Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (34587)	4/3/2009 4:30:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Justice has no political agenda. 1 - Justice may not, but people administering justice do. 2 - Interpretations and ideas about what justice is, can be agenda driven, even for people who are trying to act as relatively neutral enforces or justice. A partisan lie is a violation of every oath. Such things are never prosecuted under the current system Partisan lie? You mean lying for partisan political advantage? I don't see how that can reasonably be prosecuted unless the lie is under oath or is clearly fraud in the legal sense of the term. Among the most corrupt are the most favored by the partisan electorate. That's a problem with the electorate more than its a problem with our legal structure. Any system will always have the problem that imperfect people are involved with it on every level. Congress, the Supreme Court, The Administration, and petition of the people can decide and set the merit for different types of cases and set goals for prosecuting at a certain level. As far as congress and the administration, I thought you wanted to remove the Justice department from political influence. If its ok that congress and the administration make the decisions than the current setup should be mostly ok. As for the Supreme Court, that's not really their job, and it shouldn't be. They don't have the resources, and also they decide the cases (not many of them, but they are the court of last appeal), and decide what cases they will hear, they shouldn't also have the job of deciding what cases get prosecuted in the first place, or what strategies the prosecutors will use. The American people? Having them directly decide is unrealistic, most of them won't even know about the cases or understand the legal ideas. And you just can't schedule that many votes. Maybe you mean they will indirectly decide, but they would do that through elected officials, and that's what happens now. "And what do you do if its not a political thing or something involving corruption, but just poor performance on the job. " Terms of office should be enough for that and there is removal or impeachment for serious breaches. So who appoints the new Attorney General if the president doesn't? If the voters, or congress, than its still political.