I remember a case where a woman cheated on her husband and when he found out he divorced her. The problem quickly became apparent when he discovered her boy toy she was banging on the side turned out to be the judge preceding over their case who overturned their prenump, gave her the house, his dog, both their cars, and everything else she didn't want herself. The only thing given to him was a massive alimony and since he was left with nothing he couldn't afford to take his case to a higher court. The system is fucked. We need a way to vote out judges and have something to have decisions overturned without a need for more unelected assholes to charge thousand for the privilege of them taking a look at your case
No we need to kill those types of judges. If we could vote them out, it would've happened. Besides the only way to teach the left any lesson is a barbaricly fatal one. That's what all leftists voters and voted deserve.
You know, I always thought about this. What is the check on rogue judges? Virtually none. They are almost untouchable, unless they engage in a felony. That isn't much of a check on their power.
Yeah, especially when the one determining if what you did counts as a felony is... Another Judge. The more I think about it the more the judiciary system starts looking like an even more fucked "big boys" club than our political class.
@@Rebellions dont forget fortune 500 companies, plenty of senators go on to be board members, same for judges, etc. Without a strong community able to veto its government without violence, the government will simply become some fucked up neo feudalism where land holding is not the only signature of being part of the neo nobility
Why would you even want one? The current crop are all incapable of doing the most basic of tasks, lack any form of respect and are lazy. What you need is a good ol' fashioned Asian.
Whenever a conservative (such as myself) says “Liberal” we really mean “Leftist” It’s really unfortunate that the words have become interchangeable. I believe the reason is because the Leftists took hold of the Democratic Party. The party usually consisted of libertarians, but as time passed Leftists started populating the DNC and eventually overshadowing the libertarians. That’s what I think at least, I could be wrong though.
ColonelEviscerator nah Congress could grow some balls for once. They can do some shit. Congress is insanely powerful when it gets over it's severe case of schizophrenia.
Lycan Seijin The best kind of Justice! Gimme my cape, and M60! The animals need to be fed!!! In all seriousness though, If they keep this shit up, my shitty jokes might become reality!
The problem is when the Founding Fathers created this system, it was understood that the judges were to leave their political biases at the door as much as possible and make their decisions based upon three things alone: precedent, the law, and the Constitution. Period. At some point, we started calling them "Conservative" and "Liberal" justices, and started keeping track of how many of each were on the bench. Lawyers now come into the Supreme Court knowing they must only swat Kennedy to their side to win, because 3 will be on their side no matter what, and 3 will be against them no matter what. That is a broken system. Then we have what you opined about: people literally fucking rewriting the Constitution based upon "interpretations", which is basically just "how I see the Constitution through the lens of my agenda". Hell, there is a reason that EVEN THIS is enshrined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Hamilton knew that someday, someone with an agenda would hold that position and attempt to use the powers of "interpretation" to get their way, thus why he said that the Supreme Court could only hear cases that "...concern the execution of the provisions **expressly contained** in the articles of Union” (bold for emphasis). The SCOTUS has been ignoring and abusing that power since Thrugood Marshall. And you're right to pillory that clown. Yes, he did some great things. He also made a precedent of creating, whole cloth, new law via Constitutional interpretation and the lazy misuse of the 14th amendment to create new rights from thin air.
About the whole Chicago torture case thing: From what I've gathered, yes, hate crime charges were dropped, but they were replaced with aggravated kidnapping charges, as you can't tack on Hate Crime charges in Illinois onto other charges (or so I've been told), any truth to that? I can't find any articles regarding the charges being dropped, even if I were to type in the exact headline into Google.
And you just saw why hate crimes are bullshit, your motives matter little to nothing, a crime is a crime regardless of motive, getting more or less prison sentence for your motives is bull
@Solid Thief As I understand the problem they will spend at least 10 year. That's what their new charges are liable to get them. the problem seems to stem from the fact that hate crime charges can't have something added to them or be added on top of another set of charges (for some mystical reason) and thus they decide to replace the hate crime charges with some that carry a heavier sentence. It's a catch 22 that should not exist in the first place tbh.
Thank god I found your channel and have been combing though all your old videos. That RBG part of this video can not be overstated today after her death.
The real problem isn't that they are unelected. The real problem is that they can effectively create new laws through their decisions through the power of precedent in the US judicial system. The precedent shouldn't have such absolute power, the only power and responsibility the Supreme Court should have in difficult, "landmark" cases is to demand the appropriate legislative bodies to improve the law and make it more clear in those difficult cases.
