Seeing as there are loads of legal minds here, why are judicial appointments in the UK not more of a political bun fight?
Parliamentary sovereignty. Irrespective of what the UK Supreme Court decides, parliament can override it with an appropriate Act.
This is fundamentally different from the position in United States (and potentially other countries with activist constitutional courts), where the Supreme Court can strike down legislation, and those decisions cannot be overriden by politicians other than via a constitutional amendment. in effect, in the US, it is the Supreme Court which is sovereign, so who sits on it matters a hell of a lot more.
Good point, so the more defined separation of power makes the US judiciary more political, which is the opposite effect of what was intended.
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
Why is it good to have a politician who is good at obfuscating, i.e. pulling the wool over people's eyes? I'd much rather have a lousy conman as my leader than a persuasive one.
I hope you're proud of wanting an anti-Semite as PM ...
As mentioned regularly these days, it has to be said Corbyn hasn't had the dubious honour of having his hand kissed by Europe's most influential anti-semite. As long as May happily counts Orban as her main European ally, any accusations coming at least from the Tory side will remain fairly preposterous. Accusations from within Labour, or the LDs, will still be more of an issue for Corbyn for a while.
I am not supporting the Conservatives: just pointing out that BJO is in the sewer with them (although I do think there's a much stronger argument against Corbyn than there is against the Conservatives on this issue: he is much deeper in the sh*t).
I hope you're proud of wanting an anti-Semite as PM ...
He is a lifelong defender of all faiths
You have fallen for FAKE NEWS
Rubbish. You're the one falling for fake news.
As an example: Corbyn has often defended some of his antics by saying he talks to all sides. Can you show me where he has talked to loyalist paramilitaries to counter his friendships with Sin Feinn and IRA bombers, or where he has talked to the Israeli government along with Hamas ?
He says he is anti-racist. Sadly, his actions and words indicate quite the opposite.
I want any taint to be properly demonstrated not just alleged. I don't see that as unreasonable.
Just as I don't see this standard as unreasonable: The injustice, in fact, is largely optical. The question before us, after all, is not whether to punish Kavanaugh or whether to assign liability to him. It’s whether to bestow on him an immense honor that comes with great power. Kavanaugh is applying for a much-coveted job. And the burden of convincing in such situations always lies with the applicant. The standard for elevation to the nation’s highest court is not that the nominee established a “reasonable doubt” that the serious allegations against him were true.
No doubt the US electorate will make their feelings clear in November. I don't see a huge number of women voters being swayed by your argument.
Given how polarised American politics are what's to prevent fictional allegations (not saying that's happening here) being introduced against all political opponents then?
That's a good question, to which I don't have easy answers - other than that making such allegations is far from consequence free (Professor Ford and her family have already been forced into hiding as a result of death threats), and any such allegations will be subject to intense scrutiny.
In essence, it is no different from the normal run of US politics outside of Supreme Court nominations, but the level of interest is multiplied many times.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
I think they could, and other sites like Airbnb require it (at least for some users I think). Would it hurt their bottom line? I'm not sure that it would deter users all that much, especially if it were linked to a facebook account or something like that and relatively painless.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
That is the essential point.
One day, a US government will ignore a partisan SCOTUS ruling, or support a State government which does so.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
To be fair, that is a real reason why some people vote for their stripe of President - to get those Supreme Court nominations made.
Even a +2 lead with JC in charge is an incredible achievement. The tories need to supplicate themselves before their gods (mainly Cthulhu and Mammon I imagine) and pray that nothing happens to the old tosser. With any other Labour leader the tories are going to get two in the pink and one in the stink from the electorate.
OTOH, most polls are putting the Conservatives ahead, currently.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
To be fair, that is a real reason why some people vote for their stripe of President - to get those Supreme Court nominations made.
If it is to be entirely politicised, then perhaps term limits would make for a slightly less contested outcome ? It seems particularly perverse that an electoral outcome contrary to the wishes of the majority of those voting should decide the composition of a quarter of the Court for the next three or four decades... and that's if nothing happens to RBG.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Even a +2 lead with JC in charge is an incredible achievement. The tories need to supplicate themselves before their gods (mainly Cthulhu and Mammon I imagine) and pray that nothing happens to the old tosser. With any other Labour leader the tories are going to get two in the pink and one in the stink from the electorate.
