INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR tim@streater.me.uk   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  3e33e347   
   REPLY: 19770:770/1.0 2a2927da   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 06 Feb 2024 at 21:04:00 GMT, "Mike Powell"  wrote:   
      
   >> Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:   
      
   >> 4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy   
   >> matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the   
   >> Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,   
   >> where they belong.   
   >   
   > In the case of abortion, unelected, appointed justices decided to do just   
   > that... turn it back to the states and their legislatures.   
      
   The US Supremem Court should not have been involved in the first place. In   
   Europe, abortion is not so contentious an issue precisely because it is   
   legislated about by elected politicians. Beware of judicial overreach.   
      
   > If you are pro-choice, this has turned out to be a bad thing for you in many   
   > states.   
      
   Well I agree.   
      
   > I am not sure that having judges be elected is a bad thing so long as they   
   > have to meet qualifications in order to be on the ballot.   
      
   The prime concern of anyone who is elected, is to get re-elected. So DAs and   
   judges are likely to fall over themselves to appear to be "tough on crime". So   
   they want high conviction rates. So in the pre-trial conference, the defendant   
   might be offered that they'll get 3 years if they cop a plea, but 40 years if   
   they defend the case and are convicted. You ever hear of a US judge   
   disqualifying himself because of such a clear conflict of interest? Seems to   
   me that in the US, you don't get justice, you get law - and plenty of it. Plea   
   bargaining is pernicious under such circumstances; it also means that the   
   evidence is never tested in court.   
      
   > The alternative is to have them appointed, which means they will still have   
   > biases... it   
   > would be the biases of those who appoint vs. those who elect.   
      
   Central government appoints ours. And don't imagine that this means that our   
   judges are political. They tend to be independently minded. I'm not sure if   
   there is a simple mechansim to remove them, either.   
      
   >> 5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.   
      
   We also don't allow it in the print media. On TV, there are 5 minute slots   
   called "Party Political Broadcasts", with a strictly limited number allowed .   
   Not sure whether or how the content is regulated.   
      
   --   
   Tim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225   
   SEEN-BY: 153/757 7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100   
   SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426