you want to help get your candidate's message out then you can donate to the candidate. The fear that his opponent is going to have a more even playing field to communicate his message shouldn't be taken seriously as a deterrent.

We can expand upon this further and use the SCOTUS theory of deterrents to rule the licensing out of the publicly owned television channels to big corporations unconstitutional.

Some people may not like the big conglomerates that control the television networks and may wish to boycott them. These people may want to spread their message out on the publicly owned airwaves, but the fact that buying the advertising time would support these big conglomerates could deter them from doing that. Since the action of allowing these corporations to control the public airwaves has deterred free speech, it can now be considered unconstitutional.

[Patrick Degan]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

As has been pointed out, it is not simply a matter of the president appointing judges. He nominates them for appointment, which must then be approved by the Senate. Nixon failed to get Hainsworth and Carswell on the Supreme Court bench and Reagan didn't get Bork.

The problem with the Judicial Congress concept is that, as a popular body, it has no particular guaranteed safeguard against corruption, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision as well as the whole string of decisions which have redefined money as speech and corporations as people with full First Amendment rights. Elections to this body could be bought and sold as easily as they now can be with the rest of the national government.

In the end, what we're seeing today is an example of how any governmental system breaks down when its members either refuse to cooperate with one another even on a basic level or leave themselves open to corruption. Any government is only as good as the people who compose it.

[montypython]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

As has been pointed out, it is not simply a matter of the president appointing judges. He nominates them for appointment, which must then be approved by the Senate. Nixon failed to get Hainsworth and Carswell on the Supreme Court bench and Reagan didn't get Bork.

The problem with the Judicial Congress concept is that, as a popular body, it has no particular guaranteed safeguard against corruption, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision as well as the whole string of decisions which have redefined money as speech and corporations as people with full First Amendment rights. Elections to this body could be bought and sold as easily as they now can be with the rest of the national government.

In the end, what we're seeing today is an example of how any governmental system breaks down when its members either refuse to cooperate with one another even on a basic level or leave themselves open to corruption. Any government is only as good as the people who compose it.

In a way, corruption can be so pernicious in its pervasiveness that governmental co-option could essentially occur regardless of whether a body is elected or appointed.

[blahface]

The problem with the Judicial Congress concept is that, as a popular body, it has no particular guaranteed safeguard against corruption, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision as well as the whole string of decisions which have redefined money as speech and corporations as people with full First Amendment rights. Elections to this body could be bought and sold as easily as they now can be with the rest of the national government.

I think people who are qualified to vote in the Judicial Congress elections would be more informed than the regular voters and the money would have a smaller influence in the elections. If the representatives got out of hand, I think the voters would be more likely to hold them accountable. I'm not saying though that there wouldn't be any corruption; I'm just saying that I think there would be less corruption.

In the end, what we're seeing today is an example of how any governmental system breaks down when its members either refuse to cooperate with one another even on a basic level or leave themselves open to corruption. Any government is only as good as the people who compose it.

This is why I think it is so important that we change our voting system. Plurality voting stifles competition by ensuring that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. If we had more competition in an environment in which there was no vote splitting and the effects of spoilers were minimized, we could be electing way better politicians to represent us. I don't understand why this doesn't resonate with people.

[Dave]

If we had more competition in an environment in which there was no vote splitting and the effects of spoilers were minimized, we could be electing way better politicians to represent us.

I don't understand why this doesn't resonate with people.

Considering that I had to look up two different terms in the first quote, that might explain why it is hard for it to "resonate with people." If they don't understand what you said, they won't understand the issue and they won't get on board with it.

How to you propose to effect the changes suggested in the first quote?

[Patrick Degan]

The problem with the Judicial Congress concept is that, as a popular body, it has no particular guaranteed safeguard against corruption, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision as well as the whole string of decisions which have redefined money as speech and corporations as people with full First Amendment rights. Elections to this body could be bought and sold as easily as they now can be with the rest of the national government.

I think people who are qualified to vote in the Judicial Congress elections would be more informed than the regular voters and the money would have a smaller influence in the elections. If the representatives got out of hand, I think the voters would be more likely to hold them accountable. I'm not saying though that there wouldn't be any corruption; I'm just saying that I think there would be less corruption.

