Bush Abandons Miers Nomination

[Plano Skywalker]

Tony Blair doesn't have the political capital to finish a donut.  He never really had a reform plan at all, or at least, he had the start of a plan, but not the end.  We have an independent judiciary already (and a largely apolitical one), and Tony Blair hates it because it strikes down a lot of his knee-jerk anti-terrorist legislation.

 

I appreciate that the US is a federation, but so many of these controversial issues seem to have come to federal level already.  Maybe the US needs a law to re-devolve more of these decisions to the states.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must say that I see Blair's motivations as suspect but I like the overall idea of either making the Second Chamber more relevant or making it little more than a standing advisory committee. What cannot stand is the mess it is now...a hodgepodge of hereditary privilege and lifetime patronage with the ultimate power over the judiciary.

 

It seems the main problem with making it more relevant, accountable, etc is that the Second Chamber would then have "too much legitimacy" to not give it a more prominent role in legislation and/or a judicial confirmation process. The British system is now only nominally bicameral. A more "legitimate" Second Chamber would, essentially, turn the British system into more of a "true" bicameral system. It would be a radical change.

 

I personally think Britain could use an elected (yet somewhat detached) Second Chamber that could block any non-financial bill. Just think, you guys wouldn't have had that horrid anti-fox hunting bill if you had a bicameral system.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Tony Blair doesn't have the political capital to finish a donut.  He never really had a reform plan at all, or at least, he had the start of a plan, but not the end.  We have an independent judiciary already (and a largely apolitical one), and Tony Blair hates it because it strikes down a lot of his knee-jerk anti-terrorist legislation.

 

I appreciate that the US is a federation, but so many of these controversial issues seem to have come to federal level already.  Maybe the US needs a law to re-devolve more of these decisions to the states.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must say that I see Blair's motivations as suspect but I like the overall idea of either making the Second Chamber more relevant or making it little more than a standing advisory committee. What cannot stand is the mess it is now...a hodgepodge of hereditary privilege and lifetime patronage with the ultimate power over the judiciary.

 

It seems the main problem with making it more relevant, accountable, etc is that the Second Chamber would then have "too much legitimacy" to not give it a more prominent role in legislation and/or a judicial confirmation process. The British system is now only nominally bicameral. A more "legitimate" Second Chamber would, essentially, turn the British system into more of a "true" bicameral system. It would be a radical change.

 

I personally think Britain could use an elected (yet somewhat detached) Second Chamber that could block any non-financial bill. Just think, you guys wouldn't have had that horrid anti-fox hunting bill if you had a bicameral system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The idea of having an unelected second chamber is that it's able to do its job better. That job, at the moment, is to revise and improve legislation, not to block or oppose it. If it had an electoral mandate, that would change. Unfortunately, our current government is addicted to bad, poorly-written legislation, and the lords are needed more than ever.

 

I don't much like the idea of these unelected inbred morons in positions of power, so I'd be interested in hearing the case for a second elected chamber. How does having both Congress and Senate produce better legislation in the US than just having one or the other?

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Lords have ultimate power over the judiciary. Are you referring to the House of Lords in its capacity as the final court of appeal? If so, that's quite different to the House of Lords as a chamber that revises legislation.

[Plano Skywalker]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Lords have ultimate power over the judiciary.  Are you referring to the House of Lords in its capacity as the final court of appeal?  If so, that's quite different to the House of Lords as a chamber that revises legislation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, that is part of the problem: it is not a fish nor is it a foul...it is something in between.

 

truely, it is the Law Lords that have the most power in that they are the highest court of appeal.

 

with regard to legislation, it is true that Lords can only delay legislation. however, the Parliament Act is rarely invoked (even by leftist governments) so, in practice, these unelected officials do have the ability to block most of what they don't like.

[SteveThaiBinh]

truely, it is the Law Lords that have the most power in that they are the highest court of appeal.

Yet the law lords are senior judges appointed to the position, not the whole body of the House of Lords and certainly not the hereditary peers. It's very similar to the US Supreme Court. I think you usually get five Law Lords ruling on any one issue.

 

with regard to legislation, it is true that Lords can only delay legislation.  however, the Parliament Act is rarely invoked (even by leftist governments) so, in practice, these unelected officials do have the ability to block most of what they don't like.

