The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The popular vote in the US has no value whatsoever. It's not a metric of winning.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I agree that it's unfair. But, it would be only marginally less unfair for a candidate who won 48% of the vote to have that power too.
Philip Hammond has a big lead as the man most trusted to run the economy despite public pessimism about Britain’s prospects over the year ahead, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a boost to the Chancellor as he prepares his first Autumn Statement next week, Ipsos MORI found that the Government has managed to keep its reputation for economic competence following the Brexit vote.
Mr Hammond is well ahead of Labour rival John McDonnell, with 46 per cent saying he is the most capable Chancellor out of the rivals. Only 28 per cent preferred shadow chancellor.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.
Seconded. Herdson/Nabavi and Sean Fear are right on this.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.
What an utterly absurd post. If you cannot understand the point I am making best not to engage.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept it (2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
And it completely ignores what I posted earlier about Clinton's shit campaign. In six weeks Clinton made just 16 visits to marginal or hostile states. Trump made more than I can be bothered to count.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
@steve_hawkes: Doubling Down: "Deloitte UK says it will 'reluctantly' move work out of UK if Government limits its ability to sponsor foreign workers."
Good. They can piss off.
I can't stand the Big 4, and know far too much about them from my time working there.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
The full quote
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.
I guess that when the rules were invented judges did not live as long as they do now!
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept it (2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?
Yup, it would also lead to more controversial, legally unsound decisions by the Justices if they knew they had to be reconfirmed shortly.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept it (2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.
Those 29m including babies. I rarely log on to Facebook these days. It's either unwanted adverts or trendy causes and Guardian links.
Annoying, and it's no fun. And people take any criticism or opposing view very personally.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The popular vote in the US has no value whatsoever. It's not a metric of winning.
It is a metric of whining.
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.
I think that is the general concensus on your posting on this matter, yes.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
And it completely ignores what I posted earlier about Clinton's shit campaign. In six weeks Clinton made just 16 visits to marginal or hostile states. Trump made more than I can be bothered to count.
Thanks for posting btw. Those were truly astonishing figures.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?
Hmm, maybe. I'm sure there is a system which would allow for long terms and term limits as well as being fair to the opposition party. Maybe a single 36 year term and a replacement nominated every 4 years so the sitting POTUS only gets to nominate two justices in 8 years.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
Polling tells us that with 2 candidates those 7 million other votes would in a forced choice have broken about 2.5 million for Trump and more than 2.5 million for Clinton, with the rest not voting. Under AV, to eliminate a Clinton lead of the size she is heading towards you would require those to break about 3.75 million to 1.75 million in favour of Trump, a huge skew in the opposite direction to what people said they were inclined to do when polled.
Those 3rd party voters were not just Johnson voters. They were also Green voters. So basing theoretical arguments on Johnson voters alone doesn't really hold either.
If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).
I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.
The Republican oppo research would have destroyed Sanders on his anti-American activities and other stupidities.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
The full quote
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.
Seconded. Herdson/Nabavi and Sean Fear are right on this.
SO is simply wrong.
So when I say that the electoral college is the best way to choose the US president you think I am wrong?
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
The full quote
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.
Arguing or observing? It is a fact, is it not, that the courts are able to rule on issues pertaining to the constitution?
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept it (2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.
Why? It's perfectly reasonably to think that a constitutional referendum proposing a major change should have a higher bar to clear. Not at all the same thing as an election for public office.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.
Indeed. A system is not broken just because it didn't give you the result you wanted.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.
One could argue that it's the case in the UK, where almost all governments have majority rule based on a minority of votes. But that doesn't mean the system is undemocratic - a country can choose whatever system of democracy it likes.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
Sky News is currently unwatchable. Even among non political obsessives it has become noticeable.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.
It's an appeals body, isn't it? It would have to rule on a case brought by a third party against the government and which had previously been heard by and argued in a lower court.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions about what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from it.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
.
The full quote
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.
She's observing, not arguing. There's an awful lot of question marks in her statement. She's viewing herself as the umpire, rather than as a bowler or batsman, to borrow a cricketing analogy.
