Justice Scalia leaves opening

[cc]

Appointments here  are for political agenda, and human judges cannot not apply their core beliefs whether intentional (usually) or not whenever there is a tiny gap to do so (most always)



 and despite your claims of your country's  purity,  all appointments in every land are for political agenda



Of course I know idealistically that should not be the case, but it IS and always will be



Purity of thought and action without personal bias is the luxury of one "Oz" ...  but not of yours / ours ... nor of any  country this side of the rainbow

[Bricktop]

Bollocks.



The High Court of Australia, whilst comprising of Justices appointed by Parliament, are completely neutral politically. If a Judge showed political bias, he'd be removed.



Its nothing like the US, where its clear that the party that has its own idealists on the bench gets its way.



The principle of our legal system is that the judiciary operates completely independently of government.



If a government (including President) instals a judge that is pre-disposed to the Governments ideology, that independence is neutered.



Sorry...you cannot keep pointing at other countries and say "I know you are but what am I".

[cc]

So who appoints?



and who polices the appointers?



and who polices the appointees?

 

and who polices the police?



and who polices the police who police the police?



Wrong Oz. That's good theory, but In this world humans are humans who have and exercise beliefs and agendas consciously (usually) or not consciously (rarely)



Other than you and I, no such perfect person exists

[Bricktop]

And sometimes I wonder about you... ac_umm

[cc]

and well you should



 ac_smile

[cc]

OK, here's how it works / how the game is being played Mr Saloon.com copy / paste



http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png">



Ahem.



Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, filibustered President Bush's last Supreme Court pick.



She also joined obstructionist Senate Democrats in filibustering a host of Bush nominees to crucial appeals court seats, including a top-flight Hispanic nominee named Miguel Estrada, who was held in limbo for two years before finally withdrawing.



Back then, Hillary and her allies framed the act of denying Bush his selections as [size=120]the fulfillment of a righteous duty[/size]. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's a giant disgrace, or whatever.



So STFU and stop whining and spinning

[Bricktop]

I'm addressing the entire system, not what is happening now.



In Australia, the Governor General can, acting as head of state, kick a Judge out. He or she also appoints them, upon recommendation of Parliament.



However, it provides a safeguard. The Governor General must act on behalf of the country as a whole, not as a politican.



"Under section 72 of the Constitution, Justices of the High Court:



Are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;

Cannot be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

Receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; and

Must retire on attaining the age of 70 years."



In other words the G-G must convene a special Parliamentary session in a joint sitting of lower and upper house, and listen to the reason a Judge is unfit.



This prevents or reduces political bias on the judges behalf.

[Bricktop]

I'm addressing the entire system, not what is happening now.



In Australia, the Governor General can, acting as head of state, kick a Judge out. He or she also appoints them, upon recommendation of Parliament.



However, it provides a safeguard. The Governor General must act on behalf of the country as a whole, not as a politican.



"Under section 72 of the Constitution, Justices of the High Court:



Are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;

Cannot be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

Receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; and

Must retire on attaining the age of 70 years."



In other words the G-G must convene a special Parliamentary session in a joint sitting of lower and upper house, and listen to the reason a Judge is unfit.



This prevents or reduces political bias on the judges behalf.

And don't tell me to STFU, SHEILA!!!

[cc]

Thanks for that info



Does sound as though Oz has tried much harder than others



It would at least reduce bias

[cc]

lol ... I should have been more clear



the Sheila's "So STFU and stop whining and spinning" was for the whining and spinning Mr Saloon.com copy / paste

[Romero]

OK, here's how it works / how the game is being played Mr Saloon.com copy / paste



http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png">



Ahem.



Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, filibustered President Bush's last Supreme Court pick.



She also joined obstructionist Senate Democrats in filibustering a host of Bush nominees to crucial appeals court seats, including a top-flight Hispanic nominee named Miguel Estrada, who was held in limbo for two years before finally withdrawing.



Back then, Hillary and her allies framed the act of denying Bush his selections as [size=120]the fulfillment of a righteous duty[/size]. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's a giant disgrace, or whatever.



So STFU and stop whining and spinning

You and the Republicans are whining and spinning, not me!



It's not just about filibustering and blocking nominees. That's been done by both parties plenty of times and it's not unexpected. In this case, Republicans are claiming Obama shouldn't nominate a Supreme Court Justice, period.



Well, he's going to because it's what the President is supposed to do. Many Republicans are starting to back off from their nonsense because they realize how foolish it's making the GOP look.

[RW]

Since when did the GOP back down from foolishness?

[RW]

lol ... I should have been more clear



the Sheila's "So STFU and stop whining and spinning" was for the whining and spinning Mr Saloon.com copy / paste

Sorry cc but I'm seeing more spin from you than him on this one.  When you boil it down, he's right - it's presidential duty.  If the GOP wants to kick up a big ole fuss about the nominee(s), power to em but part of his job is to make the nomination and it's moot whether or not it's an election year (that would be the spin part).



This is yet another example of how fucking hysterical (and not in the funny way) American politics and media is.  What a sad state of affairs.

[cc]

There's no spin to it. As to last year of office, there has been no person nominated and selected in almost 80 years .. fact.



There was no will for any party in 80 yrs  and there sure is no will now for the GOP to approve a 3rd "agenda loaded"  judge for him.



"it's presidential duty to appoint." true.  Also true is that it is not  the senates duty to approve any specific person.



As all appointees are "agenda loaded" that's how the system works

[Bricktop]

The system doesn't work.



That is the problem.