Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a Supreme Court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are ranked as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by a high degree of independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of each. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government. ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards cases to them from the lower courts.
3.) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70.
4.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
5.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
6.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
7.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
Fundamental problem we have, is that judges and justices are appointed and installed based on politics. Our Judicial system which is supposed to be above and separate from politics is inherently political and it is only due to the integrity of any given judge when they are NOT political.
To get to a better judiciary, it is a two step process:
1) remove the judges who lied under oath and those who accepted bribes, and those who were overtly biased in their judgements. Our constitution supports this WITHOUT the need for impeachments (READ the constitution) based on "Good behaviour", then fill the seats with political choices...
2) Propose an amendment which restructures the Judicial branch and sets it up such that the Judges hire new judges, promote and demote them and remove them as need be (for corruption, bias, mental health...) and each appellate court selects one of their own to sit on the Supreme Court for a three year period, after which they return to the appellate level again, to be replaced in turn. Republicans will be confronted with a choice, to live with a hyper liberal court, empowered to act with as little regard for the law as our current conservative court, or embrace one where they no longer get to pull the strings, but then neither do Democrats.
The countries you list are among the happiest as well. Excellent write up and suggestions and questions! Most people will not even think about this because it’s frightening. But I think that it’s time for Americans too really look at what we have and figure out what works and what doesn’t and fix it.
quick note - Giuliani was always a fascist asshole. He did nothing after 9-11 but talk for cameras. His term as mayor was all about racist dog whistles and attacks on culture. NO tears for that dirtbag.
I'm not a native but I have lived here since the mid 90s, plenty of time to see Rudy bring out tanks against squatters, back every killer cop, bust bars of unlicensed dancing, arrest everyone possible for the pettiest offenses..yeah, no love lost for that dirtbag..
people forgot that right before a noun, a verb and 9-11, he moved his mistress into gracie Mansion and kicked out his sick wife..he was on his way out in well deserved disgrace.
Social unrest is exactly what we need! I am personally in a permanent state of unrest under this present regime. If 50 million of us hit the streets I think we would get some attention. I am in my 70's, in a wheelchair and I was out during the last two no kings protests. We HAVE to scream loud or they won't listen. Imagine being young and black in the south? I'm in NH. I feel for all my brothers and sisters in the southern states losing their voting and healthcare right! I will fight.
They like oligarchy. They feel more secure in their jobs and continued financial security and care not at all about their constituents or the nation they purport to work for. They are more than complicit in denying justice for other Americans and should be arrested if we survive this. Their names and images should be on a wall of infamy.
you know what how many people are in trouble now miss m , Miss Miller Miss Patel and Missy Pete but nothing is happening to them. people report a woman's in trouble she's gone the next week these guys aren't going anywhere personally I think, because if they were going somewhere they would be gone by now. whoever is calling the shots and that administration, because Donald Trump opens in this fat trap but he's so full of dementia, allegedly, that people will only do things to placate him. so whoever is in charge must want these men around for some reason and if two of them are alcoholics and the other two are dicks I just can't figure out what that reason or reasons would be that's what the real news is it's not who's in trouble it's why aren't they getting terminated
Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a supreme court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are rated as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by high independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of all these systems. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government.
3.) ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards it to them from the lower courts.
4.) ) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70. .
5.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
6.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
7.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
8.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
He doesn’t care about the average American while he and his billionaire buddies are robbing us blind
Maybe it's time to create a real independence party.🤔
Too expensive for me. I’m on SS
Mike thank you to you and Adam for all you do to call out the corruption
DO WE REALLY NEED THE SUPREME COURT?
Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a Supreme Court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are ranked as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by a high degree of independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of each. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government. ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards cases to them from the lower courts.
3.) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70.
4.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
5.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
6.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
7.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
Fundamental problem we have, is that judges and justices are appointed and installed based on politics. Our Judicial system which is supposed to be above and separate from politics is inherently political and it is only due to the integrity of any given judge when they are NOT political.