The case raises difficult and delicate issues about the constitutional relationship between Government and Parliament. What is meant by the exercise of the executive power of the State? To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State?
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
68% now support Brexit? Watch those voices arguing for a 2nd referendum wither.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?
Hmm, maybe. I'm sure there is a system which would allow for long terms and term limits as well as being fair to the opposition party. Maybe a single 36 year term and a replacement nominated every 4 years so the sitting POTUS only gets to nominate two justices in 8 years.
And if they die?
If you want to restrict partisan power, up the thresholds necessary for approval to 2/3rds.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions about what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from it.
I am no fan of hers, but I really don't see anything problematic in what she said.
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
But it's not a FPTP system. It's an electoral college and the states are perfectly free to determine how they allocate their college votes. They can use FPTP, PR, AV or whatever.
Really it's no wonder Remain lost when federalism runs so counter to how most people in this country think.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What'sa loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
The Republicans have only won the popular presidential vote once since 1988, but by 2020 there could be a very solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court and one that is set fair for 20 to 30 years. With the best will in the world I cannot see how that is right given the power the Supreme Court has to shape the lives of all Americans. It is what it is, I absolutely accept that - but that does not make it just.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
So a substantial number of those who think the govt are doing badly, think that because they just wish they'd hurry the F up and get on with leaving.
Not quite the narrative the popular press want us to think.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.
As she also indicated that it might have the power to do.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.
The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.
One could argue that it's the case in the UK, where almost all governments have majority rule based on a minority of votes. But that doesn't mean the system is undemocratic - a country can choose whatever system of democracy it likes.
But in the UK it is much easier to overturn legislation, while the Supreme Court is not filled with political appointees and the judges that sit in it have to retire when they reach 70 (or 75 if appointed before a certain date).
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.
Fox News is virtually the opposite of the current Sky News and neither provide balanced media coverage
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
You would need to compare POTUS with the UK PM, where we also have a winner-takes-all approach.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court? It looks terrible.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
@david_herdson The full context of the half-sentence that causes you qualms is:
"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."
The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court?
I posted a link to her speech down below, she's putting it into the context for the Malaysian audience she was speaking to and their laws and conventions.
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.
I continue to be outraged that news stories are not covered in the way that I think that they should be covered. This clearly proves that those doing the reporting are biased.
I also believe that we should take at face value the reports of those who report on how news outlets they believe are biased are reporting.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
But it's not a FPTP system. It's an electoral college and the states are perfectly free to determine how they allocate their college votes. They can use FPTP, PR, AV or whatever.
Really it's no wonder Remain lost when federalism runs so counter to how most people in this country think.
It is FPTP in all but name, modified only by the different prizes on offer in different states, and the minor variation in Nebraska and Maine.
I did argue before the EURef that the EU would have more popular legitimacy if the Commission were directly elected from and by the MEPs.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court?
I posted a link to her speech down below, she's putting it into the context for the Malaysian audience she was speaking to and their laws and conventions.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
The system has been "broken" since inception, to say that is now untenable seems unlikely.
Hillary would have been delighted to win if the positions were switched, and her supporters would not be complaining about a system that they have used with little change for over two centuries.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
California is not that left wing. In one proposition they voted to keep the death penalty and in the other voted for it to happen FASTER!
I was in California reading about this. The big objection is that time on death row is a cruel and unusual punishment, living out your life as if each month might be your last. it is also very expensive, more expensive than prison, and more expensive than a quick death.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
If Judges wish to dabble in Politics, perhaps it's time they became elected officials?
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
It is the Trumpification of Britain.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
Have you read her speech in full?
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the case
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
On the other hand, the presidency is only 'part' of government, there's checks and balances from both the Senate and Congress.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
Have you read her speech in full?
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the case
Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?
Too much reading the Guardian from Justin Webb....Loads of seriously nasty stuff to go after Bannon for, banging on and on about him being anti-Jewish based on one single sentence in his ex-wifes divorce proceedings about how she claimed he didn't like the whiny kids at a Jewish school rather backfired...