The Parliament Act is rarely invoked because it's rarely needed. The House of Lords know that they don't have the mandate to oppose government legislation, so in most conflicts with the House of Commons they will eventually back down rather than provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is rarely used because the Lords are reluctant to stand up to the Commons, not the other way round.

[metadigital]

...

with regard to legislation, it is true that Lords can only delay legislation.  however, the Parliament Act is rarely invoked (even by leftist governments) so, in practice, these unelected officials do have the ability to block most of what they don't like.

The Parliament Act is rarely invoked because it's rarely needed. The House of Lords know that they don't have the mandate to oppose government legislation, so in most conflicts with the House of Commons they will eventually back down rather than provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is rarely used because the Lords are reluctant to stand up to the Commons, not the other way round.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fundamental mechanism is that the Upper House performs as an Editor-in-Chief for the legislature writers: it is meant to highlight any foreseeable issues and help draw attention to better means to achieve a stated end; it is not there to create new law, or derail any attempted legislation (that function is performed by the judiciary when they apply their gnostic interpretations to the legislation). "

 

Having an unelected group of people doesn't create a problem as they are just there to consult, edit, clarify and revise mooted law, not create it.

 

Really, the Queen should step in and start drafting bills: she's got over fifty years of political experience and more nous than the cabinet put together ...

[Plano Skywalker]

Yet the law lords are senior judges appointed to the position, not the whole body of the House of Lords and certainly not the hereditary peers.  It's very similar to the US Supreme Court.  I think you usually get five Law Lords ruling on any one issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I remember The Economist's reaction to the Law Lords ruling in the Pinochet extradition case. They essentially said "what are these hippies smoking?"

 

I think the Law Lords are very much out of touch and too concerned about pleasing the U.N., the E.U. and other supranational bodies.

 

Truely, there should be a certain amount of insulation from the ebb and flow of partisan politics. But I think the case could be made that the Law Lords are a little too insulated.

 

With regard to legislation, what is the purpose of having a lower house? To serve as the primary vehicle of public policy. What is the purpose of having an upper house? To block the will of the people when the people are wrong. That's right...representative, constitutional government is not the same as democracy. Democracy is a protection racket in a coat and tie. Constitutional government is based on the rule of law with democratic elements being used as accountability.

There is a big difference between the two.

 

Ultimately, this is not my fight as I do not reside in Britain. But I have done a more than casual research into the subject. The underpinning "problem" here is that the British constitution is really an oral one rather than a written one. It is a hodgepodge of medieval documents, statutes, Anglican doctrines, court rulings, treaties and the like. Some like it that way but, apparently, many of Blair's constituents would like a more concrete, written constitution (one that obviously would incorporate many of the same things as the oral constitution).

 

However, I think the main thing that scares people about a written constitution is what it might do to the Monarchy....a whole other can of worms.

 

===============================

 

this article is a bit outdated but it highlights the power of Lords over legislation:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...s/rebellion.stm

 

 

Bills Killed by Lords (in its legislative capacity):

 

Conservative Govt

1992-93: 19

1993-94: 16

1994-95: 7

1995-96: 10

1996-97: 10

 

Labour Govt

1997-98: 39

1998-99: 31

1999-2000: 36

2000-01: 2

2001-02: 11

 

Figures correct as of 14.12.2001

Edited October 30, 2005 by Plano Skywalker

[SteveThaiBinh]

One of the main things that scares people about a written constitution is that we might end up like the United States, unable to legislate to deal with serious issues like gun crime or terrorism without reference to a document that's a century out of date.

 

Personally, I'd prefer a written constitution like the US', because I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Mine is not a mainstream position, though.

 

At the moment, both the Law Lords and the House of Lords are popular, because they are the only existing barrier standing against Blair, his unpopular government (21% of adults voted for him, and most of them were holding their noses when they did so), and his stupid illiberal laws. An elected second chamber would be nice, but how do you prevent it becoming as dominated by public whim as the lower chamber?

 

Whether you're a Brit abroad or an interested foreigner, your comments on our constitution (such as it is) are very welcome.

 

Are we still on topic? I guess so. We're talking about the UK's version of the US Supreme Court, so it's somewhat relevant, though Harriet Miers has indeed been forgotten.

[Plano Skywalker]

At the moment, both the Law Lords and the House of Lords are popular, because they are the only existing barrier standing against Blair, his unpopular government (21% of adults voted for him, and most of them were holding their noses when they did so), and his stupid illiberal laws.  An elected second chamber would be nice, but how do you prevent it becoming as dominated by public whim as the lower chamber?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, in the U.S., the Senators serve for fixed 6-year terms. That provides a certain amount of insulation from the whim of the moment. So would 8-year or 10-year terms.