Got to disagree with you on one point; innocent until proven guilty has been the underlying lynchpin of English justice for centuries. It's only been in the last 30 years with the adoption of Continental style laws and Judges who envy the Napoleonic Code over Common Law that this has slowly been twisted on its head in the name of diversity, social justice and multiculturalism. The Founding Fathers merely transplanted Common Law from Britain to the Colonies and crystallised it beautifully.
Also, I don't agree with everything you say, but, as a liberal/democrat, I must say you are one of the most loud, out spoken, and smartest people I've seen on the internet. I love hearing both sides of an argument. Keep up the good work and keep doing what you're doing (or at least until the internet dies lolol).
As long as the government is capable of appointing the judges that interpret the constitution that is supposed to limit the government, it may as well be blank paper.
I know I'm fanning the flames of long-lasting controversy here, but I would like to clarify the position of a pro-lifer (in response to your "keeping the government out of the Fallopian tubes" comment). This is also a position I happen to agree with on the part of pro-lifers: Normally, I agree with the notion that the government should be kept out of such things like our reproductive organs, but I also recognize the job of the government (to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") includes protecting infant, human life--regardless of the real-estate that infant happens to reside in. The entire position of the pro-choice side in Roe v. Wade hinges on their presumption that an infant growing in a mother's womb is not human, and thus, is not entitled to the same basic human rights that you and I have. Whereas the pro-life claimants have put forward demonstrable evidence that the growing infant is, in fact, human, and that an even stronger case toward's the infant's human rights can be made over the fact that it is extremely likely that this growing infant will become a fully functioning and thinking human being. It was rightly pointed out by you, however, that the pro-choice side circumvented discussing this argument ENTIRELY in the courtroom, however, by merely failing to recognize the pro-life's choice of arguments and evidence presented. In short, the pro-choice side of the Supreme Court selectively called for "evidence" regarding the personhood of an unborn child while *entirely* ignoring the "human potential" argument of the pro-life side. To put simply they *failed* as judges because they did not consider or even acknowledge *all* evidence or arguments made by the claimants in that case. What they did was, not only bad Judiciary work, but outright ILLEGAL. There is a reason why Republican's are EAGERLY awaiting the Roe v. Wade case to be re-opened, and the decision made at the end of it to be overturned, it is because failing to consider/address any part of a claimants case (especially where relevance and meaning have been well established) is downright illegal. That said, the judges who failed to address all the arguments of the Pro-Life side *should* be ousted, fired, removed or what have you. Buuuuut, as Razorfist correctly stated, there is no mechanism for getting rid of incompetent judges who make bad legal decisions and/or bad precedence.
After you get over the STACCATO delivery (and the flowery language!), this is actually a VERY thorough going and well composed analysis of the SITCHIATIAN THAT WE IS IN!
I just want to say, honestly, you're the best "prepared video" I look forward to on RUclips. It's like hearing a new Rick and Morty came out. Even if I disagree (which I rarely can), it's an enjoyable experience. Thank you for the work you put into your channel. (p.s. just for extra viewer data, I don't watch the livestreams/gameplay videos. I'm here for the rants about sweet ass rants on metal and journalism and corruption.)
A convention of states is possible to push through an amendment to the Constitution that would put a massive check on the Supreme Court and all the circuit courts under it. Senators used to be appointed by the states and could be removed by them. But since the 17th amendment, Senators are now protected by the cabal of Congress.
One key example of judicial choice in terms of the Court's interpretation of the constitution is that no where in the first amendment is the phrase or even idea of a wall of separation even mentioned. Rather it was created purely by the Court, from a letter written by Jefferson to Baptists.