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
Have you read her speech in full?
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the case
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
Have you read her speech in full?
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the case
One rule for Judges, another rule for councillors asked to decide on planning matters....
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.
Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?
In Tennis you could also win many more rounds/rallies whatever and still lose the game in theory (ie you win every game on your serve 40-0, and lose every game at love on their serve, and then lose the tiebreak closely).
I hadn't expected to see my comments about the febrile atmosphere confirmed so quickly. Some of our regular posters have gone full-on fruitloop on the subject.
The founding fathers designed the system to stop the more populous states railroading the smaller states.
Trump winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote was what they designed the system to deal with.
If you're complaining about that, then surely you'll have to complain about every state getting two senators.
I mean everyone accepts that little old Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, despite California's population being 66 times the size of Wyoming
Judges = ? Councillors = Code of conduct "In addition to any declaring personal or prejudicial interests, members of a planning committee need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application. The Standards Board has provided guidance on predetermination, predisposition and bias. Avoidance of bias or predetermination is a principle of natural justice which the decisionmaker is expected to embrace by the courts. "
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
On the other hand, the presidency is only 'part' of government, there's checks and balances from both the Senate and Congress.
Congress includes the Senate. There are also checks and balances from the Court and the states.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
Have you read her speech in full?
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the case
One rule for Judges, another rule for councillors asked to decide on planning matters....
Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?
In Tennis you could also win many more rounds/rallies whatever and still lose the game in theory (ie you win every game on your serve 40-0, and lose every game at love on their serve, and then lose the tiebreak closely).
Interestingly you will find that the difference in average scores per round of professional golfers doesn't necessarily correlate to how successful they are across their career...essentially because it is all about putting 4 good rounds together in a row.
There are many cases were you can compare a guy who has many tours wins vs a total flop and find over the course of their career their average round is basically the same.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.
I presume that if either party thinks Lady Hale is compromised they can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that she be recused? That would settle the question wouldn't it?
''The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so.''
That seems to me to be a curious statement. Does it mean the Treaty of Libson did not change the law of the land? It surely did.....?
Not of itself. It required the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 to incorporate its provisions into UK law. The UK government couldn't ratify the treaty until the Act had been passed.
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.
I agree,
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
She is compromised and should stand down
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
If Judges wish to dabble in Politics, perhaps it's time they became elected officials?
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.
I presume that if either party thinks Lady Hale is compromised they can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that she be recused? That would settle the question wouldn't it?
Why is she incapable of seeing that herself? Ah, now wait we have had 3 judges heading up the child abuse enquiry and 2 not realising that they were not independent enough.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.
I don't think it is. I have heard plenty of judges give talks on cases that they are to hear and about ones they are hearing.
'I hadn't expected to see my comments about the febrile atmosphere confirmed so quickly. Some of our regular posters have gone full-on fruitloop on the subject. ''
Hang on a minute. We were assured by remainers that Britain WAS independent and sovereign. That we merely needed to put the red article 50 button and, hey presto, we would be catapulted free of the EU in a trice.
Now it appears that assertion was a rank lie.
A certain amount of consternation is warranted, on that basis,
Too much reading the Guardian from Justin Webb....Loads of seriously nasty stuff to go after Bannon for, banging on and on about him being anti-Jewish based on one single sentence in his ex-wifes divorce proceedings about how she claimed he didn't like the whiny kids at a Jewish school rather backfired...
The whole anti-Semitism smear is beyond rediculous.
Those on the left have turned a blind eye to anti-Semitism for so long they clearly do not know what it looks like.
Yep, brazen - but completely unsurprising - hypocrisy. It's evident on here too. Many posters who have been rightly critical of Labour over anti-Semitism have been remarkably quiet about the blatant racism of President Trump's most senior adviser, for example. Max called it out yesterday, but I can't remember many others doing it.
I mean everyone accepts that little old Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, despite California's population being 66 times the size of Wyoming
No, this is a terrible idea, even worse than the Electoral College. I mean, there might be a case for protecting the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority, but state lines don't capture anything relevant. America has all kinds of cultural and political divides, but it isn't divided by state.
