Judge claims 2nd US civil War if Obama is re-elected

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I doubt it the north would likely passive let the South go.
CNN recording US troops shooting up places Americans have actually been would make it too personal.

We have always been close to Civil War.
Mostly State v State.
Like California and Arizona.
Seems fitting too.
The Crazy Left v The Crazy Right.

Even in those cases do you think they were close to sending out armed troops to invade the neighbouring state?

I agree re: there are crazies on both sides but even then...just, no, I seriously seriously doubt it.

[Inky Noodles]

We have always been close to Civil War.
Mostly State v State.
Like California and Arizona.
Seems fitting too.
The Crazy Left v The Crazy Right.

Even in those cases do you think they were close to sending out armed troops to invade the neighbouring state?

I agree re: there are crazies on both sides but even then...just, no, I seriously seriously doubt it.

What I am saying is that it is not impossible.

[Laerod]

Is it just me or does every American Judge lack good...judgement?

It's just you.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The one that is...

Oh, they're not pro-Christian at all, as yourself acknowledge with this:

anti-education ("We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills" - actual words there)

this:

anti-LGBT

and this:

anti-women

None of that is pro-Christian at all.

[Serrland]

I don't care if he is elected he need to at least appear like a neutral arbitrator. Imagine a man injured by a police officer at a democratic rally having to appear before the court.

I agree entirely, but when you have an elected judiciary at any level this is a natural outcome.

[A High Dark Place]

An elected county judge in Texas

Elect Public Prosecutors maybe, but only if there is equal election of Public Defenders and they are equally Publicly Funded.

Judges should be chosen from within the legal system (from among the Prosecutors and Defenders in that system) and any say the People have in that should be diluted and delayed.

I say the People should have a say in who is appointed judge. Firstly, by the delayed means of electing Prosecutors and Defenders, but that subject to their choices winning cases thereafter: that is, the People's choice can be struck off before ever being eligible to be a Judge. It's damn stupid to insert elected officials at that level of the judicial system, where their failure or success will be so incompetently and incompletely judged by those who appoint them: voters, who neither examine all their judgments, nor fully understand those judgments which they do examine. The Judiciary is supposed to be an independent branch of government, and Judges are too far up that heirarchy to be suddenly introduced at one election.

It's worth considering a Recall process for judges, by the People. I'd set a high bar though ... I'd give the People an equal say with the rest of the judiciary: the People vote, and the Judiciary (all prosecutors, defenders, and peer judges) also vote on the appointment or retention of that judge. The People's vote should be scaled to one half and the Judiciary's vote to be the other half. For instance, twenty percent of the judiciary voting would have equal voting rights with twenty percent of the People voting.

I would also scale the votes of the Judiciary and the People according to their participation: if 66% of the People who vote in the simultaneous State and/or Federal election vote yay or nay on that judge, while 75% of eligible Judiciary vote yay or nay on that judge, the votes of the Judiciary would carry greater weight. That is, I would scale the two constituencies of the judge by their turnout rate. Judiciary would be considered "involved" by holding a public office, while the People would be considered "involved" by voting for any other office on election day. It would be wrong to give weight to the non-votes of the People who don't consider the election of judges to be their business, don't have an opinion either way, or can't remember the name of their preferred judge. On the other hand, it is quite fair to expect professionals (Prosecutors, Defenders or Judges) to take the effort to vote and be informed in their vote. The Judiciary would of course have secret votes, just as the People do. But you see, I would apply a higher standard to the Judiciary: holding that office, they are assumed to vote, while the People are only assumed to vote if they also voted for some other office on election day.

I'd consider making even further concessions to the People in voting up and down on judges. For instance, a cumulative vote: the difference between yay and nay on the last vote of the People (for or against that current judge) is halved and then averaged with the current vote, while the previous Judiciary vote is discarded for the current vote. That is, public disapproval of a judge would be cumulative over election cycles, while the judicial vote would not.

But publicly elected judges? The People alone, by one election, appoint or dismiss a judge? That's just damn stupid.

The people write the laws, oh so slowly and clumsily by election of those who write the laws (their representatives) ... it's frustrating I know, and laws change so slowly in consequence. Electing the judges who implement that law is no solution: judges don't change the law, oh they can try but they must do it well to pass the appeals process. Judges trying to please the people by reinterpreting the law will only make the law more confused and separated from the legislative intent. Trying and failing to change the intent of the law, judges make the law less just, less predictable to the detriment of criminals and law-abiding alike. It ends up with less respect for the law (as its implementation changes), massive overheads in appeal and overturning of judges' decisions, and politicization of law enforcement itself.