8 years into power for the main opposition party to be only 2% ahead is really no great achievement at all
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
That is the essential point.
One day, a US government will ignore a partisan SCOTUS ruling, or support a State government which does so.
It has happened before. Coincidentally, there is today quite a good Politico article on the consequences of judicial overreach: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/democrats-weaponize-judiciary-220530 I don't agree entirely with the author's conclusions, but his fundamental point that in the end the ballot box must prevail over nine robed judges is a sound one.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
"The IEA’s plan is authored by Shanker Singham, a lawyer ..."
A lawyer whose solution to Brexit is to sue the EU... I wonder if he has any idea how long trade disputes take to settle?
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
It is impressive that May has managed to create a plan which combines all of the downsides and none of the upsides of the alternatives
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
Kavanaugh isn't impartial - do impartial judges exist? - but he isn't as extreme as some potential candidates. And it seems unreasonable to expect a president to nominate someone whose values aren't aligned with theirs.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Really absurd spectacle now, the Tories. They know Canada is impossible too, on the CBI and NI fronts.
It's almost as if both the Labour and Tory parties are waiting for someone to rescue them from going through the motions of what they know is stupidity.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
Kavanaugh isn't impartial - do impartial judges exist? - but he isn't as extreme as some potential candidates. And it seems unreasonable to expect a president to nominate someone whose values aren't aligned with theirs.
Are Kavanaugh's values aligned with Trump's? Kavanaugh was not on the first two lists Trump circulated of potential judges. So what changed? Nothing.
In unrelated news, Mueller's investigation is closing in on Trump, and Kavanaugh has said that a sitting president cannot be indicted. OGH's 66/1 tip for 2020, Senator Kamala Harris, asked Kavanaugh if he'd discussed matters with a member of Trump's law firm.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
It is impressive that May has managed to create a plan which combines all of the downsides and none of the upsides of the alternatives
Yes, the chequers agreement was a poor fudge. Whats the inversion of a cherry pick? A turd pick of the EU buffet?
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
David Miliband: Natural Tory Leader, since Cameron and Osborne took over the mantle of Blairism and took the Nu from the Labour Party and attached it to the Conservatives...
He's the most articulate and persuasive Remainer. In these days of thin pickings among politicians that's more than enough for me
Even a +2 lead with JC in charge is an incredible achievement. The tories need to supplicate themselves before their gods (mainly Cthulhu and Mammon I imagine) and pray that nothing happens to the old tosser. With any other Labour leader the tories are going to get two in the pink and one in the stink from the electorate.
OTOH, most polls are putting the Conservatives ahead, currently.
Does anyone even vaguely sane pay any attention to midterm polls? They are the mathematical equivalent of used loo paper.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
Kavanaugh isn't impartial - do impartial judges exist? - but he isn't as extreme as some potential candidates. And it seems unreasonable to expect a president to nominate someone whose values aren't aligned with theirs.
It’s difficult to know quite what to think or believe about the Kavanaugh situation. On one hand he shouldn’t be found guilty based on an allegation without evidence from 30 years ago, yet on the other it’s clear the Democrats are going to stop at nothing to postpone his confirmation past the elections - which ironically might make swaying Republicans more likely to confirm him...
I think the problem is twofold - the first being the absolute polarisation of US politics with no-one in the middle any more, the second being a system of appointment for life that didn’t expect middle classes to be able to live healthily well into their eighties.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Really absurd spectacle now, the Tories. They know Canada is impossible too, on the CBI and NI fronts.
It's almost as if both the Labour and Tory parties are waiting for someone to rescue them from going through the motions of what they know is stupidity.
Canada is possible if the Tories won a majority and no longer needed the DUP and it avoids tariffs for goods although would be less great for financial services
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
Kavanaugh isn't impartial - do impartial judges exist? - but he isn't as extreme as some potential candidates. And it seems unreasonable to expect a president to nominate someone whose values aren't aligned with theirs.
