The House of Romanov to rule over Kiribati... no, seriously.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Radiant head said:

I mean yeah the current system is flawed, but how you make the logical leap from that to "we need less democracy and power structures unaccountable to and undecided by people" still doesn't make any sense to me.  would rather have socialism and direct democratic structures like worker councils and municipal assemblies than a fucking monarchy but that's just me. 

and lol I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate all the 18th century philosophy that's been written about justifying popular sovereignty.  but I if our priorities are that different then that's that I guess. 

That can still exist under a Monarchy, you know. Basically, you can have the Legislative Branch elected however you want. However, a Republic ultimately means giving absolute power to the 51%.

[Phoenix Wright]

On 2/6/2017 at 11:18 PM, blah the Prussian said:

1. But, again that's not true separation of powers,
2. and having SCOTUS elected would be a disaster for other reasons.
3. The Supreme Court are about making decisions on the Constitution.
4. The people should have the right to change the Constitution, but not make decisions based on it.
5. We already have Supreme Court appointments being a political issue as is;
6. do you really want elections where candidates can promise what parts of the Constitution they'll ignore?
7. My perspective is that democracy is not an end goal, it is just another form of government leading to good governance. I think history has shown that it overall has the best track record,
8. but not when the power of the people is unlimited.
9. If you have all three branches of government directly elected by the people, you remove what little separation of powers America has left.

i'm sort of upset you dismissed the idea outright without even asking any questions for how i think it could work. yet you want people to want to live under an unelected, "divine" monarchical ruler. ok.

1. why not, and what is

2. why

3. ok, so

4. they wouldn't be. they'd be electing a representative to do that.

5. exactly!

6. it wouldn't be a standard election. it would more closely resemble what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution (though not exactly). a president could come up with a few appointees. if congress fails to vote (which happened to obama for record time and a handful of other presidents), the people should be involved. congress not voting on the appointed judge from obama was disgraceful, and that sort of thing should be circumvented when possible.

7. you damn right it does

8. examples of what you mean. i'm not advocating mob rule

9. explain what this is supposed to mean

Edited February 8, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

17 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm sort of upset you dismissed the idea outright without even asking any questions for how i think it could work. yet you want people to want to live under an unelected, "divine" monarchical ruler. ok.

Fine. How would this work? Also, for the love of God how many times do I have to say I don't favor divine right for you to stop strawmanning?

18 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

1. why not, and what is

 

True Separation of Powers is when you have a system in place to ensure that the same group doesn't come to power in all three branches. As we see in the US, it's very easy to bypass the Legislative Branch as President when they'll vote for what you want. I am not worried about a single branch getting too powerful, I'm worried about the ELECTORATE being bad. In the French First Republic, for example, because there was no real separation of powers, there wasn't anything stopping the Jacobins from passing universal conscription, and eventually the Reign of Terror.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

4. they wouldn't be. they'd be electing a representative to do that.

 

That's like saying the people don't make decisions in the US because they elect representatives. Colloquial English spoken here. Basically, when people elect politicians, they're electing them based on ideas, which are subjective. Competence, however, is objective, and if people were to elect judges into the Supreme Court, the conversation would be entirely about their policies, which shouldn't be a factor.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

5. exactly!

 

I mean as one of the reasons why people vote for a politician is due to who they might appoint to the Supreme Court.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

6. it wouldn't be a standard election. it would more closely resemble what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution (though not exactly). a president could come up with a few appointees. if congress fails to vote (which happened to obama for record time and a handful of other presidents), the people should be involved. congress not voting on the appointed judge from obama was disgraceful, and that sort of thing should be circumvented when possible.

 

See, I would have the Monarch propose a nominee, and then the Senate can deny it; if they don't, the nomination passes. 

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

8. examples of what you mean. i'm not advocating mob rule

 

Well, then what are you advocating? If you put the power to essentially bypass the Constitution in the hands of the same people who are likely to try to do just that, what precisely do you expect to happen?

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

9. explain what this is supposed to mean

US de facto doesn't have Separation of Powers because an elected official appoints the Supreme Court, thus in practice a party can get absolute power.