 

I believe the Tories are officially on record as being for a Second Chamber that is 80% elected, 20% appointed (presumably bishops and other life peers). I think the main thing is to have the Second Chamber's terms be of a fixed duration and straddled so that the goverment cannot call an "all or nothing" kind of election and coattail in a bunch of cronies on the whim of the moment.

 

Longer terms and an election cycle that is out of sync with the lower house.

[Commissar]

I appreciate that the US is a federation, but so many of these controversial issues seem to have come to federal level already.  Maybe the US needs a law to re-devolve more of these decisions to the states.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that's a very good idea. Might as well abolish the union at that point, because it really would look like one country named Jesusland and another named the United States of Canada. You'd have the coasts and a small section of the midwest going liberal on all of those, and flyover country going conservative.

[metadigital]

Hmmm ... Jesusland ... is the first part of that pronounced "hay-soos", as the hispanics, or "Yah-zoos", like arimaic ...?

At the moment, both the Law Lords and the House of Lords are popular, because they are the only existing barrier standing against Blair, his unpopular government (21% of adults voted for him, and most of them were holding their noses when they did so), and his stupid illiberal laws.  An elected second chamber would be nice, but how do you prevent it becoming as dominated by public whim as the lower chamber?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, in the U.S., the Senators serve for fixed 6-year terms. That provides a certain amount of insulation from the whim of the moment. So would 8-year or 10-year terms.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am led to believe that it is almost impossible for an incumbent senator to lose their seat, though: is that true? Something about 98% of the election budget for incumbents ... I could well be less than 101% correct on this, though ...

[SteveThaiBinh]

I don't think that's a very good idea.  Might as well abolish the union at that point, because it really would look like one country named Jesusland and another named the United States of Canada.  You'd have the coasts and a small section of the midwest going liberal on all of those, and flyover country going conservative.

Depends on who gets the nuclear weapons, I suppose. RedStateLand should be happy to have no weapons or military, and retreat into isolationism and conservative utopia. BlueStateLand could have the military, the UN seat and the foreign policy, such as it is.

 

The 'incumbent senators always win' thing might be something to do with electoral boundaries, but I'm not sure.

[Commissar]

I am led to believe that it is almost impossible for an incumbent senator to lose their seat, though: is that true? Something about 98% of the election budget for incumbents ... I could well be less than 101% correct on this, though ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Well over 90% of incumbent senators win reelection if they seek it, if memory serves. Tom Daschle is a rather spectacular example of the very few who do get kicked out. I still don't know what the hell's up with South Dakota. I guess that's just Jesusland for you.

 

Whereas the House tends to be pretty tumultuous, the only way a Senate seat changes is if said senator dies or decides he's made enough money off of various lobbying groups.

[Commissar]

Hey, slightly back on topic, one thing that just occurred to me about the whole Supreme Court thing is that at least it means Alberto "Captain Torture" Gonzalez doesn't have a chance of being nominated; the paper-thin Executive Privilege argument that's supposedly forced Miers into withdrawing would apply to him as well.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Hey, slightly back on topic, one thing that just occurred to me about the whole Supreme Court thing is that at least it means Alberto "Captain Torture" Gonzalez doesn't have a chance of being nominated; the paper-thin Executive Privilege argument that's supposedly forced Miers into withdrawing would apply to him as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure they'll just find someone worse.

 

Actually, we foreigners enjoy being tortured. It's part of our culture.

[Plano Skywalker]

I don't think that's a very good idea.  Might as well abolish the union at that point, because it really would look like one country named Jesusland and another named the United States of Canada.  You'd have the coasts and a small section of the midwest going liberal on all of those, and flyover country going conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so what? why can't a country that is geographically the size of Western Europe have that kind of diversity?

 

there are many who think way too much policy has been hijacked by the feds, especially by the Supreme Court. the Court should show more respect for our Federal system than they recently have.

 

I don't want a "conservative" activist anymore than a liberal activist. I want a textualist in the tradition of Antonin Scalia. And that is what Bush has promised to appoint. Textualism, in the case of U.S. constitutional law, is really all about devolution and states' rights.