It’s difficult to know quite what to think or believe about the Kavanaugh situation. On one hand he shouldn’t be found guilty based on an allegation without evidence from 30 years ago...
I don't see the problem here. Confirming his nomination, or pulling it, is in neither case making a finding of guilt or innocence. How it might be interpreted, is of course a matter of individual opinion. No one has stopped calling Clarence Thomas a perjurer since his confirmation twenty seven years ago - indeed the number who do so has steadily increased over time.
However, that's a quite different situation to a cohort who are still with UKIP now despite its total departure from the mainstream, who are forced to switch due to there being no candidate. I'd expect a higher proportion of them to move to not voting or to other small third parties.
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
There is lots of money in eSports, playing as a professional. Those setting up and running the events are primarily the big game companies because they a) own the IP and b) can afford the prize funds.
Or the non-pros doing the gaming thing, it is things like being a twitch streamer, where you play games all day and people subscribe / donate to you and companies sponsor you to play their games.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
Probably more employable than my history degree to be frank.
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
There is lots of money in eSports, playing as a professional. Those setting up and running the events are primarily the big game companies because they a) own the IP and b) can afford the prize funds.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
And do you think those big game companies might like to hire people with a relevant degree?
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
There is lots of money in eSports, playing as a professional. Those setting up and running the events are primarily the big game companies because they a) own the IP and b) can afford the prize funds.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
And do you think those big game companies might like to hire people with a relevant degree?
It is back to the crap like doing media studies to get a leading job on the BBC, when you look and find the leading lights all did English, History, Languages and then a journalism course or are the "talent". With the other route in is learning the actual technical side of editing, mixing, camera operator etc.
It is why I tell people who ask about doing some sort of IT, "programming" or even game design* course because they want to get into the games industry, you are way better doing a computer science degree.
* that is slightly different, as at least it is technical and applied, but if you find game design isn't for you, hmm that isn't a good place to be in.
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
No she did not!
The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.
Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.
Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.
Nonetheless it was a stupid commitment to make and the proof is in what has happened since. The EUs behaviour since demonstrates why it is unthinkable that the UK agree a ‘blind Brexit’ or fail to link the payment of money to the delivery of the trade agreement.
However, that's a quite different situation to a cohort who are still with UKIP now despite its total departure from the mainstream, who are forced to switch due to there being no candidate. I'd expect a higher proportion of them to move to not voting or to other small third parties.
I don't think we have a clear idea as to how many UKIP candidates would be in the field were there to be an election in the near future. In 2017 UKIP withdrew many candidates and hoped to help the Tories by so doing. That move fell well short of expectations, and it might well be that next time their mindset will incline them to seek to punish the Tories rather than assist them.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Really absurd spectacle now, the Tories. They know Canada is impossible too, on the CBI and NI fronts.
It's almost as if both the Labour and Tory parties are waiting for someone to rescue them from going through the motions of what they know is stupidity.
Canada is possible if the Tories won a majority and no longer needed the DUP and it avoids tariffs for goods although would be less great for financial services
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
It’s not a partnership model - which could make sense. It creates a voting block which will be “democratically” managed. In practice this means the politicos within the workforce who care about sitting on committees
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
There is lots of money in eSports, playing as a professional. Those setting up and running the events are primarily the big game companies because they a) own the IP and b) can afford the prize funds.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
And do you think those big game companies might like to hire people with a relevant degree?
It is back to the crap like doing media studies to get a leading job on the BBC, when you look and find the leading lights all did English, History...
That's fighting talk. Expect incoming from @ydoethur in due course....
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
It’s not a partnership model - which could make sense. It creates a voting block which will be “democratically” managed. In practice this means the politicos within the workforce who care about sitting on committees
I noticed that McDonnell was trying to spin it along the lines of Thatcher wanting people to have ownership of shares...when it isn't anything of the sort. For the regular employee, it is at best a £500 year bonus, and of course as you say effective equivalent to union rep having a say while also sneakily increasing taxes on businesses.