I think Hamilton and Jay summed up the problems with electing judges in their respective Federalist Papers on the subject. The Founders knew it could go either way, but figured that the best way forward was to try to separate the political world from the judiciary. The problem is so much of congress is corrupted that they don't use the method that the Founders gave them to make sure judges "...are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR" (Federalist No78) via the Articles of Impeachment. If congress was not so damn corrupt, and also if they could take the blow to their pride of voting to impeach and remove a bag judge despite confirming those judges in the Senate (which I think is the real problem here) then they could follow the will of at least the Federalists and remove the judges who don't seem to give one fuck about the law or the Constitution. That specific issue won't be solved by an amendment which changes Article III in order to set up elections for judges. Shitty Judges could be elected, and congress still won't impeach them if the judge's corruption benefits the majority party and their corrupt agenda. A solution is to enact Article V of the Constitution, call a State's Convention, and among other necessary amendments (like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Right to Privacy by Request Amendment) pout forth a Term Limits Amendment, which will limit congress to term limits, the judiciary to term limits, and all executive branch positions to term limits. A State's Convention could do that if you got enough state legislators on board, because they can bypass congress completely by the mechanism which the Founders created to do just that, Article V. However, I personally don't think that goes far enough. I would suggest and prefer the enactment of Article 5, but instead of making new amendments, the state legislators declare the current Federal Government corrupt and no longer able to govern the country In Good Behavior. Instead, the states write up a new Constitution, which is a carbon copy of our current one, with some modifications to make it so you can't misinterpret the 1st or 2nd amendments, add judicial review as a constitutional mechanism in Article III, and put in those necessary term limit and balanced budget types of amendments in the Expanded Bill of Rights, while at the same time rescinding the unlimited taxing potential of the 16th Amendment, and getting rid of the corruption inducing populism inherent in the 17th Amendment. It would basically fire the federal gvmt all at once, but instantly recreate it without the 7 thousand pages of bloat in the abridged Constitution via US code, throw out the tax code, and get rid of all the corrupt intel agencies and their protectors in congress who won't do any of the above themselves. New elections coming forthwith as enumerated, as the elections for the first gvmt after the Constitution was ratified created a precedent for, and then we will get back to something that resembles the Founder's ideals. It would be more complicated than that with reappointing naval secretaries and probably some sort of new, small and very limited intel and investigative agencies, then get back to being free people who can fail or succeed without the gvmt getting involved in our affairs, unless they have constitutional due process.
The corruption these days is staggering, and this one has been in play for a very long time. I remember going on about this very subject back when I was in highschool. Highschool for me ended way back in 1999. Granted England's legal system has long since failed, and the chaos is ready to go off in their union as it falls away from one, and Scottland may finally have enough of their ties to England. And people don't even see it coming.
They need to force Congress to release who we, as tax payers, have been paying millions in hush money to cover up for their sexual crimes. Millions of our money is used and we don't know which official is even using it. Maybe a F.O.I. request could get it.
The legislative branch is losing power to the executive and judiciary. The pile of representatives is losing power to the 1 guy who wins and the people he appointed. Absolute presidential power, here we come!
Justices are in fact impeachable by Congress and that is how they are removed from the Federal Bench when appointed for life. That being said, many states don't allow lifetime appointments for justices. For example in my Home state of Michigan Justices have to be continuously reelected or reappointed which also itself has a big caveat. Many Justices are appointed by the Governor which often leads here to Democrat after Democrat after Democrat pretty much until very recently with Gov. Rick Snyder.
Hey Razor, it'd be nice if we could see a link to the news source about the hate crime charges being dropped. It seems that the charges were UPGRADED from a hate crime to aggravated kidnaping/ransom.
I am trying to investigate the judges up for reelection here in Arizona. And it fucking SUCKS! I have to dig through each ones court decisions to find what activism they may have done.
Congress can impeach any federal judge but neither party wants to. Better for congress to get unpopular laws enacted by the bench than have to face the voters. Please, blame congress for not doing their jobs.
That's why they need a congressional override of supreme court decisions. Either a 2/3rds or 3/4ths override just like for presidential vetos. Supreme court term limits would be nice also.
Anchorman: "Rageaholic scandal update: Razor sleeps nude in an oxygen tent, which he believes gives him sexual powers!" Razor: "HEY! That's a half-truth!"
Jim Giant Hates it because it involves government intervention and possibly the ability to ban TCG’s as well for the same reason (gambling), but lootboxes suck is what I gathered from his Twitter
Pretty much my thoughts. I'm nowhere near as right wing as Razorfist but I don't trust politicians understand enough about gaming to write legislation which isn't either weak bullshit which is easy to find loopholes around or overreaches to the point of hurting innocent devs.
Jim Giant I disagree because they aren’t going to stop with this lootbox nonsense (especially with Wall Street admitting it was their idea to start with and promptly throwing a fit when EA removed the ability to buy credits with money shortly after Disney getting pissed off at them for the state of BF2) without an intervention, no matter how many people don’t buy them and protest because it’s not meant for them or us. It’s for the people who suffer from gambling addictions and whales who will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lootboxes. Whales are also where most freemium games make their money from too. This was inevitable.
