BIAS OVERLOAD /int/News

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: ad6fcdc3c67b56e⋯.jpg (161.79 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1314798687966379303.jpg)

BIAS OVERLOAD /int/News User 07/17/18 (Tue) 17:01:26 No.51038

One thing i found pretty interesting is how the same fact can be presented by other countries' news media in distinct ways. Homosex marriage may get "Victory of western democracy" or "Rome's last days" headline, based on the country's trend morality. Since getting enough data to analyze the whole picture is a runner's breakfast, let's use this thread to comment headlines/articles about other countries, so a resident can offer us more data about it. Also, it's pretty fun to see how your country's problems are perceived by other nations.

OP begins:

In Brazil, it seems that US judges can fight govt actions with minimum effort. It's quite common to see headlines like "US Judge block [Trump | Congressman]'s [some action/decision]". How powerful is your judicial system as part of a three powers system?

User 07/17/18 (Tue) 17:07:53 No.51039

The ideal is that each branch is equal. The President is allowed to do as based on the US constitution.

The judges interpret the constitution. So, if this were a board game, they'd be the ones interpreting the rules, and keeping the players in check.

User 07/18/18 (Wed) 12:08:08 No.51053

>>51039

Logically if the Judicial system gets to interpret the constitution then it is the singularly most powerful force in the entire nation. They are not meant to have that power; They've stolen it. They are meant to be weak and toothless like the rest of the branches. They all willfully misinterpret their purposes for more power and control over time.

Also if each branch is meant to be equal then a Judge couldn't possibly stop the President. That's an asymmetrical power relationship.

User 07/18/18 (Wed) 12:56:49 No.51054

>>51053

They can tell the president 'No, that's against the constitution, but they can't *DO* anything either. They can't create new laws, or weigh in on budget issues, or anything.

They can't express their will on the people, only block others from trampling the constitution.

User 07/18/18 (Wed) 17:15:56 No.51059

File: 0f8c38822afcace⋯.png (642.76 KB, 1022x731, 1022:731, mfw_tired.png)

>>51039

>>51053

>>51054

Did the president not just hand-pick a SCOTUS judge of his personal bias/preference? What's the QRD on the whole 'new justice' controversy?

User 07/18/18 (Wed) 17:28:51 No.51060

>>51059

Yes, but he needs to be approved by the senate. So, the elected officials of each state have to agree, in majority, that he's a good pick.

Also, it's worth pointing out that, for better or worse, the appointment of a supreme court judge is a lifetime appointment. So, a president may appoint, with approval, 1 or 2, but seldom more than that. The whole point of that system is to have people who spend the rest of their working lives making sure the president, who only gets a 4 year term, can't try to take over the democracy.

One thing to keep in mind is that the 'party' system isn't really meant to be a part of the US government.

What's happened is that the legislators have formed gangs that outlast all the term limits set up specifically to keep any single person in power long enough to overwhelm the democracy.

In answer to that, they formed gangs that answer to corporations, and those gangs give orders to whomever is sitting in an elected position at the time, and they call it a 'party'.