If it was say an "encouragement" by the government for companies to have genuine share schemes, especially if tied in with pension, that could be far better for the employee.
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Really absurd spectacle now, the Tories. They know Canada is impossible too, on the CBI and NI fronts.
It's almost as if both the Labour and Tory parties are waiting for someone to rescue them from going through the motions of what they know is stupidity.
Canada is possible if the Tories won a majority and no longer needed the DUP and it avoids tariffs for goods although would be less great for financial services
According to Yougov 50% of voters think a Canada style deal would be good for Britain, 35% think a Norway style deal would be good for Britain and 32% think No Deal WTO terms Brexit would be good for Britain
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
There is, I am told, an awful lot of money in esports. Oodles of cash. Even I, who wouldn't know a console from a VR headset, have noticed that where five years ago everyone and his dog was writing their own app, now it is everyone and her cat who is writing their own game. (And a lot of them are women.)
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
There is lots of money in eSports, playing as a professional. Those setting up and running the events are primarily the big game companies because they a) own the IP and b) can afford the prize funds.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
And do you think those big game companies might like to hire people with a relevant degree?
It is back to the crap like doing media studies to get a leading job on the BBC, when you look and find the leading lights all did English, History, Languages and then a journalism course or are the "talent". With the other route in is learning the actual technical side of editing, mixing, camera operator etc.
It is why I tell people who ask about doing some sort of IT, "programming" or even game design* course because they want to get into the games industry, you are way better doing a computer science degree.
* that is slightly different, as at least it is technical and applied, but if you find game design isn't for you, hmm that isn't a good place to be in.
Yes, the latest faddish degree is generally a waste of money when it comes to getting the top jobs. Most at the top either read traditional arts or sciences, or worked through the university of life and saved their money, maybe doing a management course later in their career.
Dropping £30k of borrowed money and three years of your life on something that sounds cool isn’t the best of ideas - either teach yourself a language and get a junior dev job, or do a rigorous Comp Sci degree.
It is back to the crap like doing media studies to get a leading job on the BBC, when you look and find the leading lights all did English, History, Languages and then a journalism course or are the "talent". With the other route in is learning the actual technical side of editing, mixing, camera operator etc.
English, history and languages are hardly vocational training for reading autocues. On an historical note, English degrees were once regarded with the same derision as Media Studies courses are now. Sitting around reading stories is not a proper education!
A little light reading. Shanker Singham’s 150 page Brexit plan A+ from the IEA. Being enthusiastically retweeted by many Conservative MPs this morning.
And those 8% UKIP are going to go where, with no candidate to vote for?
A surprising number went Labour last year as I recall!
Indeed the days of adding the KIP total to the CON total really ought to be long since over.
And LibDem, as former NOTA voters as far as the main parties are concerned. UKIP standing or not standing makes relatively little difference as far as the other parties' vote tallies are concerned.
A little light reading. Shanker Singham’s 150 page Brexit plan A+ from the IEA. Being enthusiastically retweeted by many Conservative MPs this morning.
Tweet them back and ask if they've actually read all 150 pages. Otherwise it's like disreputable pbers claiming firsts without having sat through 40 minutes of Keiran Pedley's latest podcast.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
So on the basis of an unproven allegation someone is punished by having an opportunity taken away
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
It’s no less worthless than many other degrees. In particular it will hone one’s self abuse skills and given what people here think of PPE graduates, are they that far apart?
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
So punishment without conviction?
Indeed. It's a very difficult situation but the notion that a nomination can be blocked because of an untested allegation of something that's claimed to have happened thirty years ago when accused and accuser were minors, and which (AFAIK) has not been the subject of any other investigation, is not something that sits happily with me.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
So punishment without conviction?
Indeed. It's a very difficult situation but the notion that a nomination can be blocked because of an untested allegation of something that's claimed to have happened thirty years ago when accused and accuser were minors, and which (AFAIK) has not been the subject of any other investigation, is not something that sits happily with me.
Each side forgets that stake raising is not a one way street (unless the Democrats are assuming that they’ll never control the Presidency again, which seems unlikely).
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
No she did not!
The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.
Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.
Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.
It can just as easily be read the other way:
- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK - Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK - Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
So punishment without conviction?
Indeed. It's a very difficult situation but the notion that a nomination can be blocked because of an untested allegation of something that's claimed to have happened thirty years ago when accused and accuser were minors, and which (AFAIK) has not been the subject of any other investigation, is not something that sits happily with me.
Indeed so. I wonder is it possible for the Senate to vote to confirm the candidate, subject to him not being charged with a crime following investigation of the allegations made against him? That would smoke out if the complaint has merit or is purely a political distraction.
When they say AI is going to take over everything....current AI is badly flawed...speaking of which, I have finally got rid of YouTube constantly recommending me Ross Noble videos, no instead I watched two cooking videos and now I can't move for bloody videos about to Sous-vide bloody everything under the sun.
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
No she did not!
The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.
Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.
Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.
It can just as easily be read the other way:
- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK - Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK - Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge
No it can't, it absolutely is crystal clear the backstop is UK wide.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Where in that is it saying Northern Ireland only? It is crystal clear that the backstop is the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment. The entire United Kingdom not a fraction of it.
OT but it occurs to me that pro-Brexit pressure on the Govt from within the Tory party has significantly improved since Steve Baker returned to the back benches. His marshalling skills were pivotal to creating the necessarily positive parliament conditions for the Leave vote.
There was a time under Blair where Labour conferences were shockingly dull... But thankfully Jezza has got rid of all that stage managed bullsh*t and got us back to full on Red Vs Red conference drama again.
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
David Miliband: Natural Tory Leader, since Cameron and Osborne took over the mantle of Blairism and took the Nu from the Labour Party and attached it to the Conservatives...
He's the most articulate and persuasive Remainer. In these days of thin pickings among politicians that's more than enough for me
He's also marmite. Some love him, but many others don't .And too much baggage attached, failed to stand against Brown, lost a leadership coronation to his brother, took a huff and did a runner to the US to a high paid job. Plus, he was (is) too close to Blair, which is toxic to Labour supporters and with the dawning realisation of what Cameron's absorption of Blair's Third Way has done to the Conservative Party, don't imagine he will be too popular among tory voters either. More likely to go LibDem to replace Vince, trying to draw off PLP MP's who were going to walk out of the LP conference (to the tune of the Funky Chicken)
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
So punishment without conviction?
Hardly. More like turning down an applicant for a job who fails adequately to account for gaps in his record.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
If he's lied in his confirmation hearings, you'd think that might be grounds for impeachment. I'm sure the Dems would pursue it, if subsequently proved, but I don't know how easy it is to achieve.
Comments
Maybe one day you'll put you head in your hands in shame.
As an example: Corbyn has often defended some of his antics by saying he talks to all sides. Can you show me where he has talked to loyalist paramilitaries to counter his friendships with Sin Feinn and IRA bombers, or where he has talked to the Israeli government along with Hamas ?
He says he is anti-racist. Sadly, his actions and words indicate quite the opposite.
In essence, it is no different from the normal run of US politics outside of Supreme Court nominations, but the level of interest is multiplied many times.
Would it hurt their bottom line? I'm not sure that it would deter users all that much, especially if it were linked to a facebook account or something like that and relatively painless.
One day, a US government will ignore a partisan SCOTUS ruling, or support a State government which does so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45591584
It seems particularly perverse that an electoral outcome contrary to the wishes of the majority of those voting should decide the composition of a quarter of the Court for the next three or four decades... and that's if nothing happens to RBG.
(Not really!)
https://www.ft.com/content/24a58e0e-bfea-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7
"Mr Singham said that Brexit would offer “no gains” and would become “a damage limitation exercise” unless the UK had freedom over trade and regulatory policy. He said he had been told by the US trade officials that the Chequers plan would “absolutely preclude” a future US-UK trade agreement."
Coincidentally, there is today quite a good Politico article on the consequences of judicial overreach:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/democrats-weaponize-judiciary-220530
I don't agree entirely with the author's conclusions, but his fundamental point that in the end the ballot box must prevail over nine robed judges is a sound one.
