My constitutional law professor suggested that justices of the US Supreme Court should be selected at random from the voting lists, a disconcerting suggestion for an assembly of law students.
What a moronic idea. This supposed constitutional law professor patently hasn’t a clue of common law and it’s history. Elected judges is a frankly farcical notion, it’s untempered democracy gone amuck and worst of all, it’s ahistorical and sharply ineffective. As the great David Starkey once said, lawyers often make poor historians. That rings true here.
They are of such a high standard, and cover such a vast range of subjects, that it it is perhaps inevitable that some are not as interesting as others. I thought Lady Rose had put a lot of work into researching the subject, and I did learn some things that made me reflect on the nature of the judge's' role in a different light.
“You need to be clever to do my job.” Obviously not clever enough to understand that the UK Supreme Court, rather its American counterpart, has no basis in history and therefore can only ever be expected to function ineffectively. Both are rotten trees sprouted from rotten roots: the Separation of Powers. This philosophy is alien to England-as alien as its originator, the intellectual huckster Montesquieu. Worse than that though, it’s completely and indefensibly ahistorical. It’s only some two decades old, and one understands-as is evident here-why a sitting “Justice” must conjure up reasons for existing. You be hard pressed to find any of these reasons in the historical fabric of England. But that’s what magicians are I suppose: tricksters; they must justify their existence somehow, it’s just they can’t do it honestly or historically.
I would argue that the seperation of powers in not alien to England; the opposite it true - England was one of the earliest constitutions that recognised the value of the seperation of powers, do you not remember Maga Carta and the English Civil War? And why should a court have to have its basis in history? To only base one's institutions on what has gone before is to deny the possibilty of radical improvement. Improvement is improvement whether it is gradual or instantaneous.
@@tlangdon12 Magna Carta has precisely zero to do with separation of powers, that’s frankly laughable. I advise a closer reading of the actual effective Magna Carta when it was reissued in 1216 by William Marshal without all the radical articles and not the one everyone wrongly points to ie 1215 charter. Magna Carta is not a constitutional document per se, it is a practical document born of the moment, a peace treaty between barons and crown in the face of a French royal claimant and civil war. Secondly, separation of powers IS demonstrably alien to England. Evidence suggests Montesquieu could not practically read English and when he lived in England in 1740s, he read a poorly translated French version of Lord Bolingbroke’s “The Patriot King” which falsely posits a number of Whig misconceptions of the 18th century English body politic. From this he derived his moronic theory-rather than actually observing or studying English government in action. Case and point: The executive (Prime Minister) sits in the legislature and has a parliamentary seat, so to does the head of the judiciary (Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords). Not so separate eh? The entire theory of separation of powers can be ripped to shreds by the merest application of the actual functioning of English government. Not from rotten roots do strong oaks spring, and the United States-the eldest and most successful of England’s stock-is living this as we speak, and it’s fragmenting because this nonsense theory derived from false principles and faulty history is eating it alive.
My constitutional law professor suggested that justices of the US Supreme Court should be selected at random from the voting lists, a disconcerting suggestion for an assembly of law students.
That's not a bad idea. Get some ordinary, real people on that bench.
Not surprised a constitutional law professor would choose to subvert democracy!
@@bazsnell3178 Few of whom would be able to handle the complexity of the cases that came before them...
What a moronic idea. This supposed constitutional law professor patently hasn’t a clue of common law and it’s history. Elected judges is a frankly farcical notion, it’s untempered democracy gone amuck and worst of all, it’s ahistorical and sharply ineffective. As the great David Starkey once said, lawyers often make poor historians. That rings true here.
This is the very first Gresham lecture I found disappointing.
They are of such a high standard, and cover such a vast range of subjects, that it it is perhaps inevitable that some are not as interesting as others. I thought Lady Rose had put a lot of work into researching the subject, and I did learn some things that made me reflect on the nature of the judge's' role in a different light.
One who doesn’t base decisions on political belief’s.
“You need to be clever to do my job.” Obviously not clever enough to understand that the UK Supreme Court, rather its American counterpart, has no basis in history and therefore can only ever be expected to function ineffectively. Both are rotten trees sprouted from rotten roots: the Separation of Powers. This philosophy is alien to England-as alien as its originator, the intellectual huckster Montesquieu. Worse than that though, it’s completely and indefensibly ahistorical. It’s only some two decades old, and one understands-as is evident here-why a sitting “Justice” must conjure up reasons for existing. You be hard pressed to find any of these reasons in the historical fabric of England. But that’s what magicians are I suppose: tricksters; they must justify their existence somehow, it’s just they can’t do it honestly or historically.
I would argue that the seperation of powers in not alien to England; the opposite it true - England was one of the earliest constitutions that recognised the value of the seperation of powers, do you not remember Maga Carta and the English Civil War? And why should a court have to have its basis in history? To only base one's institutions on what has gone before is to deny the possibilty of radical improvement. Improvement is improvement whether it is gradual or instantaneous.
@@tlangdon12 Magna Carta has precisely zero to do with separation of powers, that’s frankly laughable. I advise a closer reading of the actual effective Magna Carta when it was reissued in 1216 by William Marshal without all the radical articles and not the one everyone wrongly points to ie 1215 charter. Magna Carta is not a constitutional document per se, it is a practical document born of the moment, a peace treaty between barons and crown in the face of a French royal claimant and civil war. Secondly, separation of powers IS demonstrably alien to England. Evidence suggests Montesquieu could not practically read English and when he lived in England in 1740s, he read a poorly translated French version of Lord Bolingbroke’s “The Patriot King” which falsely posits a number of Whig misconceptions of the 18th century English body politic. From this he derived his moronic theory-rather than actually observing or studying English government in action. Case and point: The executive (Prime Minister) sits in the legislature and has a parliamentary seat, so to does the head of the judiciary (Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords). Not so separate eh? The entire theory of separation of powers can be ripped to shreds by the merest application of the actual functioning of English government. Not from rotten roots do strong oaks spring, and the United States-the eldest and most successful of England’s stock-is living this as we speak, and it’s fragmenting because this nonsense theory derived from false principles and faulty history is eating it alive.