[Oricorio]

Considering how badly Kiribati is being affected by global warming, especially considering that the president encouraged his citizens to leave, I don't think they give a fuck about what happens to them anymore really. 

[Phoenix Wright]

On 2/8/2017 at 2:46 AM, blah the Prussian said:

Fine. How would this work? Also, for the love of God how many times do I have to say I don't favor divine right for you to stop strawmanning?

True Separation of Powers is when you have a system in place to ensure that the same group doesn't come to power in all three branches. As we see in the US, it's very easy to bypass the Legislative Branch as President when they'll vote for what you want. I am not worried about a single branch getting too powerful, I'm worried about the ELECTORATE being bad. In the French First Republic, for example, because there was no real separation of powers, there wasn't anything stopping the Jacobins from passing universal conscription, and eventually the Reign of Terror.

That's like saying the people don't make decisions in the US because they elect representatives. Colloquial English spoken here. Basically, when people elect politicians, they're electing them based on ideas, which are subjective. Competence, however, is objective, and if people were to elect judges into the Supreme Court, the conversation would be entirely about their policies, which shouldn't be a factor.

I mean as one of the reasons why people vote for a politician is due to who they might appoint to the Supreme Court.

See, I would have the Monarch propose a nominee, and then the Senate can deny it; if they don't, the nomination passes. 

Well, then what are you advocating? If you put the power to essentially bypass the Constitution in the hands of the same people who are likely to try to do just that, what precisely do you expect to happen?

US de facto doesn't have Separation of Powers because an elected official appoints the Supreme Court, thus in practice a party can get absolute power.

you want them to be unelected and decided via family line, right? well, that might as well be divine right.

no it isn't. a separation of powers is the separation of the three basic aspects of law and the powers of government: legislation, enforcement (executive), and interpretation (judicial). it's not a bypass if they vote for what they want (which might happen to be what you want as president). if i'm off the mark, please provide more detail.

it has unfortunately already been brought down to that level.

i'm advocating that people have more of a say. i'm not quite sure how you're interpreting it differently.

us absolutely has separation of powers, de jure or de facto. i'm not really sure how a voting body would have more to do with breaking down separation of powers than just letting the electoral branch (also unelected in your ideal world) decide what happens if congress refuses to vote. like, what??

i cannot fathom how you can possibly assert that having 2/3 of government be unelectable is somehow a better balance/separation of power than 3/3 (or 2/3 currently) being electable.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[henrymidfields]

@Blah the Prussian: How about, for example, providing a (comparatively) bigger part of the appointments for the judicial branch from the opposition within Congress/Parliament, and a smaller part of the appointments being shared with the elected majority/unelected head-of-state etc? Could this work as a check for, to use a particular Australian term "keep[ing] the bastards honest"?

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you want them to be unelected and decided via family line, right? well, that might as well be divine right.

 

No, it might as well not. There are multiple forms of Monarchical legitimacy; the one adopted by Constitutional Monarchies is the legalist version, i.e. that the monarch is the legal sovereign. Divine right in this day and age is not used by any Monarchies with the exception of the Islamic State and (if you squint) North Korea. It denotes a totalitarian form of Monarchy, and has real implications for the law. If it is as you say, and all Monarchies are divine right, then firstly, do you claim that it has a legal effect, and secondly, if not, so what?

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

no it isn't. a separation of powers is the separation of the three basic aspects of law and the powers of government: legislation, enforcement (executive), and interpretation (judicial). it's not a bypass if they vote for what they want (which might happen to be what you want as president). if i'm off the mark, please provide more detail.

 

I am aware of what it means in theory. In practice, however, a separation of powers becomes completely pointless if you have them all elected, because the purpose of Separation of Powers is to prevent one faction from having all the power, not to do exactly what the people want. In my view, the ultimate sovereign should NOT be the people, it should be the law. Now, the people should be able to determine the law, but there is an important distinction: if you make the interpretation of the law up to the people, you destroy the law and in practice make the Republic a system where 51% of the people can rule. The law''s interpretation not being up to the people is the difference between rule of law and mob rule.

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

it has unfortunately already been brought down to that level.

 

And whose fault is that?

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm advocating that people have more of a say. i'm not quite sure how you're interpreting it differently.