Razor asks, "How do you fire one of these guys?" And every military person who ever had to deal with an obstructionist GS-government employee chuckles and repeats a phrase that is well known to us: "Act of Congress". They can't be fired. People who can't agree on a time of day looking at the same clock have to remove them. Imagine having a pretty well paying AND compensated job that you almost cannot be fired from. How many goats would you service for a job like that? So, you might be kinda loyal to the person who gave you that job, wouldn't you?
Love your channel, and I do agree with a lot of what you say. I could not agree with you more on the SCOTUS. And Roe is possibly the most insane decision in the history of the republic for the exact reasons you stated. I am against abortion, but per the US Constitution, it is a state level issue. There would have to be an amendment for it to be a Federal issue. Here is a fun fact about the separation of powers though, in the US system, ultimate power rests with the Legislature. Sure, the President can veto a bill, and then Congress can override the veto, and then the President could technically sue Congress and the SCOTUS could rule for the President and strike down the law. But then Congress and state Legislatures can create and Amendment....game/set/match. In my opinion, every Justice the voted for Roe should have been impeached and remvoed form office by Congress as that was clearly an illegal decision.
Life time appointment to any post is a horrible idea (King, anyone?) What's wrong with a 10 year SCOTUS term? And while we're at it, how about a consecutive terms limit for the Senate and House? These assholes who have been in Congress for 40 fucking years, making 60k a year but somehow manage a 3 million dollar house and a vacation cottage cause me to lift an eyebrow. Razorfist for any damn office you're interested in! But not for life. Just for the next 100 years.
You need to make the video longer had to watch it twice so I didn't miss the point but I think the point you're making as you're not calling for Supreme Court judges to be elected, you're calling for some sort of check against the Supreme Court to make them more accountable to their actions and limiting their power, right?
For there to be some effective way to remove Supreme and District justices that doesn't involve trying to get two-thirds of a hyper-partisan-polarized legislature to agree that they fouled up.
Rather than direct voting, maybe the judiciary should have terms. So after X years the process that put in them place has to be repeated. So they can be indirectly changed by voters picking politians that would make the changes.
The American court system of 12 jurors of one's peers and a defendant innocent until proven guilty is the old British system. It was not created by the American Constitution, but rather by the Magna Carta (originally to protect a small group of landowning elites from the tyranny of the crown, but its liberties extended to all free men). The only significant alteration made by the founding fathers was that no authority could deny a criminal defendant trial by jury in favour of a special tribunal (wherein a judge or panel of judges could be more readily influenced to give the desired verdict).
Answering your political science ? It is the legislative who has power over the judicial. If they don't act... Article 5 in Constitution...CONVENTION OF STATES! Happening in a state near you...ADD YOUR VOICE. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!
Hey Razor, you think you could do a video on the recent controversies surrounding defining lootboxes and whatnot as gambling? It fills the obvious checkbox of being gaming related but also has political elements seeing as politicians and government committees are starting to really investigate it. I would love to see that caustic wit of yours pointed in Valves direction (the CS:GO gambling incident), what with all the people who just love to forgive all the bullshit they pull.
See I've been mulling this one over here in Australia, where our High Court is basically a facsimile of the American Supreme Court (Hey there's a reason our political system is oft referred to as a 'Washminster' system). I don't think it's a bad idea for the highest judges to be unelected, given that every now and then there needs to be a bulwark against populist zeal that can act without worrying about job security to curb the worst aspects of populism. My thoughts, as part of a longer series of thoughts on how I think our constitution ought to be altered when we inevitably become a republic (I hope in my lift time) is this: Judges may never have been a member of a political or activist organisation at any point in their lives. I'd also apply this idea to our President when we get one. For the simple reason that I think the Executive and Judicial branches should be as apolitical as humanly possible. Given that their role is not to make laws but to enact and enforce them. Admittedly this would be a stretch and a half for the USA since you guys have this fucked up system where your register as a member of a party when you register to vote, something that does not happen in any other first world democracy that I am aware of.
Приколы
![*SUPER RARE* THE PARADIGM IS BACK?!?!? Fortnite Item Shop [August 6th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru6xSH1RaPw/mqdefault.jpg)
New rant from Razor?
I came.
I saw.
I came again.
Goldust quote?
You win the comments section, good sir.
Pretty sure that was Val Venis my dude.
He's like a greasier version of Styxenhammer666, may he rest in peace.