When really, a bad law should be changed from the top. The legislation defining the law should be changed. Undercutting the legislative intent, by popular election of activist judges, does not one whit of good unless their activism is upheld on appeal.

Criminal and law-abiding alike, lose respect for the law when judges can come and go in a political process.

Elected judges are a damn stupid idea. As I've said above, I'd allow some avenue for popular recall of a judge, but it must be a high bar. Not "this year, someone else got more votes than you".

I'm getting into deep water here. What I mean to say is that the implementers of law should change more slowly than the law itself, and that direct election of judges is lynch-mob retarded. The People should change the law by electing those who write the law and change the law at the highest level. They should not have the option of changing how the law is implemented this year or this decade: that belongs within the independent judiciary.

[Transhuman Proteus]

The one that is...

Oh, they're not pro-Christian at all, as yourself acknowledge with this:

anti-education ("We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills" - actual words there)

this:

anti-LGBT

and this:

anti-women

None of that is pro-Christian at all.

You're probably right, especially if their grasp of religion is as poor as their grasp of history, since they like to make reference to the Country's founders in relation to God or Judeo-Christian values (though maybe they mean the puritans and not the the founding fathers).

Still, they sometimes remember the important things in amongst their odious talk about what they view as detrimental to the fabric of society, like:

Unprocessed Foods ― We support the availability of natural, unprocessed foods, including, but not limited to, the right to access raw milk.

I don't know if I have the right to access raw milk here in Australia, but if I don't I'll be writing to my local member.

[Divair]

Civil war. Sure.

[Reploid Productions]

that's rebulicans for you

Okay, relatively new guy. This is a problem. The above statement basically amounts to an "All X are Y" troll comment, which doesn't fly around here. You are basically saying that "All republicans are radical/violent/etc negative thing" which is not conducive to debate and discussion, but can make for fine kindling for a flamewar. Knock it off and go familiarize yourself with the site rules, available here. Right now you're only getting an unofficial warning since you're fairly new and don't have any warning history yet; but future such violations can and will lead to official action from one of the mods.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[A High Dark Place]

Civil war. Sure.

We're in the midst of the Second Civil War.

It's a much more civilized war this time though. No shooting, but lots of uncivil exchanges. Rude words.

Three cheers for Freedom of Speech!

[Farnhamia]

Civil war. Sure.

We're in the midst of the Second Civil War.

It's a much more civilized war this time though. No shooting, but lots of uncivil exchanges. Rude words.

Three cheers for Freedom of Speech!

Piffle. That's politics. It was worse in the 19th century.

[Gig em Aggies]

just because stupid remarks were said be republicans lately doesn't mean were crazy. democrats are just as bad as republicans because they both failed the citizens of The United States. i say both parties are crazy and this is coming from me a moderate Texas republican

Oh, so you're a moderate Republican from Texas? How do you feel about their crazy platform? The one that is anti-education ("We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills" - actual words there), pro-Christian to the hilt, anti-LGBT, anti-women etc.

And please, provide some examples of all the things in say, the last four years, that the Democrats have come out with that match the Republicans. Or the last eight years. Examples, man, example! If you can't provide them your post is nonsense.

If they are just as bad as one another you shouldn't have trouble coming up with Democrats making noise about revolutions. Or saying things in league of "legitimate rape" and have other Democrats also chime in agreeing. Or Democrats saying and doing things in league with Bachmann etc. Or their party platform being discussed in another thread in this forum (look it up - the longest suicide note in history thread).

It is fair to say conservatives aren't crazy or stupid just because they are conservative, but I'm afraid the modern GOP - look at it. It's ridiculous and so far off the map the Democrats aren't remotely in its league. The sad thing is the elected moderate, sane Republicans that exist are too cowardly to oppose the hideous things happening in their own party. The tragic thing is that the worst Republicans somehow seem to keep getting elected - possibly if their saner voters chose not to vote for them...

Democrats also say stupid things. The major difference is that in Texas, crazy people get elected to office.

And in other Republicans states, don't forget.

here's a big one for ya

on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

this is coming from a democrate and your telling me that republicans are the only ones who say stupid things. i think not

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331288,00.html

[Transhuman Proteus]

An elected county judge in Texas

Elect Public Prosecutors maybe, but only if there is equal election of Public Defenders and they are equally Publicly Funded.

Judges should be chosen from within the legal system (from among the Prosecutors and Defenders in that system) and any say the People have in that should be diluted and delayed.