A lawyer whose solution to Brexit is to sue the EU... I wonder if he has any idea how long trade disputes take to settle?
Really absurd spectacle now, the Tories. They know Canada is impossible too, on the CBI and NI fronts.
It's almost as if both the Labour and Tory parties are waiting for someone to rescue them from going through the motions of what they know is stupidity.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7330610/corbynites-attack-jewish-labour-mp-luciana-berger-over-her-police-protection-claiming-she-doesnt-need-it/
Are they in control of every single anti-semite nutter in the whole country?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-45328940
No, you will end up doing it for a lifetime as you won't be in employment...
In unrelated news, Mueller's investigation is closing in on Trump, and Kavanaugh has said that a sitting president cannot be indicted. OGH's 66/1 tip for 2020, Senator Kamala Harris, asked Kavanaugh if he'd discussed matters with a member of Trump's law firm.
I think the problem is twofold - the first being the absolute polarisation of US politics with no-one in the middle any more, the second being a system of appointment for life that didn’t expect middle classes to be able to live healthily well into their eighties.
What does it mean?
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, comrades.
The worst case scenario is these students learn a lot of transferable skills in event planning, project management, and entrepreneurship. They should call it Applied Business Studies or some such.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/09/back-the-norway-escape-or-see-our-pm-begging-in-brussels.html
Confirming his nomination, or pulling it, is in neither case making a finding of guilt or innocence. How it might be interpreted, is of course a matter of individual opinion.
No one has stopped calling Clarence Thomas a perjurer since his confirmation twenty seven years ago - indeed the number who do so has steadily increased over time.
However, that's a quite different situation to a cohort who are still with UKIP now despite its total departure from the mainstream, who are forced to switch due to there being no candidate. I'd expect a higher proportion of them to move to not voting or to other small third parties.
Or the non-pros doing the gaming thing, it is things like being a twitch streamer, where you play games all day and people subscribe / donate to you and companies sponsor you to play their games.
Have no issue say doing a module on this, as part of say a business management course, but they are selling the false dream and charging nearly £30k for it.
And also, elements like learning to grow online communities...like really...it is a bit like saying we are going to run a course in learning to use twitter.
It is why I tell people who ask about doing some sort of IT, "programming" or even game design* course because they want to get into the games industry, you are way better doing a computer science degree.
* that is slightly different, as at least it is technical and applied, but if you find game design isn't for you, hmm that isn't a good place to be in.
http://thenational.scot/news/16896978.michael-russell-theresa-may-must-issue-an-apology-to-scotland/
Nonetheless it was a stupid commitment to make and the proof is in what has happened since. The EUs behaviour since demonstrates why it is unthinkable that the UK agree a ‘blind Brexit’ or fail to link the payment of money to the delivery of the trade agreement.
How many is that the Scottish tories have on sex and sectarian/racist cases , must be a record.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-tory-mp-miles-briggs-13297035?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
https://www.scribd.com/document/389306835/Brexit-Plan-A
Expect incoming from @ydoethur in due course....
If it was say an "encouragement" by the government for companies to have genuine share schemes, especially if tied in with pension, that could be far better for the employee.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/majority-people-think-freedom-movement-fair-price-/
Dropping £30k of borrowed money and three years of your life on something that sounds cool isn’t the best of ideas - either teach yourself a language and get a junior dev job, or do a rigorous Comp Sci degree.
https://iea.org.uk/publications/plan-a-creating-a-prosperous-post-brexit-uk/
How is that just?
- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK
- Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK
- Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Where in that is it saying Northern Ireland only? It is crystal clear that the backstop is the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment. The entire United Kingdom not a fraction of it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6201373/Moment-Union-chief-McClusky-pulled-away-row-Jewish-activists-Labour-anti-Semitism.html
https://twitter.com/RossThomson4PM/status/1044017037473976320
Weird coloured trousers and pigeon heads is certainly a novel approach to charming the Paddies back into the fold.*
*for the more lumbering PBers, yes, I realise it's a parody account.
More like turning down an applicant for a job who fails adequately to account for gaps in his record.