10/10, would fap a second time.
I see quark, I see the name, I thumb up
VERY PERTINENT - Razor is a time traveler.
Greetings, traveler of the past. The future is ridiculous and full of coomers.
This is the only reasonable explanation haha
Nostradamus strikes again.
I remember a case where a woman cheated on her husband and when he found out he divorced her. The problem quickly became apparent when he discovered her boy toy she was banging on the side turned out to be the judge preceding over their case who overturned their prenump, gave her the house, his dog, both their cars, and everything else she didn't want herself. The only thing given to him was a massive alimony and since he was left with nothing he couldn't afford to take his case to a higher court. The system is fucked. We need a way to vote out judges and have something to have decisions overturned without a need for more unelected assholes to charge thousand for the privilege of them taking a look at your case
I'd really like a source for this. I'm sure something like this has happened, but I would like info on the actual case.
All he'd have to do is report this to the state bar, and the judge would be screwed... Again...
I remember that case out of Detroit, 'set`m free McCree,' that's what the criminal element used to call him.
You're almost right, but voting and elections won't save us from that, picking up guns and killing is the only solution.
No we need to kill those types of judges. If we could vote them out, it would've happened. Besides the only way to teach the left any lesson is a barbaricly fatal one. That's what all leftists voters and voted deserve.
You know, I always thought about this. What is the check on rogue judges? Virtually none. They are almost untouchable, unless they engage in a felony. That isn't much of a check on their power.
Yeah, especially when the one determining if what you did counts as a felony is... Another Judge.
The more I think about it the more the judiciary system starts looking like an even more fucked "big boys" club than our political class.
@@Rebellions dont forget fortune 500 companies, plenty of senators go on to be board members, same for judges, etc. Without a strong community able to veto its government without violence, the government will simply become some fucked up neo feudalism where land holding is not the only signature of being part of the neo nobility
We are being inundated with all these Black Friday commercials, ads and signs...
but I haven't seen even ONE Black on sale.
Oh you
good joke.....but i have a fucked up sense of humor so take my laughing lightly....lolz
Why would you even want one? The current crop are all incapable of doing the most basic of tasks, lack any form of respect and are lazy.
What you need is a good ol' fashioned Asian.
Shhhhhheeeeeiiiit
It's BLACK Friday. Everything is free for BLACK people!!!
Since Pelosi’s last period!?!? Holy crap I almost choked on my coffee!
The judicial system is the original pay to win.
Take notes, EA.
just like the pro victim jews where the original sjws.
Ducksauce Except in their defense they had and still have a good reason for being persecuted. At least the decent ones. One word: Holocaust.
Jesus Christ, your rants are the best in human history.
Please don't associate all libertarians with the lolbertarian party. Otherwise spot on. Thank you.
Whenever a conservative (such as myself) says “Liberal” we really mean “Leftist”
It’s really unfortunate that the words have become interchangeable.
I believe the reason is because the Leftists took hold of the Democratic Party.
The party usually consisted of libertarians, but as time passed Leftists started populating the DNC and eventually overshadowing the libertarians.
That’s what I think at least, I could be wrong though.
The only way to recall the unelected is via prodigious use of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, what is just is not always legal.
ColonelEviscerator nah Congress could grow some balls for once. They can do some shit. Congress is insanely powerful when it gets over it's severe case of schizophrenia.
Under tyranny it never is...
So...vigilante justice is the answer?
Lycan Seijin The Shadow knows! Hahahaha!
Lycan Seijin Man, where's the Punisher when you need him?
Shotgun Justice.
Not vengeance. Punishment.
On Netflix
Lycan Seijin
The best kind of Justice! Gimme my cape, and M60! The animals need to be fed!!!
In all seriousness though, If they keep this shit up, my shitty jokes might become reality!
The problem is when the Founding Fathers created this system, it was understood that the judges were to leave their political biases at the door as much as possible and make their decisions based upon three things alone: precedent, the law, and the Constitution. Period. At some point, we started calling them "Conservative" and "Liberal" justices, and started keeping track of how many of each were on the bench. Lawyers now come into the Supreme Court knowing they must only swat Kennedy to their side to win, because 3 will be on their side no matter what, and 3 will be against them no matter what. That is a broken system.
