Two arrested in Chicago for conspiracy to attack Jyllands-posten

[Valmy]

I rest my case.

We have laws protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority ergo we do not hold Democracy in high esteem?

[Admiral Yi]

We have laws protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority ergo we do not hold Democracy in high esteem?

He's defining the characteristic "democratic" as investing more unfettered power in the voting public.  It's a semantic argument.

[Pat]

Well it's not an either/or.

My serious opinion: There needs to be a balance between the legislative and the judiciary. From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people (and of course the power of lawyers in America is infamous). I study law in Sweden and in the legal field here there are people who think we should have a constitutional court like the one in Germany or the one in America, but that's just because they want to increase the power of the legal field. We've always done just fine without a constitutional court.

(Instead of a constitutional court we have the traditionally Swedish institution of Ombudsman, which has been exported to countries on five continents)

He's defining the characteristic "democratic" as investing more unfettered power in the voting public.  It's a semantic argument.

You could say so, yes. But it's not just semantics, since it has practical implications.

[The Brain]

By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?

[Valmy]

From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people

...except the laws are written by the legislature.

Oh and by the way all the judges and public attorneys are elected in Texas.

[Pat]

By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?

If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.

[The Brain]

By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?

If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.

Like what?

[Pat]

From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people

...except the laws are written by the legislature.

I know there are many knowledgable American lawyers here, but please by all means correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't the judges participate in law-making in the american legal system to a very high degree? With decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which has profound implications for all of America, not being a decision made by the legislative but by the judiciary.

Oh and by the way all the judges and public attorneys are elected in Texas.

Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.

[Eddie Teach]

While I don't agree with Roe, it at least has the virtue of being a case where the Court is limiting the power of government rather than exerting power on behalf of the judiciary. Most other cases of "legislating from the bench" are also like that, which is why I'm somewhat ambivalent on the subject of SC nominees.

[Valmy]

Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.

The judiciary is independent, it is just subject to the will of the people.  Isn't that what you freaking want?

Wait so you want a judiciary that is not accountable to the people but that is somehow accountable to the people but should not decide cases that are important because that is what the legislature should be doing?

I am so confused.  What is it exactly we should be changing here?

[Pat]

By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?

If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.

Like what?

I assume you're talking about the FRA law. If the supreme court finds a conflict between the constitution and a law passed by the parliament, then the supreme court will judge according to the contitution, since the constitution is higher in the hierarchy of laws.

But I don't agree FRA is against the constitution.

2 kap. 13 §

Yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten får begränsas med hänsyn till rikets säkerhet, folkförsörjningen, allmän ordning och säkerhet, enskilds anseende, privatlivets helgd eller förebyggandet och beivrandet av brott. Vidare får friheten att yttra sig i näringsverksamhet begränsas. I övrigt får begränsningar av yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten ske endast om särskilt viktiga skäl föranleder det.

Vid bedömandet av vilka begränsningar som får ske med stöd av första stycket skall särskilt beaktas vikten av vidaste möjliga yttrandefrihet och informationsfrihet i politiska, religiösa, fackliga, vetenskapliga och kulturella angelägenheter.

Som begränsning av yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten anses icke meddelande av föreskrifter som utan avseende på yttrandes innehåll närmare reglerar visst sätt att sprida eller mottaga yttranden. Lag (1976:871).

[Admiral Yi]

Seems to me the power and influence of higher courts is going to be a function of how much territory your constitution covers. 

[Pat]

Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.

The judiciary is independent, it is just subject to the will of the people.  Isn't that what you freaking want?

Wait so you want a judiciary that is not accountable to the people but that is somehow accountable to the people but should not decide cases that are important because that is what the legislature should be doing?

I am so confused.  What is it exactly we should be changing here?

Like I said, it's about balance. Elections of judges is something I'd assume would lead to populism in decisions. That means the judiciary isn't independent from the people.

In the Swedish system judges aren't elected and are independent from the legislative and executive as well as from the people. The legislative are represented against the judiciary by the Justitieombudsman (JO), who also represent the people (who can raise matters to him independently from the legislative). The executive is represented against the judiciary by the Justitiekansler (JK).

And I'm not saying you should change your system, since that's a route you went down a long time ago and it's probably too late to go back now, but it's still interesting to make comparisons.

[The Brain]

@miglia:

1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.

2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).

[Pat]

Seems to me the power and influence of higher courts is going to be a function of how much territory your constitution covers.

That's true, and it's possible a more centralized system like the Swedish wouldn't work as well in America, and the larger the country the more checks and balances are required.