 

I know. To illustrate my point, do we let the population as a whole vote in court cases? Of course not, instead we carefully screen the jury for biases. Similarly, we shouldn't elect judges to the Supreme Court because the interpretation of the law, as before, is objective. Subjective should be up to the people, objective should be up to experts, basically. 

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

us absolutely has separation of powers, de jure or de facto. i'm not really sure how a voting body would have more to do with breaking down separation of powers than just letting the electoral branch (also unelected in your ideal world) decide what happens if congress refuses to vote. like, what??

 

Executive, you mean. Letting the monarch break parliamentary deadlocks would not only ensure that something would be done to solve the problem, it would also incentivize politicians to work towards a compromise lest they lose their power to the monarch. 

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i cannot fathom how you can possibly assert that having 2/3 of government be unelectable is somehow a better balance/separation of power than 3/3 (or 2/3 currently) being electable.

The people create laws, and they don't enforce or interpret them, because if the people don't have to abide by the law (by way of electing judges that bypass them) then you have tyranny of the majority. Simple.

37 minutes ago, henrymidfields said:

@Blah the Prussian: How about, for example, providing a (comparatively) bigger part of the appointments for the judicial branch from the opposition within Congress/Parliament, and a smaller part of the appointments being shared with the elected majority/unelected head-of-state etc? Could this work as a check for, to use a particular Australian term "keep[ing] the bastards honest"?

Maybe; this also brings up an important point that both branches should still be accountable. With enough public support, the monarch could be forced to abdicate (and replaced by their heir, NOT A REPUBLIC) and judges should be forced to step down. I haven't ironed out the details of course, and this is by no means complete, so don't treat it as such.

[henrymidfields]

28 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Maybe; this also brings up an important point that both branches should still be accountable. With enough public support, the monarch could be forced to abdicate (and replaced by their heir, NOT A REPUBLIC) and judges should be forced to step down. I haven't ironed out the details of course, and this is by no means complete, so don't treat it as such.

I haven't ironed out my details either. On a different note, I'm surprised that, considering the adage of "All people are equal in the eyes of the Law.", this doesn't extend to appointing judges in the US Supreme Court. (Or am I wrong with this?) Similarly, appointments for the Japanese Supreme Court is done through the government's (or more strictly, the Cabinet's) nomination - though the appointment itself is carried out by the Emperor.

Edited February 14, 2017 by henrymidfields

[Phoenix Wright]

14 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

No, it might as well not. There are multiple forms of Monarchical legitimacy; the one adopted by Constitutional Monarchies is the legalist version, i.e. that the monarch is the legal sovereign. Divine right in this day and age is not used by any Monarchies with the exception of the Islamic State and (if you squint) North Korea. It denotes a totalitarian form of Monarchy, and has real implications for the law. If it is as you say, and all Monarchies are divine right, then firstly, do you claim that it has a legal effect, and secondly, if not, so what?

I am aware of what it means in theory. In practice, however, a separation of powers becomes completely pointless if you have them all elected, because the purpose of Separation of Powers is to prevent one faction from having all the power, not to do exactly what the people want. In my view, the ultimate sovereign should NOT be the people, it should be the law. Now, the people should be able to determine the law, but there is an important distinction: if you make the interpretation of the law up to the people, you destroy the law and in practice make the Republic a system where 51% of the people can rule. The law''s interpretation not being up to the people is the difference between rule of law and mob rule.

And whose fault is that?

I know. To illustrate my point, do we let the population as a whole vote in court cases? Of course not, instead we carefully screen the jury for biases. Similarly, we shouldn't elect judges to the Supreme Court because the interpretation of the law, as before, is objective. Subjective should be up to the people, objective should be up to experts, basically. 

Executive, you mean. Letting the monarch break parliamentary deadlocks would not only ensure that something would be done to solve the problem, it would also incentivize politicians to work towards a compromise lest they lose their power to the monarch. 

The people create laws, and they don't enforce or interpret them, because if the people don't have to abide by the law (by way of electing judges that bypass them) then you have tyranny of the majority. Simple.

