Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?
They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.
|
they are independent. where do you find that they aren't? the SCOTUS doesn't report to the President and the President doesn't report to the Congress. Congress holds the President accountable, as does the SCOTUS hold the laws that Congress creates accountable.
Just because they are picked doesn't mean that they are enmeshed and disfunctional. Please prove that it is as such, and the current administration isn't a fair example since you've got 200 more years of history to wade through as well.
The president doesn't pick ALL the SCOTUS, just the ones that move on during his tenure. So how can you state that it is again not independent? Could the SCOTUS know in the future who is going to be president?
I can't imagine SCOTUS and the POTUS picking the Senate because that's not the way the framers created it. I believe that there were many times that the framers were stating very simply that the average person isn't educated enough to pick each and everyone to run the government, but to allow representation to handle it for them.
But again, you are still not showing how it's stupid.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Last edited by Cynthetiq; 05-28-2008 at 12:52 PM..
|