I say the People should have a say in who is appointed judge. Firstly, by the delayed means of electing Prosecutors and Defenders, but that subject to their choices winning cases thereafter: that is, the People's choice can be struck off before ever being eligible to be a Judge. It's damn stupid to insert elected officials at that level of the judicial system, where their failure or success will be so incompetently and incompletely judged by those who appoint them: voters, who neither examine all their judgments, nor fully understand those judgments which they do examine. The Judiciary is supposed to be an independent branch of government, and Judges are too far up that heirarchy to be suddenly introduced at one election.

It's worth considering a Recall process for judges, by the People. I'd set a high bar though ... I'd give the People an equal say with the rest of the judiciary: the People vote, and the Judiciary (all prosecutors, defenders, and peer judges) also vote on the appointment or retention of that judge. The People's vote should be scaled to one half and the Judiciary's vote to be the other half. For instance, twenty percent of the judiciary voting would have equal voting rights with twenty percent of the People voting.

I would also scale the votes of the Judiciary and the People according to their participation: if 66% of the People who vote in the simultaneous State and/or Federal election vote yay or nay on that judge, while 75% of eligible Judiciary vote yay or nay on that judge, the votes of the Judiciary would carry greater weight. That is, I would scale the two constituencies of the judge by their turnout rate. Judiciary would be considered "involved" by holding a public office, while the People would be considered "involved" by voting for any other office on election day. It would be wrong to give weight to the non-votes of the People who don't consider the election of judges to be their business, don't have an opinion either way, or can't remember the name of their preferred judge. On the other hand, it is quite fair to expect professionals (Prosecutors, Defenders or Judges) to take the effort to vote and be informed in their vote. The Judiciary would of course have secret votes, just as the People do. But you see, I would apply a higher standard to the Judiciary: holding that office, they are assumed to vote, while the People are only assumed to vote if they also voted for some other office on election day.

I'd consider making even further concessions to the People in voting up and down on judges. For instance, a cumulative vote: the difference between yay and nay on the last vote of the People (for or against that current judge) is halved and then averaged with the current vote, while the previous Judiciary vote is discarded for the current vote. That is, public disapproval of a judge would be cumulative over election cycles, while the judicial vote would not.

But publicly elected judges? The People alone, by one election, appoint or dismiss a judge? That's just damn stupid.

The people write the laws, oh so slowly and clumsily by election of those who write the laws (their representatives) ... it's frustrating I know, and laws change so slowly in consequence. Electing the judges who implement that law is no solution: judges don't change the law, oh they can try but they must do it well to pass the appeals process. Judges trying to please the people by reinterpreting the law will only make the law more confused and separated from the legislative intent. Trying and failing to change the intent of the law, judges make the law less just, less predictable to the detriment of criminals and law-abiding alike. It ends up with less respect for the law (as its implementation changes), massive overheads in appeal and overturning of judges' decisions, and politicization of law enforcement itself.

When really, a bad law should be changed from the top. The legislation defining the law should be changed. Undercutting the legislative intent, by popular election of activist judges, does not one whit of good unless their activism is upheld on appeal.

Criminal and law-abiding alike, lose respect for the law when judges can come and go in a political process.

Elected judges are a damn stupid idea. As I've said above, I'd allow some avenue for popular recall of a judge, but it must be a high bar. Not "this year, someone else got more votes than you".

I'm getting into deep water here. What I mean to say is that the implementers of law should change more slowly than the law itself, and that direct election of judges is lynch-mob retarded. The People should change the law by electing those who write the law and change the law at the highest level. They should not have the option of changing how the law is implemented this year or this decade: that belongs within the independent judiciary.

What are the requirements to be elected as a judge?

It's always struck me as odd as well.

[Mavorpen]

just because stupid remarks were said be republicans lately doesn't mean were crazy. democrats are just as bad as republicans because they both failed the citizens of The United States. i say both parties are crazy and this is coming from me a moderate Texas republican

I also live in Texas, and most Republicans have no idea what they're talking about. Are they "crazy"? Not really, just severely misinformed.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Oh, so you're a moderate Republican from Texas? How do you feel about their crazy platform? The one that is anti-education ("We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills" - actual words there), pro-Christian to the hilt, anti-LGBT, anti-women etc.

And please, provide some examples of all the things in say, the last four years, that the Democrats have come out with that match the Republicans. Or the last eight years. Examples, man, example! If you can't provide them your post is nonsense.

If they are just as bad as one another you shouldn't have trouble coming up with Democrats making noise about revolutions. Or saying things in league of "legitimate rape" and have other Democrats also chime in agreeing. Or Democrats saying and doing things in league with Bachmann etc. Or their party platform being discussed in another thread in this forum (look it up - the longest suicide note in history thread).

