This channel, as always, is severely under-rated. I remember the old episode on Robert Bork and how following federal justice nominees stopped giving honest answers.
Yep. That’s the case in Aus. No surprise there. Our parliament is never to interfere with the courts. I don’t think it ever has or has been suspect to.. but I’ve not researched that.
@@StevieCooper I think it might date back to James 1st (I think - I can't remember properly( but he stormed in to Parliment hoping to sway opinion and arrest those who oppossd him and they decided to behead him for infringing on the vox populi. The parliament of the people (house of commons) is separate to the House of Lords (birthright) which are both separate from the monarch? I know that on the opening of parliament the Queen cannot step into the house of commons because we value to separation between the monarchy and the choice of the people as separate and just in their own right, which is why the opening of parliament is conducted in the house of Lords Chambers (bc the Queen shares the same birth right to sit on the throne). The Queen holds no public political stance, for that reason to - she cannot be seen to favour or disparage based on political viewpoint, because that is actively encouraging what the UK is against - authoritarianism/absolute monarchy. I think the Queen plays more of a "role" nowadays, we could abolish the monarchy: but I think because we are raised in a society of traditions, it difficult to accept. I am in no way supportive if the monarchy, but it's difficult to imagine the UK and its territories without one? It may be that we share similar views because Australia was once a colony - I just hope that every colony is offered the opportunity for independence, though - a lot of tax havens are "independent"(/ly owned by the UK) which is how we managed to currate the euro dollar after the poverty of WW1 and WW2
@@StevieCooper it's also why the Black Rod gets the door slammed in their face upon the sussesion of parliament- to remind the Queen, the people and her representatives that they are not welcome to share opinion or speak on the matter decided in the House
@@illeatthat funny and interesting traditions. Our countries aren’t perfect and have hurt a lot of people in the past for various reasons. However, I’m glad I’m part and was born into The Commonwealth now rather than the US.
This is so ass-backwards that I don't really know what to say. Maybe the problem is in letting politicians select judges? There should be an independent and non-partisan advisory board that determines the best 3-5 candidates and submits that list to the president along with their recommendation. The justice system should not be tainted with politics, whatever the ideals might be. Justices should apply the laws and the jurisprudence in an impartial manner. I'm from Canada and I couldn't tell you the name of any of our supreme court judges, yet I know most of the US ones.
An unelected institution to select justices? What could have gone wrong! The reason you know more US Supreme Court judges than those in any other country means the US justice system works the best, is the most attractive, and you are comparing US justice system with heaven instead of any useful example.
Yeah but who selects the advisory board. It’s all partisan and all politics people will get there way and the same fights will happen dude. Obviously conservatives and liberals want conservative and liberal judges and will do whatever they can to bring victory for their constituents
"independent and non-partisan advisory board" LOL what fantasy world do you live in? how does such a thing exist? any entity with any power whatsoever is necessarily partisan, if not for itself, then for whoever can influence it. why would powerful people choose to let an advisory board with the plenary power to select judges (who have the power to create common law by precedent in the US) remain independent and non-partisan?
Being a Supreme Court Justice is definitely not for me. Can anyone imagine if I became a Supreme Court Justice? Well if hypothetically that happened and I was nominated by the US President Republican or Democrat, I would sincerely hope that the confirmation hearings would be well civilized and if senators on one side didn’t agree with me and what I stand for, well I will not give into anger and will not retaliate. But become calm, peaceful and understanding and patient.
this program aired before the clusterf*** of a confirmation hearing began. The producers of this had no idea how off the rails it would go. Jackson was more than "Borked" but she preserved.
If he wished for his nomination to not be politicized, perhaps he should not have acted politically in non-political positions throughout his career. Firing Archibald Cox when he was Solicitor General should have been disqualifying on its own
Under the US Constitution, we elect the politicians and the politicians make the laws. It's a very good system but not perfect. Too many members of Congress are more concerned with getting re-elected than taking tough stands on controversial issues (abortion, school prayer, pornography, flag burning, gay marriage). So the courts end up deciding. None of those issues are mentioned in the Constitution. If Congress was doing its job, the US wouldn't depend on *five unelected judges serving life terms* to write a majority decision.
It's like each Republican in the Ketanji hearings was just trying to smear her as much as they could in their allotted time. So gross... hope the political environment improves one day.
I cannot remember a time when this did not happen. Even Richard Milhous Nixon's choices were held up and struck down even though they were qualified for the most part.
How do you determine the most qualified person in something as subjective as applying the law? It's not like being a pilot where there's objective ways to determine skills. I'd actually argue that diversity is a very important factor in being a judge in the Supreme Court. It can help bring a different perspective, which is useful.
Because of racism the BEST have not been considered for many centuries. “Diversity” is how we got Dr. Ben Carson. Once upon a time Black doctors weren’t even considered for hire let alone earning a degree. Dr. Ben Carson would go on to be the first surgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head.. and he did it twice.
This channel, as always, is severely under-rated. I remember the old episode on Robert Bork and how following federal justice nominees stopped giving honest answers.
Spot on. Severely underrated.
been saying this for years. such a good channel and hope they get more attention
I'm British and have absolutley no clue that politicians elect judges in America?
Wtf ...
Shouldn't that be separate?
Yep. That’s the case in Aus. No surprise there. Our parliament is never to interfere with the courts. I don’t think it ever has or has been suspect to.. but I’ve not researched that.