Then we have what you opined about: people literally fucking rewriting the Constitution based upon "interpretations", which is basically just "how I see the Constitution through the lens of my agenda". Hell, there is a reason that EVEN THIS is enshrined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Hamilton knew that someday, someone with an agenda would hold that position and attempt to use the powers of "interpretation" to get their way, thus why he said that the Supreme Court could only hear cases that "...concern the execution of the provisions **expressly contained** in the articles of Union” (bold for emphasis). The SCOTUS has been ignoring and abusing that power since Thrugood Marshall. And you're right to pillory that clown. Yes, he did some great things. He also made a precedent of creating, whole cloth, new law via Constitutional interpretation and the lazy misuse of the 14th amendment to create new rights from thin air.
About the whole Chicago torture case thing:
From what I've gathered, yes, hate crime charges were dropped, but they were replaced with aggravated kidnapping charges, as you can't tack on Hate Crime charges in Illinois onto other charges (or so I've been told), any truth to that? I can't find any articles regarding the charges being dropped, even if I were to type in the exact headline into Google.
Bruce Crum thats what I've been made to understand. The charge the repaced the Hate Crime with carries a stiffer sentence.
And you just saw why hate crimes are bullshit, your motives matter little to nothing, a crime is a crime regardless of motive, getting more or less prison sentence for your motives is bull
It's a shame they can't be executed for what they did.
They can't execute for torture?
@Solid Thief
As I understand the problem they will spend at least 10 year. That's what their new charges are liable to get them.
the problem seems to stem from the fact that hate crime charges can't have something added to them or be added on top of another set of charges (for some mystical reason) and thus they decide to replace the hate crime charges with some that carry a heavier sentence.
It's a catch 22 that should not exist in the first place tbh.
Hi Razor, 2022 here:
WELL DONE SIR!!! Aged like fine wine!
Thank god I found your channel and have been combing though all your old videos. That RBG part of this video can not be overstated today after her death.
It is ironic that the courts quote Thomas Jefferson when he referred to the courts as the despotic branch.
Term fucking limit them all! Appointed for life? Might as well be 9 little kings...
And we should go the french route. "VIVE LA REVELOUTION"
The real problem isn't that they are unelected. The real problem is that they can effectively create new laws through their decisions through the power of precedent in the US judicial system. The precedent shouldn't have such absolute power, the only power and responsibility the Supreme Court should have in difficult, "landmark" cases is to demand the appropriate legislative bodies to improve the law and make it more clear in those difficult cases.
I think the solution to that would be to let the states decide if they want to make it law. A simple majority of the states should do nicely
This and that they are unelected...
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed. It's bullshit that no one can override it.
Got to disagree with you on one point; innocent until proven guilty has been the underlying lynchpin of English justice for centuries. It's only been in the last 30 years with the adoption of Continental style laws and Judges who envy the Napoleonic Code over Common Law that this has slowly been twisted on its head in the name of diversity, social justice and multiculturalism. The Founding Fathers merely transplanted Common Law from Britain to the Colonies and crystallised it beautifully.
But my home state, Louisiana is built on the napoleonic code
Also, I don't agree with everything you say, but, as a liberal/democrat, I must say you are one of the most loud, out spoken, and smartest people I've seen on the internet. I love hearing both sides of an argument. Keep up the good work and keep doing what you're doing (or at least until the internet dies lolol).
...or at least until RUclips shitcans the channel. Thanks, bro.
Nice rant as always, but I'm pretty surprised it wasn't a EA rant that was next though.
Careful what you wish for....
I WISH IT!!!! I WISH IT!!!!! I want to know your views on EA.
The Rageaholic YOU.....WON'T.......DO......IT!!!!!
please do it please do it please do it!
Do it, razorfist, do it.
*JUST DO IIIIIIIIIT!!!*
The Rageaholic (Palpatine voice engaged) Do it!
This aged well.
As long as the government is capable of appointing the judges that interpret the constitution that is supposed to limit the government, it may as well be blank paper.
MAN that was a rant! I flinched a little at the end. A good razor fist rant gets you amped.
Razor, you're helping me get through my forced playthrough of PREY 2017. Thanks for distracting me from this lazy, pandering bullshit.
Considering Ginsburg is asleep half the time she's on the bench, I'm surprised she can make a coherent argument at all regarding cases.
I know I'm fanning the flames of long-lasting controversy here, but I would like to clarify the position of a pro-lifer (in response to your "keeping the government out of the Fallopian tubes" comment). This is also a position I happen to agree with on the part of pro-lifers:
Normally, I agree with the notion that the government should be kept out of such things like our reproductive organs, but I also recognize the job of the government (to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") includes protecting infant, human life--regardless of the real-estate that infant happens to reside in.
