Excluding people from running for office because of criminal conviction provides an incentive for authoritarians in power to prosecute their political opponents, so it’s a question that definitely has two sides. :/
Exactly. By the same reasoning, there is no reason to bar felons from voting, or even incarcerated citizens. Prisoners have as much right to government representation as anyone else.
Voting is a basic right in this nation, and it should not be removed for ANY reason. We should be automatically registered to vote at birth, with the registration automatically validating on your 18th birthday. You shouldn’t have to register, declare a party, or prove your identity. If you are an American citizen, you can vote, period.
prove your identity. If you are an American citizen
how do you verify someone is a citizen if you don’t make them prove their identity?
I live in an EU country and absolutely do have to prove my identity when I vote. I do not have to “register to vote”, or more precisely, I’m already required to register my residence with the government, which doubles as voter registration (the government knows my DOB and citizenship, so knows whether I meet those criteria). Getting disenfranchised for criminal convictions is a thing here, but only very rarely and AFAIK only when specifically sentenced to it.
Basically, it’s like you, it’s proved by your residence. That way people can’t vote twice. It used to be that you only had to show up with a utility bill in your name, at your address, and that was enough ID, and that worked just fine for decades. They would check you off their list, you’d vote, and go about your day.
For Supreme Court justices the selection process is slightly different in that the Minister of Justice convenes the selection panel (constitution is defined in law)
1.the President of the UKSC, who will be the chair of the selection commission;
2.a senior UK judge (who is not a UKSC Justice) nominated by the President of the UKSC;
3.a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England & Wales;
4.a member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland; and
5.a member of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
Members of the JAC are senior civil servants and by law must remain politically neutral.
Whilst the Civil Service oversees selection, politicians are kept out of it. Individuals apply for the advertised roles, there are no political nominations and justices don’t serve for life.
He can’t, he can only nominate them. Then the Senate, a separate branch of government, investigates, and approves them. It doesn’t have to be a rubber stamp, and in the past it often hasn’t been.
The government is an inherently political system, you can’t avoid that. The Founding Fathers tried to split the approval responsibility (for many offices) between two branches, to avoid these issues. They were counting on the voters and the integrity of the members to keep things within reason, and it was a reasonably successful system for a long time.
The problem is that it relies on the good faith of the people managing it, and they Founding Fathers never anticipated that our country would be taken over be an international cabal of Sociopathic Oligarch pedophiles and traitors, who would exploit our nation’s honor system.
It wouldn’t be so bad if our government weren’t absolutely ratfucked by the two party FPTP system. There’s no incentive to not pick an extremist who aligns with your political ideology if your political party holds the majority of government offices.
Excluding people from running for office because of criminal conviction provides an incentive for authoritarians in power to prosecute their political opponents, so it’s a question that definitely has two sides. :/
Exactly. By the same reasoning, there is no reason to bar felons from voting, or even incarcerated citizens. Prisoners have as much right to government representation as anyone else.
Voting is a basic right in this nation, and it should not be removed for ANY reason. We should be automatically registered to vote at birth, with the registration automatically validating on your 18th birthday. You shouldn’t have to register, declare a party, or prove your identity. If you are an American citizen, you can vote, period.
how do you verify someone is a citizen if you don’t make them prove their identity?
I live in an EU country and absolutely do have to prove my identity when I vote. I do not have to “register to vote”, or more precisely, I’m already required to register my residence with the government, which doubles as voter registration (the government knows my DOB and citizenship, so knows whether I meet those criteria). Getting disenfranchised for criminal convictions is a thing here, but only very rarely and AFAIK only when specifically sentenced to it.
Basically, it’s like you, it’s proved by your residence. That way people can’t vote twice. It used to be that you only had to show up with a utility bill in your name, at your address, and that was enough ID, and that worked just fine for decades. They would check you off their list, you’d vote, and go about your day.
And this is where ensuring total independence of the judiciary comes in.
Its insane to me that the president can pick a Supreme Court judge.
Who else should pick judges except for another branch of government?
This is how we do it in the UK.
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/
For Supreme Court justices the selection process is slightly different in that the Minister of Justice convenes the selection panel (constitution is defined in law)
1.the President of the UKSC, who will be the chair of the selection commission; 2.a senior UK judge (who is not a UKSC Justice) nominated by the President of the UKSC; 3.a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England & Wales; 4.a member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland; and 5.a member of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
Members of the JAC are senior civil servants and by law must remain politically neutral.
Whilst the Civil Service oversees selection, politicians are kept out of it. Individuals apply for the advertised roles, there are no political nominations and justices don’t serve for life.
He can’t, he can only nominate them. Then the Senate, a separate branch of government, investigates, and approves them. It doesn’t have to be a rubber stamp, and in the past it often hasn’t been.
Interesting, but that is still very political. The judges are effectively being selected by people who will do what Trump tells them to
The government is an inherently political system, you can’t avoid that. The Founding Fathers tried to split the approval responsibility (for many offices) between two branches, to avoid these issues. They were counting on the voters and the integrity of the members to keep things within reason, and it was a reasonably successful system for a long time.
The problem is that it relies on the good faith of the people managing it, and they Founding Fathers never anticipated that our country would be taken over be an international cabal of Sociopathic Oligarch pedophiles and traitors, who would exploit our nation’s honor system.
It wouldn’t be so bad if our government weren’t absolutely ratfucked by the two party FPTP system. There’s no incentive to not pick an extremist who aligns with your political ideology if your political party holds the majority of government offices.