What is your vision of "Utopia"?

sounds good to me!

Binny...wanna start a revolution? :wink:

YES! You got any plans?

Hehe but be careful, big brother (homeland security) is listening!

Actually, THEY both quit--ASHCROFT AND RIDGE.

Hehe nobody

I knew about ashcroft, but I don't even know who ridge was... DOH! Heh guess I should keep up better!


hey, taliesin, what do the people do after you elect them?

I say they should be like the dictators of that law. And they appoint people to do just what needs to be done. And instead of having a jury trial or anything, you just ask the guy in charge of that law!

And if it involves more than one law, you ask both of the guys... they get together and decide. That way you get rid of the unfairness (and cost) of a trial by jury. Except in very common laws (like speed limit and shoplifting and stuff, where you would have to have agents of the dictator of that law like traffic cops and mall security and stuff) you could just ask the guy in charge... there aren't so many crimes to swamp them. I say the whole judiciary system goes! And the retarded supreme court with it. Lifetime appointments my buttcheeks!

That was my thought, binny, but I would still keep on the Supreme Court, but get rid of that "lifetime appointment" rule. Checks and balances are important...but so are the people's opinions. I would have the Supreme Court elected by the people, not the executive branch. Basically, I would make this a direct Democracy, though with some aspects of a republic thrown in, since we can't vote every time a crisis comes up.

Who?

The lifetime tenure of the Supreme Court justices exists for a good reason: it removes them from the possibility of removal because of their ideas. The same applies to university professors. They can be removed, but the process of removal includes the requirement that they be removed for reasons having nothing to do with political motivations. University professors can be removed for demonstrated incompetence or gross moral or legal transgressions but not because of the nature of their intellectual positions. The Supreme Court MUST be beyond the reach of politics; the politically motivated removal of one Supreme Court justice can be more disastrous for the nation than the politically motivated removal of a hundred university professors, as bad as that would be.

That's who, Einherjar!

Taliesin, so we'd still have the supreme court AND the guys in charge of the individual laws? hmmmm okay maybe, but could you elaborate?


And JLNobody, I know they have lifetime appointments for a reason, but just think how bad it'd be if we had a strom thurmond on the supreme court. We couldve easily. It's politics that puts them there, which in my view is the whole problem. But there again, politics is just the gross embellishment of people not thinking the same way coupled with a two party system.

On that note, I've heard of a way to transition away from a 2-party system called Instant Runoff Voting... Anybody heard of it? Here's a good link that explains it. It's goofy but I must admit I kind of enjoyed it There are others like with Florida but I like this one.

Binny: There must always be checks and balances to keep those in power from becoming dictators, so we'd still need both a judicial and executive branch. I don't know about having a Legislative Branch, but maybe we could have this:
Executive Branch: President who only deals with Foreign Policy, elected directly by the people.(None of this "electoral college" BS)

Legislative Branch: My "Council" Guys, each elected based on their philosophies, as I said, and each of who make laws to support the majorities' opinions, with a limit on the amount of restrictive legislation matching the decisiveness of the vote (minority rights).

Judicial Branch: slightly different: they'd still make sure new laws don't contradict the existing ones, but they'd be elected by the people, and would only serve for either 5 or 10 years...I'm not sure yet.

In order to replace any of these branches, you'd have to get a petition signed by over half the states' governments.

How's that, Binny?

hmmmmm sounds better than what we have now, I say we go with that and see where we are!

I admit the possibility of a disastrous appointment to the Bench (e.g., Strom Thurmon). It is not desireable that justices make their decisions along political lines, just as it is undesireable that they be pressured by political forces to vote one way or another. Maybe some kind of check would protect us from the former. Perhaps a "censure" from a high percentage of jurists (not legislators) could do that. I suspect that is not an ideal solution. Suggestions?

JL: Could you elaborate on your "check"? I'm not quite getting it. What I understand of it seems good, though. Thanks.

My idea of utopia is snoozing in a hammock on a warm afternoon with two young ladies sat on the grass knitting me some winter woolies to while away the time until I get randy again.

spendius (the dream machine).

Spendiuus, I think your conception of Utopia is really a notion of a private personal heaven. Utopia, I repeat, is a fantasy about the perfect social organization or society.

Tal, by "check" I simply meant a safeguard of some sort, like the suggestion that a high proportion of the body of jurists decide whether or not a judge is blatantly and regularly following political or ideological considerations in his or her rulings.

Oh, okay, sort of a Supreme Court for the Supreme Court.
But...wait...how do we watch them???!!!!
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes???
I think I'll add that to my sig.

Good question, Tal. I don't know. But does that not apply to all watchdogs?

Yeah, it does, unless you do some sort of circular thing...a over b over c over d over a...or something like that. Now that's checks and balances....though it has the potential for a nasty domino effect.

edit: by the way, my remark in the earlier post was mostly a joke, but now that we've gotten started...

anybody chek out my link?