Maybe; this also brings up an important point that both branches should still be accountable. With enough public support, the monarch could be forced to abdicate (and replaced by their heir, NOT A REPUBLIC) and judges should be forced to step down. I haven't ironed out the details of course, and this is by no means complete, so don't treat it as such.

let's reset course here: if the united states today became a constitutional monarchy, how is the head of state (be it king, queen, whatever) selected?

but a republican president is currently appointing a republican-biased scotus judge-- with a republican congress. scotus is also right-leaning just a bit. electing a representative to interpret the law is fundamentally different than the body of people interpreting the law. and the same goes for the other branches of government. that's a republic.

what kind of question is this?

loose definition of the word carefully there. but in any case, objective conflicts (law isn't objective btw) should be up to the experts. elected experts, not experts by birthright. and in my ideal world also not by appointment.

yeah exec sorry. anyway, they lose power if they disagree, which is fundamentally undemocratic. i can't support something like that.

the people do almost as much creating of the laws as they do interpreting them (almost none). and most people also don't enforce the law. you're forming connections that aren't there in order to create a basis for a system of government which is undemocratic and outdated.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Oricorio]

Haha, it seems that people are deeply arguing over what is just a political statement against Putin, who is kind of a monarch himself.

[blah the Prussian]

5 hours ago, Bandido Banderas said:

Haha, it seems that people are deeply arguing over what is just a political statement against Putin, who is kind of a monarch himself.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

let's reset course here: if the united states today became a constitutional monarchy, how is the head of state (be it king, queen, whatever) selected?

 

The Head of State would be Queen Elizabeth II, in a similar role to the other Commonwealth Monarchies.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

but a republican president is currently appointing a republican-biased scotus judge-- with a republican congress. scotus is also right-leaning just a bit. electing a representative to interpret the law is fundamentally different than the body of people interpreting the law. and the same goes for the other branches of government. that's a republic.

 

The distinction would be rather thin when candidates would campaign (as they explicitly would) for how they would interpret the law, just as candidates for congress campaign for what laws they will support.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

what kind of question is this?

 

A rhetorical one. It's the fault of politicians.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

loose definition of the word carefully there. but in any case, objective conflicts (law isn't objective btw) should be up to the experts. elected experts, not experts by birthright. and in my ideal world also not by appointment.

 

How is the law not objective? How are elected experts better than appointed ones?

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

yeah exec sorry. anyway, they lose power if they disagree, which is fundamentally undemocratic. i can't support something like that.

 

That's assuming that the monarch agrees with one party fully, which probably won't be the case. I also think that if you pull shit like what Cruz did a few years back you deserve to lose power.

5 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the people do almost as much creating of the laws as they do interpreting them (almost none). and most people also don't enforce the law. you're forming connections that aren't there in order to create a basis for a system of government which is undemocratic and outdated.

 

I would, incidentally, support electoral reform for congress; we agree there. You also said you would support the people electing people for enforcement and interpretation.

[Tetragrammaton]

16 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

The Head of State would be Queen Elizabeth II, in a similar role to the other Commonwealth Monarchies.

That's fun.

If I'm an American, I won't allow someone who was not born in American soil for such a position.

[Excellen Browning]

It would also be completely inconsequential, because the sovereign monarch in most modern monarchies has no power whatsoever, making the entire idea of a monarch as a check and balance moot.

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

It would also be completely inconsequential, because the sovereign monarch in most modern monarchies has no power whatsoever, making the entire idea of a monarch as a check and balance moot.

I'm aware. I'm outlining a proposal, not claiming that it exists.

[Excellen Browning]

Not really. You're pointing out "weaknesses" in various forms of government and say that having a monarch would solve these problems. You are really not substantiating this claim theoretically or practically.

[Phoenix Wright]

12 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

The Head of State would be Queen Elizabeth II, in a similar role to the other Commonwealth Monarchies.

The distinction would be rather thin when candidates would campaign (as they explicitly would) for how they would interpret the law, just as candidates for congress campaign for what laws they will support.

A rhetorical one. It's the fault of politicians.

How is the law not objective? How are elected experts better than appointed ones?

That's assuming that the monarch agrees with one party fully, which probably won't be the case. I also think that if you pull shit like what Cruz did a few years back you deserve to lose power.