To get to a better judiciary, it is a two step process:
1) remove the judges who lied under oath and those who accepted bribes, and those who were overtly biased in their judgements. Our constitution supports this WITHOUT the need for impeachments (READ the constitution) based on "Good behaviour", then fill the seats with political choices...
2) Propose an amendment which restructures the Judicial branch and sets it up such that the Judges hire new judges, promote and demote them and remove them as need be (for corruption, bias, mental health...) and each appellate court selects one of their own to sit on the Supreme Court for a three year period, after which they return to the appellate level again, to be replaced in turn. Republicans will be confronted with a choice, to live with a hyper liberal court, empowered to act with as little regard for the law as our current conservative court, or embrace one where they no longer get to pull the strings, but then neither do Democrats.
The countries you list are among the happiest as well. Excellent write up and suggestions and questions! Most people will not even think about this because it’s frightening. But I think that it’s time for Americans too really look at what we have and figure out what works and what doesn’t and fix it.
Canada is actively taking Americans with degrees, or are experienced in their fields.
Ah. My people. (My mom's mom emigrated to Wisconsin from Manitoba.)
My Dad's Grampa move to Canada from DC so he could fight in WWI
quick note - Giuliani was always a fascist asshole. He did nothing after 9-11 but talk for cameras. His term as mayor was all about racist dog whistles and attacks on culture. NO tears for that dirtbag.
Native New Yorker here — I totally agree.
I'm not a native but I have lived here since the mid 90s, plenty of time to see Rudy bring out tanks against squatters, back every killer cop, bust bars of unlicensed dancing, arrest everyone possible for the pettiest offenses..yeah, no love lost for that dirtbag..
people forgot that right before a noun, a verb and 9-11, he moved his mistress into gracie Mansion and kicked out his sick wife..he was on his way out in well deserved disgrace.
He was dreadful. It’s no surprise he ended up in tRump‘s orbit.
Social unrest is exactly what we need! I am personally in a permanent state of unrest under this present regime. If 50 million of us hit the streets I think we would get some attention. I am in my 70's, in a wheelchair and I was out during the last two no kings protests. We HAVE to scream loud or they won't listen. Imagine being young and black in the south? I'm in NH. I feel for all my brothers and sisters in the southern states losing their voting and healthcare right! I will fight.
Thank you for your efforts! I agree—we need to make some NOISE! ✊🏼
Will this gerrymandering ruin the expected “blue wave?”
They like oligarchy. They feel more secure in their jobs and continued financial security and care not at all about their constituents or the nation they purport to work for. They are more than complicit in denying justice for other Americans and should be arrested if we survive this. Their names and images should be on a wall of infamy.
you know what how many people are in trouble now miss m , Miss Miller Miss Patel and Missy Pete but nothing is happening to them. people report a woman's in trouble she's gone the next week these guys aren't going anywhere personally I think, because if they were going somewhere they would be gone by now. whoever is calling the shots and that administration, because Donald Trump opens in this fat trap but he's so full of dementia, allegedly, that people will only do things to placate him. so whoever is in charge must want these men around for some reason and if two of them are alcoholics and the other two are dicks I just can't figure out what that reason or reasons would be that's what the real news is it's not who's in trouble it's why aren't they getting terminated
Just like the message on the back of Melania’s jacket: they really don’t care about anyone except themselves
DO WE REALLY NEED THE SUPREME COURT?
Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a supreme court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are rated as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by high independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of all these systems. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government.
3.) ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards it to them from the lower courts.
4.) ) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70. .
5.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
6.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
7.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
8.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
I appreciate what you're describing but how the H*!! do we get rid of the "people" there already? I'm thinking pitchforks and torches?
I appreciate what you're describing but how the H*!! do we get rid of the "people" there already? I'm thinking pitchforks and torches?
I don't either; they have to go. He's insane and doesn't care for Americans or anyone but his family.
Seattle. Build cheap barges and tow them over the strait of Hormuz to clear the mines.
A worse candidate than what we have now? SMH. That’s ridiculous
Meg Crane
I'm hoping to start a pitchfork factory in New York.
I just had a thought, perhaps get people subscribed across your media to do a letterbox drop of a black and white drop