@@StevieCooper I think it might date back to James 1st (I think - I can't remember properly( but he stormed in to Parliment hoping to sway opinion and arrest those who oppossd him and they decided to behead him for infringing on the vox populi. The parliament of the people (house of commons) is separate to the House of Lords (birthright) which are both separate from the monarch? I know that on the opening of parliament the Queen cannot step into the house of commons because we value to separation between the monarchy and the choice of the people as separate and just in their own right, which is why the opening of parliament is conducted in the house of Lords Chambers (bc the Queen shares the same birth right to sit on the throne).
The Queen holds no public political stance, for that reason to - she cannot be seen to favour or disparage based on political viewpoint, because that is actively encouraging what the UK is against - authoritarianism/absolute monarchy.
I think the Queen plays more of a "role" nowadays, we could abolish the monarchy: but I think because we are raised in a society of traditions, it difficult to accept.
I am in no way supportive if the monarchy, but it's difficult to imagine the UK and its territories without one?
It may be that we share similar views because Australia was once a colony - I just hope that every colony is offered the opportunity for independence, though - a lot of tax havens are "independent"(/ly owned by the UK) which is how we managed to currate the euro dollar after the poverty of WW1 and WW2
@@StevieCooper it's also why the Black Rod gets the door slammed in their face upon the sussesion of parliament- to remind the Queen, the people and her representatives that they are not welcome to share opinion or speak on the matter decided in the House
@@illeatthat funny and interesting traditions. Our countries aren’t perfect and have hurt a lot of people in the past for various reasons. However, I’m glad I’m part and was born into The Commonwealth now rather than the US.
@@illeatthat Charles I did that, that moment caused the Civil War which ended in him losing his head.
This is so ass-backwards that I don't really know what to say. Maybe the problem is in letting politicians select judges? There should be an independent and non-partisan advisory board that determines the best 3-5 candidates and submits that list to the president along with their recommendation. The justice system should not be tainted with politics, whatever the ideals might be. Justices should apply the laws and the jurisprudence in an impartial manner. I'm from Canada and I couldn't tell you the name of any of our supreme court judges, yet I know most of the US ones.
An unelected institution to select justices? What could have gone wrong!
The reason you know more US Supreme Court judges than those in any other country means the US justice system works the best, is the most attractive, and you are comparing US justice system with heaven instead of any useful example.
@@alexanderchenf1 LOL sure bud
@@nada55666 of course. You can’t even elaborate on your Canadian justice system and you are pontificating on American one that you know little of.
Yeah but who selects the advisory board. It’s all partisan and all politics people will get there way and the same fights will happen dude. Obviously conservatives and liberals want conservative and liberal judges and will do whatever they can to bring victory for their constituents
"independent and non-partisan advisory board" LOL what fantasy world do you live in? how does such a thing exist? any entity with any power whatsoever is necessarily partisan, if not for itself, then for whoever can influence it. why would powerful people choose to let an advisory board with the plenary power to select judges (who have the power to create common law by precedent in the US) remain independent and non-partisan?
Very interesting history...
When he said privacy wasn’t in the Constitution, that was it for him.
Being a Supreme Court Justice is definitely not for me. Can anyone imagine if I became a Supreme Court Justice? Well if hypothetically that happened and I was nominated by the US President Republican or Democrat, I would sincerely hope that the confirmation hearings would be well civilized and if senators on one side didn’t agree with me and what I stand for, well I will not give into anger and will not retaliate. But become calm, peaceful and understanding and patient.
this program aired before the clusterf*** of a confirmation hearing began. The producers of this had no idea how off the rails it would go.
Jackson was more than "Borked" but she preserved.
none of them were drug through the mud quite like kavanaugh tho
Bi-partisan approval rarely ever leads to good decisions
If he wished for his nomination to not be politicized, perhaps he should not have acted politically in non-political positions throughout his career. Firing Archibald Cox when he was Solicitor General should have been disqualifying on its own
Good jurist decision by US President.
Great luck,goodwill, good work to boost US Judicial arm!
It all started with Ted Kennedy’s unfair and hateful treatment of Robert Bork and it’s gotten worse since then
I still don't know how a judge can be left or right it's either yes or no
Because the constitution can be interpreted many different ways
Under the US Constitution, we elect the politicians and the politicians make the laws. It's a very good system but not perfect. Too many members of Congress are more concerned with getting re-elected than taking tough stands on controversial issues (abortion, school prayer, pornography, flag burning, gay marriage). So the courts end up deciding.
None of those issues are mentioned in the Constitution. If Congress was doing its job, the US wouldn't depend on *five unelected judges serving life terms* to write a majority decision.
Bork and as not a mistake of the democrats it was the senility of reagan
It's like each Republican in the Ketanji hearings was just trying to smear her as much as they could in their allotted time.
So gross... hope the political environment improves one day.
Clearly you've missed the hearing of all the "conservative" justices in the SCOTUS
I cannot remember a time when this did not happen. Even Richard Milhous Nixon's choices were held up and struck down even though they were qualified for the most part.
Let's go Brandon
People are not happy because she’s not the most qualified she’s the most diverse. Do you want the most qualified surgeon or pilot or the most diverse.
But diversity has a way bigger in merit in politics. We need people from different views and backgrounds to make our republic work
How do you determine the most qualified person in something as subjective as applying the law? It's not like being a pilot where there's objective ways to determine skills. I'd actually argue that diversity is a very important factor in being a judge in the Supreme Court. It can help bring a different perspective, which is useful.
Because of racism the BEST have not been considered for many centuries.
“Diversity” is how we got Dr. Ben Carson. Once upon a time Black doctors weren’t even considered for hire let alone earning a degree. Dr. Ben Carson would go on to be the first surgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head.. and he did it twice.
@@nada55666 *FACT*
@@nada55666 she is okay with pedos that makes her unqualified