I would, incidentally, support electoral reform for congress; we agree there. You also said you would support the people electing people for enforcement and interpretation.

how about no. try again

that's already the case! but they're just appointed instead. antonin scalia would have never become a justice were it not for a deeply conservative president's appointment. lbj, jfk, fdr, obama, etc. would have never selected him, regardless of personal merit. judges already sell themselves based off of previous court leanings and decisions.

and the people.

sorry, definitely laziness on my part. the interpretation of the law is subjective, so law in and of itself is not wholly objective. laws as they are definitely are objective. elected experts are better than appointed ones not based on actual substance, but based on personal political philosophy. i believe democracy is preferable to most other forms of government. i would rather the mob rule than an autocrat or an oligarch.

an appointment in my eyes takes power away from the people. some appointments are fine simply because it would be exhausting to vote for everything under the sun, but i can definitely fathom a system where we the people at least help with putting some judges in the highest judicial office there is. i think congress failing to act on obama's nomination is breaking constitutional law--or at least undermining the president in an unprecedented way. it'd be nice if we could intervene. of course, it's happened before, and it was wrong then too, but not for as long as the obama nomination.

it can and often will be the case in a two party system. unless your monarch will just be undermining congress constantly?

i'm not sure of your last point. indeed, i think all branches of government should be electable in some way. mind you, it's not like i've written political theory before, so this belief is by no means fleshed out. i'm really not sure that a judicial election will absolutely work for the better, but i have an inkling that it will.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Moblin Major General]

3 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm not sure of your last point. indeed, i think all branches of government should be electable in some way. mind you, it's not like i've written political theory before, so this belief is by no means fleshed out. i'm really not sure that a judicial election will absolutely work for the better, but i have an inkling that it will.

As much as I would like to keep all the levels of bench in the US accountable, I don't think electing SCOTUS justices is going to solve anything. If a judge passes down an unpopular (but correct) opinion, how are their decisions going to last if they can be replaced in the next election? Courts should be constant, only ever changing when there is a natural vacancy. If judges could be elected and voted out, there would be more 16th Amendments, more Dred Scotts, more Plessy vs. Fergusons, a windshield-wiper effect of what's constitutional and what's not. Having judges be constant means they will also be consistent with their personal leanings, not the whims of the State.

[Radiant head]

the idea that the supreme court is some kind of objective institution that doesn't succumb to political motivates is a liberal fantasy.  lot of oppressive, reactionary rulings have been made out of an ideological interpretation of the constitution.  at the same time, it is true that a lot of good rulings were unpopular at the time, but i would say the supreme court is way more reactionary than progressive overall

[Moblin Major General]

9 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

the idea that the supreme court is some kind of objective institution that doesn't succumb to political motivates is a liberal fantasy.  lot of oppressive, reactionary rulings have been made out of an ideological interpretation of the constitution.  at the same time, it is true that a lot of good rulings were unpopular at the time, but i would say the supreme court is way more reactionary than progressive overall

I'm saying that the missteps the SCOTUS makes would be multiplied with how often judges shift around and such. Sure, it indeed is often politicized, and the status quo can change and change quickly, but it would only be made worse if the benches weren't warm now and again. Not to mention the effect a vacancy would have on the Supreme Court would be vastly diminished.

[Radiant head]

i mean i think the problem with the judges is that they sit there too long, and have outdated views

[Oricorio]

4 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

i mean i think the problem with the judges is that they sit there too long, and have outdated views

It is admittedly difficult to find a better alternative, though. Look at all the commotion getting in one Supreme Court justice - imagine if that had to be done all the time! It would weaken checks and balances, as a president could flood the Supreme Court with justices, rather than just elect one or two. We could make it easier for a justice to get in, but that would again, weaken checks and balances, and make it difficult for the minority party to get any say on the justices.

[Radiant head]

yeah, obviously adding something like term limits while keeping everything else the same would be a disaster, so i think the solutions are going to require  a deeper uprooting of the system

[blah the Prussian]

18 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Not really. You're pointing out "weaknesses" in various forms of government and say that having a monarch would solve these problems. You are really not substantiating this claim theoretically or practically.

Actually, no, I'm providing an example of the relevance of Monarchy in modern society. I'm even prepared to reconsider some of my proposals.\

11 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

how about no. try again

Well, she's the legitimate ruler from a Monarchist perspective. I'm going out on a limb and saying you'd have the same reaction to anyone I'd suggest.