And this is based on... wishful thinking?

In the end, what we're seeing today is an example of how any governmental system breaks down when its members either refuse to cooperate with one another even on a basic level or leave themselves open to corruption. Any government is only as good as the people who compose it.

This is why I think it is so important that we change our voting system. Plurality voting stifles competition by ensuring that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. If we had more competition in an environment in which there was no vote splitting and the effects of spoilers were minimized, we could be electing way better politicians to represent us. I don't understand why this doesn't resonate with people.

Except there is no guarantee that vote-splitting would produce any better result in the wake of not only the Citizens United decision but an electorate who are seriously undereducated in basic civics and a news media which does everything except present actual in-depth news of issues vital to the education of the electorate.

[blahface]

Considering that I had to look up two different terms in the first quote, that might explain why it is hard for it to "resonate with people." If they don't understand what you said, they won't understand the issue and they won't get on board with it.

I don't expect people to know the different types of voting systems, but they have got to know that is something seriously wrong with our system. A lot of people were so angry with Ralph Nader for splitting the vote in the 2000 election. I don't know how any of those people can come away from that and not see that there is a fundamental problem with our voting system.

Also, it is not just regular people, why aren't progressive groups or people like Cenk Uygur bringing this to the forefront of the conversation? We hear a lot about Campaign Finance Reform, and that is a very important issue, but we never hear them talk about reforming the voting system. On The Young Turks, Cenk blamed the conservative victory in the Canadian election on the multi-party system splitting the vote. His conclusion was that more than two parties is bad - not that we should have a voting system that eliminates vote splitting.

Earlier this year, REPUBLICANS introduced a bill in the New Hampshire legislature to use approval voting for statewide elections. Progressive groups should have taken the opportunity to support them. Cenk Uygur or Rachel Maddow should have talked about this on their MSNBC programs. They didn't make a peep about it and it got voted down.

How to you propose to effect the changes suggested in the first quote?

I think the most pragmatic solution is to have a non-partisan open primary with approval voting and let the top two go on to the general election. Approval voting is easy to understand and the old punch card voting machines would still work with it.

One thing I'd also like is for there to be an official government message board in which candidates for office can debate throughout the election cycle. I think it would be a good way for lesser known candidates to get their message out to the public and take mainstream candidates to task.

[blahface]

And this is based on... wishful thinking?

It is based on the condition that would be in place that would make people who want to vote in these elections pass an exam showing that they know the law. If someone is going to go through the trouble to prepare for and pass the exam, they are probably going to view the issues as important enough to pay attention to when they vote. Why would someone who is mostly apathetic go through such a hurdle to vote in the election if he doesn't even want to do any research on any of the issues? Is this such an outlandish line of reasoning?

Except there is no guarantee that vote-splitting would produce any better result in the wake of not only the Citizens United decision but an electorate who are seriously undereducated in basic civics and a news media which does everything except present actual in-depth news of issues vital to the education of the electorate.

It couldn't hurt and vote-splitting is such a huge handicap to get past. Especially at this time, people are disgusted at both the Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that we are stuck with them because the only perceived alternative is worse and nobody wants to throw their vote away on the third party. If we get rid of vote-splitting, third party candidates can at least build up momentum and maybe get some media attention along the way. People may eventually choose to vote against candidates that take corporate funds altogether and it may become political kryptonite to a campaign.

[Patrick Degan]

And this is based on... wishful thinking?

It is based on the condition that would be in place that would make people who want to vote in these elections pass an exam showing that they know the law. If someone is going to go through the trouble to prepare for and pass the exam, they are probably going to view the issues as important enough to pay attention to when they vote. Why would someone who is mostly apathetic go through such a hurdle to vote in the election if he doesn't even want to do any research on any of the issues? Is this such an outlandish line of reasoning?

Except imposing tests to force voters to prove their qualification to vote got struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. So your mechanism here is not legal.

