Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm surprised you're so frustrated with me when it's clear you aren't doing your homework on this one.
You apparently think that checks and balances is actually one branch choosing the leadership of another branch, blatantly choosing people who would agree with them instead of unbiased people.
You think that the supreme court hasn't dealt with school segregation, big oil (can you say exxon oil spill?) or even any big corporations.
|
Will, not only do I think that checks and balances is one branch chosing the ENTIRITY of another branch, that is, in fact, what it actually means. The power to appoint the judiciary by the executive is CHECKED by the legislature and BALANCED by their ability to impeach any sitting judge. It is a check and a balance. Wow, look at that.
And again, when, in the entire history of any Western Democracy with appointed judges, a set that includes but is not exclusive to the United States, has any single judge been appointed by those in power when that judge will not agree with those who appointed him? I just want one example of any judge anywhere that was appointed in a checked and balanced system because he was "unbiased". It doesn't happen. It has never happened. It will never happen. "Unbiased" is not part of the job description. It is, in fact, an actual part of the job description for a judge to have opinions. Some might argue that it is the very nature of the job. An unbiased judge would be an absolute nightmare.
Now maybe you mean "unbiased" in a political sense. You haven't stated that, but I can see where that's what you logically mean. If that's the case, it's also completely unworkable because it would be a huge infringement on the free speach of anyone who ever hoped to even possibly be considered for the bench. You're proposing McCarthyism, only with Republicans and Democrats replacing Communists.
Of course SCOTUS has dealt with corporations, desegregation and the like. It's what they do. It's their job. That doesn't mean that you, Willravel, can have your suit against Exxon or whoever heard by SCOTUS just because you want to. If it has merits or the lower courts erred in judgement or they have some other reason to hear it, they will. Not every case automatically gets heard. You really make me believe that you're not paying any sort of attention at all here.