Is the future of western democracies a judicial authoritarianism?

JamesFargo

Did a dime in San Quentin.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 5, 2021
Have you noticed how all woke shit tends towards giving advantages to people with university degrees?
You had me until that. By that logic, high school is a breeding ground for authoritarians.

Corporate police states are the foreseeable future.
Media-controlled state. The far-right is running out of rich, old men and have resorted to preying on people's fears of socialism. Michael Bloomberg wants to tax your soda, yup..dude is hardcore socialist. Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos contributed to Democrats campaigns, yes...they are communists too.
 

CWCissey

Charming Man
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Media-controlled state. The far-right is running out of rich, old men and have resorted to preying on people's fears of socialism. Michael Bloomberg wants to tax your soda, yup..dude is hardcore socialist. Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos contributed to Democrats campaigns, yes...they are communists too.
We truly live in a world of terror...
 

Large

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Don't worry! Nothing exists; even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
 

SJDoubleJew

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 11, 2018
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is 'boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem,' (It the job of good judge to extend jurisdiction) and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life." Jefferson, 1820.
 

PetrifiedTom

Po_0petrator
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Problem is not in judiciary but in people.

US have abolished slavery on same basis in constitution as it was established. Same document read in between one hundred years and two different arguments. Often you may hear that Montesquieu's tripartite governance is great achievement. Why not to split it even more or merge it to one as in old monarchies?
Thing is nothing is constant, and you must be very precise in law, so nobody misinterpreted rules one hundred years later.

For example, here in Poland the parliament just lately found out that two articles in constitution contradict themselves. One is about protection of life (not child or fetus but life itself) and second is right for abortion. The Constitutional Court decided that abortion is illegal based on article about protection of life BUT if the judging panel were more liberal, they would decide otherwise. Same constitution, same words, document written barely 24 years ago, and such things are found.

That is why law is a joke. The origin of law comes from theology (Roman and Jewish) of what man can do and can't because it will enrage god/s. When law is based on fear to supernatural being it is easier to enforce some rules but if it is normative (we just ensure between ourselves to act according to proposed law) everything is allowed so you can be trans, polyamorous, tree or furry.