It is fair to say conservatives aren't crazy or stupid just because they are conservative, but I'm afraid the modern GOP - look at it. It's ridiculous and so far off the map the Democrats aren't remotely in its league. The sad thing is the elected moderate, sane Republicans that exist are too cowardly to oppose the hideous things happening in their own party. The tragic thing is that the worst Republicans somehow seem to keep getting elected - possibly if their saner voters chose not to vote for them...



And in other Republicans states, don't forget.

here's a big one for ya

on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

this is coming from a democrate and your telling me that republicans are the only ones who say stupid things. i think not

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331288,00.html

No, I never said they didn't. I'm questioning your assertion both sides are as bad as one another, ergo the ignorant/absurd things being said by Democrats must be as serious/ignorant/bad as what is said by the Republicans of late (or put in their platforms), and they must be doing it just as frequently.

*Chortle* I remember that one from nearly four years ago and... yes, from Fox news. Yes, saying something that can be interpreted as "I haven't always been super, super proud of my home country but recent events have made me feel really proud" is definitely in league with 2nd civil war talk, Muslims are insidious and infiltrating the government, birthers, legitimate rape etc

You're going to have to do better than that.

[Phocidaea]

This guy is probably the biggest dipshit I've ever seen. Not helping my prejudices about Texas.

What ulterior motive could Obama possibly have that would lead him to relinquish the US' sovereignty? He's the motherf***in' president. He's making $400,000 a year and holds the privilege to destroy the world if he really wanted off the US being a sovereign nation. I'm not saying Obama is really that evil, though. I'm actually a supporter of Obama. But, let's face it, if anything, surrendering the US to the UN, while stupid, would be the most selfless thing he could possibly do.

I'd also like to see this guy's right-wing militia nuts in action if their actually was an invasion of the US.

[Saluterre]

I doubt it the north would likely passive let the South go.
CNN recording US troops shooting up places Americans have actually been would make it too personal.

We have always been close to Civil War.
Mostly State v State.
Like California and Arizona.
Seems fitting too.
The Crazy Left v The Crazy Right.

For there to be a "crazy left," there must first be an American "left." So it's more like the mild, pussy-footing centrists vs. the crazy right.

[North Calaveras]

We have always been close to Civil War.
Mostly State v State.
Like California and Arizona.
Seems fitting too.
The Crazy Left v The Crazy Right.

For there to be a "crazy left," there must first be an American "left." So it's more like the mild, pussy-footing centrists vs. the crazy right.

What about the Communists and Socialists and the other groups that identify with them? They are definatley growing, at least from my personal experience, idk about you.

[Saluterre]

For there to be a "crazy left," there must first be an American "left." So it's more like the mild, pussy-footing centrists vs. the crazy right.

What about the Communists and Socialists and the other groups that identify with them? They are definatley growing, at least from my personal experience, idk about you.

Perhaps, but as it stands, we don't have the numbers. Hopefully, as people become more educated about the cause, our numbers will rise. This doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are the main party of the "left" and are center to center-right in reality.

[North Calaveras]

What about the Communists and Socialists and the other groups that identify with them? They are definatley growing, at least from my personal experience, idk about you.

Perhaps, but as it stands, we don't have the numbers. Hopefully, as people become more educated about the cause, our numbers will rise. This doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are the main party of the "left" and are center to center-right in reality.

I'm sure there are communists and socialists who have joined the democrat party because it's an easier way to win, just like I'm sure there are some fascists in the republican party because it's easier to win that way.

[Farnhamia]

What about the Communists and Socialists and the other groups that identify with them? They are definatley growing, at least from my personal experience, idk about you.

Perhaps, but as it stands, we don't have the numbers. Hopefully, as people become more educated about the cause, our numbers will rise. This doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are the main party of the "left" and are center to center-right in reality.

Indeed? The Communists and Socialists have been trying to educate the American people for the better part of a century and I daresay your numbers have never risen much. I cannot but think that you're doing something wrong.

[Dainer]

Bring it, I say. The normal people get to shoot the bigots, and the bigots get to feel like real martyrs for a change. It's win-win.

[Runfin]

Is that not Insurrection?

[New Ceausist Romania]

that's rebulicans for you

No, it isn't. It's crazy for you, and crazy does not have a political affiliation.

No political affiliation for crazy? The Governer of Arizona, the former 'witch' turned 'Christian,' who ran in Maryland, Bachman...Shall I go on:?:....

[Genivaria]

Handed over to the UN? Lol what?