Comments
In a boost to the Chancellor as he prepares his first Autumn Statement next week, Ipsos MORI found that the Government has managed to keep its reputation for economic competence following the Brexit vote.
Mr Hammond is well ahead of Labour rival John McDonnell, with 46 per cent saying he is the most capable Chancellor out of the rivals. Only 28 per cent preferred shadow chancellor.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/half-of-brits-have-dismal-outlook-for-the-economy-poll-finds-a3397771.html
SO is simply wrong.
https://www.boxingnewsandviews.com/2016/11/17/mayweather-and-donald-trump/
https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/798601489371439104
(2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
I can't stand the Big 4, and know far too much about them from my time working there.
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
Annoying, and it's no fun. And people take any criticism or opposing view very personally.
Those 3rd party voters were not just Johnson voters. They were also Green voters. So basing theoretical arguments on Johnson voters alone doesn't really hold either.
The Republican oppo research would have destroyed Sanders on his anti-American activities and other stupidities.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
For those wondering about how the Brexit model might shape up, this article on the ''Jersey model'' is interesting.
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
YOu would think so, wouldn't you? its amazing how stupid and stubborn certain people at certain news outlets can be.
The case raises difficult and delicate issues about the constitutional relationship between Government and Parliament. What is meant by the exercise of the executive power of the State? To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State?
If you want to restrict partisan power, up the thresholds necessary for approval to 2/3rds.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
Really it's no wonder Remain lost when federalism runs so counter to how most people in this country think.
Not quite the narrative the popular press want us to think.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
You would need to compare POTUS with the UK PM, where we also have a winner-takes-all approach.
"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."
The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.
I also believe that we should take at face value the reports of those who report on how news outlets they believe are biased are reporting.
I did argue before the EURef that the EU would have more popular legitimacy if the Commission were directly elected from and by the MEPs.
Hillary would have been delighted to win if the positions were switched, and her supporters would not be complaining about a system that they have used with little change for over two centuries.
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
That seems to me to be a curious statement. Does it mean the Treaty of Libson did not change the law of the land? It surely did.....?
Hence the seemingly contradictory positions.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/17/beebs-bannon-bashing-backfires/
Too much reading the Guardian from Justin Webb....Loads of seriously nasty stuff to go after Bannon for, banging on and on about him being anti-Jewish based on one single sentence in his ex-wifes divorce proceedings about how she claimed he didn't like the whiny kids at a Jewish school rather backfired...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/a-warning-for-trumps-new-apologists-cowardice-must-always-be-paid-for/
The reference to 'Stepford Students' is surely aimed at at Brendan, who's been curiously accommodating about the rise of Trump:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/a-trumpocalypse-oh-do-grow-up/18957#.WC2oRS2LS1s
The founding fathers designed the system to stop the more populous states railroading the smaller states.
Trump winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote was what they designed the system to deal with.
If you're complaining about that, then surely you'll have to complain about every state getting two senators.
I mean everyone accepts that little old Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, despite California's population being 66 times the size of Wyoming
Councillors = Code of conduct
"In addition to any declaring personal or prejudicial interests, members of a planning committee need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application. The Standards Board has provided guidance on predetermination, predisposition and bias. Avoidance of bias or predetermination is a principle of natural justice which the decisionmaker is expected to embrace by the courts. "
There are many cases were you can compare a guy who has many tours wins vs a total flop and find over the course of their career their average round is basically the same.
Flying by the seat of your pants...
http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/viewphoto.main?LC=nav2&picid=9796
Ah, now wait we have had 3 judges heading up the child abuse enquiry and 2 not realising that they were not independent enough.
Hang on a minute. We were assured by remainers that Britain WAS independent and sovereign. That we merely needed to put the red article 50 button and, hey presto, we would be catapulted free of the EU in a trice.
Now it appears that assertion was a rank lie.
A certain amount of consternation is warranted, on that basis,
Those on the left have turned a blind eye to anti-Semitism for so long they clearly do not know what it looks like.