Except there is no guarantee that vote-splitting would produce any better result in the wake of not only the Citizens United decision but an electorate who are seriously undereducated in basic civics and a news media which does everything except present actual in-depth news of issues vital to the education of the electorate.

It couldn't hurt and vote-splitting is such a huge handicap to get past. Especially at this time, people are disgusted at both the Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that we are stuck with them because the only perceived alternative is worse and nobody wants to throw their vote away on the third party. If we get rid of vote-splitting, third party candidates can at least build up momentum and maybe get some media attention along the way. People may eventually choose to vote against candidates that take corporate funds altogether and it may become political kryptonite to a campaign.

That is a non-answer. You did not even try to address the underlying problems which threaten any alternative voting mechanism to what's in place now and once again engage in little more than wishful thinking that your desired outcome is the one that will actually unfold.

[blahface]

Except imposing tests to force voters to prove their qualification to vote got struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. So your mechanism here is not legal

I'm pretty sure vote testing prohibition only applied to the states, but that doesn't really matter since this mechanism would need a constitutional amendment in first place. Also, I don't have any hope of this ever coming to pass, I just think that this is how it should be done.

That is a non-answer. You did not even try to address the underlying problems which threaten any alternative voting mechanism to what's in place now and once again engage in little more than wishful thinking that your desired outcome is the one that will actually unfold.

I'm not sure why you consider it a non-answer. And I am not saying that corporate funding of campaigns and ignorant voters aren't serious problems that we shouldn’t worry about. What I am saying is that implementing a new voting system has the potential to curb the effects of big money by allowing the voters to have the opportunity to vote their conscience without having to worry about electing the guy they hate most. Getting rid of plurality allows for more competitive elections. If we have more competition, there is a higher probability we can get someone decent into office or at least maybe scare incumbents into not deviating too far from the will of the people.

I am curious why you seem to think changing voting systems wouldn't help at all. Do you really think that vote splitting and the wasted vote mentality aren't significant hurdles? What do you think is the best path to get good people into government?

[Patrick Degan]

That is a non-answer. You did not even try to address the underlying problems which threaten any alternative voting mechanism to what's in place now and once again engage in little more than wishful thinking that your desired outcome is the one that will actually unfold.

I'm not sure why you consider it a non-answer. And I am not saying that corporate funding of campaigns and ignorant voters aren't serious problems that we shouldn’t worry about. What I am saying is that implementing a new voting system has the potential to curb the effects of big money by allowing the voters to have the opportunity to vote their conscience without having to worry about electing the guy they hate most. Getting rid of plurality allows for more competitive elections. If we have more competition, there is a higher probability we can get someone decent into office or at least maybe scare incumbents into not deviating too far from the will of the people.

I am curious why you seem to think changing voting systems wouldn't help at all. Do you really think that vote splitting and the wasted vote mentality aren't significant hurdles? What do you think is the best path to get good people into government?

Because any system you use is ineffective if the same non-educated voters are using it, and if the same corporate types can game it. Really, this is not all that difficult to figure out.

[blahface]

That is a non-answer. You did not even try to address the underlying problems which threaten any alternative voting mechanism to what's in place now and once again engage in little more than wishful thinking that your desired outcome is the one that will actually unfold.

I'm not sure why you consider it a non-answer. And I am not saying that corporate funding of campaigns and ignorant voters aren't serious problems that we shouldn’t worry about. What I am saying is that implementing a new voting system has the potential to curb the effects of big money by allowing the voters to have the opportunity to vote their conscience without having to worry about electing the guy they hate most. Getting rid of plurality allows for more competitive elections. If we have more competition, there is a higher probability we can get someone decent into office or at least maybe scare incumbents into not deviating too far from the will of the people.

I am curious why you seem to think changing voting systems wouldn't help at all. Do you really think that vote splitting and the wasted vote mentality aren't significant hurdles? What do you think is the best path to get good people into government?

Because any system you use is ineffective if the same non-educated voters are using it, and if the same corporate types can game it. Really, this is not all that difficult to figure out.

Why not make it harder for the corporate interests to game it though? Also, what is your solution? What do you think is the most pragmatic path to take to get accountable and effective government?