11 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

that's already the case! but they're just appointed instead. antonin scalia would have never become a justice were it not for a deeply conservative president's appointment. lbj, jfk, fdr, obama, etc. would have never selected him, regardless of personal merit. judges already sell themselves based off of previous court leanings and decisions.

Which is why I don't support an elected official appointing the Supreme Court.

11 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

sorry, definitely laziness on my part. the interpretation of the law is subjective, so law in and of itself is not wholly objective. laws as they are definitely are objective. elected experts are better than appointed ones not based on actual substance, but based on personal political philosophy. i believe democracy is preferable to most other forms of government. i would rather the mob rule than an autocrat or an oligarch.

 

I feel like at this point we're at an impasse then, because we can't really debate on differing philosophies. I'll still try, though. I believe that mob rule has the potential to lead to an autocrat anyway; some of the worst dictatorships in history were born of faulty democratic systems. Revolutionary France, to be specific. I think talking about democracy as the most moral system is pointless, because government should ultimately not be about morals.

11 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

an appointment in my eyes takes power away from the people. some appointments are fine simply because it would be exhausting to vote for everything under the sun, but i can definitely fathom a system where we the people at least help with putting some judges in the highest judicial office there is. i think congress failing to act on obama's nomination is breaking constitutional law--or at least undermining the president in an unprecedented way. it'd be nice if we could intervene. of course, it's happened before, and it was wrong then too, but not for as long as the obama nomination.

 

The people voting on nominees might actually work. I do think that the ability to say no to an appointee is very important; so long as they can't take initiative in choosing, that removes most of the chance for abusing the system.

11 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

it can and often will be the case in a two party system. unless your monarch will just be undermining congress constantly?

 

Never said I wanted a 2 party system, I explicitly said PARLIAMENTARY deadlocks.

 

[Phoenix Wright]

On 2/15/2017 at 2:31 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

As much as I would like to keep all the levels of bench in the US accountable, I don't think electing SCOTUS justices is going to solve anything. If a judge passes down an unpopular (but correct) opinion, how are their decisions going to last if they can be replaced in the next election? Courts should be constant, only ever changing when there is a natural vacancy. If judges could be elected and voted out, there would be more 16th Amendments, more Dred Scotts, more Plessy vs. Fergusons, a windshield-wiper effect of what's constitutional and what's not. Having judges be constant means they will also be consistent with their personal leanings, not the whims of the State.

what is a correct opinion?

it's not likely that judges would just throw out old decisions. that doesn't even happen with legislation.

16 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, she's the legitimate ruler from a Monarchist perspective. I'm going out on a limb and saying you'd have the same reaction to anyone I'd suggest.

Which is why I don't support an elected official appointing the Supreme Court.

I feel like at this point we're at an impasse then, because we can't really debate on differing philosophies. I'll still try, though. I believe that mob rule has the potential to lead to an autocrat anyway; some of the worst dictatorships in history were born of faulty democratic systems. Revolutionary France, to be specific. I think talking about democracy as the most moral system is pointless, because government should ultimately not be about morals.

The people voting on nominees might actually work. I do think that the ability to say no to an appointee is very important; so long as they can't take initiative in choosing, that removes most of the chance for abusing the system.

Never said I wanted a 2 party system, I explicitly said PARLIAMENTARY deadlocks.

 

legitimate ruler...of the united states?? no, she is not.

wait, how would you want the supreme court to be established?

you want to establish a government that has the highest chance of being fair, that is democracy, with some checks and balances. not pure democracy (ie, mob rule).

indeed, congress certainly should have the ability to say no. we agree on all of these points, i think.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

legitimate ruler...of the united states?? no, she is not.

Legitimate monarch. Basically the only one with any kind of legal legitimacy, if America was to become a Monarchy.

7 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

wait, how would you want the supreme court to be established?

Monarch nominates people, either Congress or the people can confirm it.

7 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you want to establish a government that has the highest chance of being fair, that is democracy, with some checks and balances. not pure democracy (ie, mob rule).

I too want democracy with checks and balances, but more secure checks and balances.