[Plano Skywalker]

Tom Daschle is a rather spectacular example of the very few who do get kicked out.  I still don't know what the hell's up with South Dakota.  I guess that's just Jesusland for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tom Daschle was an absolute disgrace. Coming from a state that was redder than Jupiter and blasting everything that those folk stood for. Using his power as party leader in the Senate to buy votes with pork.

 

They got fed up and they gave Tom what was long overdue.

[Plano Skywalker]

we may find out as early as Monday who the nominee is. the talking heads are pretty much convinced it will be a well-respected Federal Appeals Court judge with a clear judicial philosophy. the list is said to be down to about 2 names.

[Commissar]

Tom Daschle is a rather spectacular example of the very few who do get kicked out.  I still don't know what the hell's up with South Dakota.  I guess that's just Jesusland for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tom Daschle was an absolute disgrace. Coming from a state that was redder than Jupiter and blasting everything that those folk stood for. Using his power as party leader in the Senate to buy votes with pork.

 

They got fed up and they gave Tom what was long overdue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. You're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that someone's a disgrace just because they don't support the three-fifths clause.

[Plano Skywalker]

I am led to believe that it is almost impossible for an incumbent senator to lose their seat, though: is that true? Something about 98% of the election budget for incumbents ... I could well be less than 101% correct on this, though ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

pretty much....though there are some "battleground states" in which Senate seats are usually in play. But if you are a Republican senator from Utah, for instance, you would actually be more vulnerable from a primary challenge than in a general election....

 

term limits were not built into the U.S. constitution but they could be built in to a newly-written one if that sort of thing were an issue.

[Plano Skywalker]

Yeah.  You're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that someone's a disgrace just because they don't support the three-fifths clause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I can recall, the issues of slavery and/or the 3/5 compromise were not in play between Tom Daschle and John Thune.

 

Nice red herring though.

[metadigital]

I don't think that's a very good idea.  Might as well abolish the union at that point, because it really would look like one country named Jesusland and another named the United States of Canada.  You'd have the coasts and a small section of the midwest going liberal on all of those, and flyover country going conservative.

Depends on who gets the nuclear weapons, I suppose. RedStateLand should be happy to have no weapons or military, and retreat into isolationism and conservative utopia. BlueStateLand could have the military, the UN seat and the foreign policy, such as it is.

 

The 'incumbent senators always win' thing might be something to do with electoral boundaries, but I'm not sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're forgetting the gravy train that is the UN. Both new countries would get their own seat, and the nukes would fill the gap in the market after all the ex-Soviet weapons have been bought up by despots, terrorists and suicidal-homocidal maniacs to prop up the ballooning debt.

I'm sure they'll just find someone worse.  

 

Actually, we foreigners enjoy being tortured.  It's part of our culture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that a note of pessimism in your writing, Steve?

 

Torture hasn't been sanctioned in the British Empire since the late eighteenth century. France was quite happy to use it against those naughty Algerians, however, and some countries like Syria still sanction it as a legitimate information gathering process. Germany was even toying with it recently, too.

[Commissar]

Yeah.  You're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that someone's a disgrace just because they don't support the three-fifths clause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I can recall, the issues of slavery and/or the 3/5 compromise were not in play between Tom Daschle and John Thune.

 

Nice red herring though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was actually more along the lines of sarcasm than a serious point. Though, to be fair, what's that old saw about the definition of a conservative? A man with two perfectly good legs who's never taken a step forward in his life, I believe.

 

Daschle was a good guy. Shame he's out.

[Plano Skywalker]

It was actually more along the lines of sarcasm than a serious point.  Though, to be fair, what's that old saw about the definition of a conservative?  A man with two perfectly good legs who's never taken a step forward in his life, I believe.

 

Daschle was a good guy.  Shame he's out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't have minded Daschle as much if he were a senator from Taxachussettes or some such place. But it was just such a disconnect for someone like him to be from a state like SD. And, indeed, the disconnect ultimately cost him.

 

I thought a conservative was a liberal who has been mugged. "

[Plano Skywalker]

speaking of Lord's Reform (yeah, I know, this thread has been hijacked) this is a really good link: http://www.electthelords.org.uk/

 

if these guys are right, it looks like some elected element in Lords will become a reality this term. the real fight will be over how much muscle to give this more "legitimate" body.

[metadigital]

Just because more chimps put their peanuts in one basket as opposed to another doesn't mean one bunch of liars is better at running the group than another. I think the best form of government is me.