The entire position of the pro-choice side in Roe v. Wade hinges on their presumption that an infant growing in a mother's womb is not human, and thus, is not entitled to the same basic human rights that you and I have. Whereas the pro-life claimants have put forward demonstrable evidence that the growing infant is, in fact, human, and that an even stronger case toward's the infant's human rights can be made over the fact that it is extremely likely that this growing infant will become a fully functioning and thinking human being.
It was rightly pointed out by you, however, that the pro-choice side circumvented discussing this argument ENTIRELY in the courtroom, however, by merely failing to recognize the pro-life's choice of arguments and evidence presented.
In short, the pro-choice side of the Supreme Court selectively called for "evidence" regarding the personhood of an unborn child while *entirely* ignoring the "human potential" argument of the pro-life side. To put simply they *failed* as judges because they did not consider or even acknowledge *all* evidence or arguments made by the claimants in that case. What they did was, not only bad Judiciary work, but outright ILLEGAL.
There is a reason why Republican's are EAGERLY awaiting the Roe v. Wade case to be re-opened, and the decision made at the end of it to be overturned, it is because failing to consider/address any part of a claimants case (especially where relevance and meaning have been well established) is downright illegal.
That said, the judges who failed to address all the arguments of the Pro-Life side *should* be ousted, fired, removed or what have you. Buuuuut, as Razorfist correctly stated, there is no mechanism for getting rid of incompetent judges who make bad legal decisions and/or bad precedence.
i sometimes wonder if i may get to see the day where a federal judge gets burned at the stake followed by jury nullification
Just came after the stream and damn! If only Razor could predict lottery numbers this well he'd be a billionaire!
After you get over the STACCATO delivery (and the flowery language!), this is actually a VERY thorough going and well composed analysis of the SITCHIATIAN THAT WE IS IN!
“The Stench from the Bench “. 😂. Epiccccc
Spot on as usual. Trump needs to act more like Andrew Jackson with regards to the judiciary.
To quote Frederik Bastiat: "The law perverted!"
Rage is a lyrical genius.
just want to come back here just to say
OH BOI YOU WERE FUCKING RIGHT
I just want to say, honestly, you're the best "prepared video" I look forward to on RUclips. It's like hearing a new Rick and Morty came out. Even if I disagree (which I rarely can), it's an enjoyable experience. Thank you for the work you put into your channel. (p.s. just for extra viewer data, I don't watch the livestreams/gameplay videos. I'm here for the rants about sweet ass rants on metal and journalism and corruption.)
love the rants. i look for them every day
A convention of states is possible to push through an amendment to the Constitution that would put a massive check on the Supreme Court and all the circuit courts under it. Senators used to be appointed by the states and could be removed by them. But since the 17th amendment, Senators are now protected by the cabal of Congress.
One key example of judicial choice in terms of the Court's interpretation of the constitution is that no where in the first amendment is the phrase or even idea of a wall of separation even mentioned. Rather it was created purely by the Court, from a letter written by Jefferson to Baptists.
I think Hamilton and Jay summed up the problems with electing judges in their respective Federalist Papers on the subject. The Founders knew it could go either way, but figured that the best way forward was to try to separate the political world from the judiciary.
The problem is so much of congress is corrupted that they don't use the method that the Founders gave them to make sure judges "...are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR" (Federalist No78) via the Articles of Impeachment. If congress was not so damn corrupt, and also if they could take the blow to their pride of voting to impeach and remove a bag judge despite confirming those judges in the Senate (which I think is the real problem here) then they could follow the will of at least the Federalists and remove the judges who don't seem to give one fuck about the law or the Constitution.
That specific issue won't be solved by an amendment which changes Article III in order to set up elections for judges. Shitty Judges could be elected, and congress still won't impeach them if the judge's corruption benefits the majority party and their corrupt agenda.
A solution is to enact Article V of the Constitution, call a State's Convention, and among other necessary amendments (like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Right to Privacy by Request Amendment) pout forth a Term Limits Amendment, which will limit congress to term limits, the judiciary to term limits, and all executive branch positions to term limits. A State's Convention could do that if you got enough state legislators on board, because they can bypass congress completely by the mechanism which the Founders created to do just that, Article V.
However, I personally don't think that goes far enough. I would suggest and prefer the enactment of Article 5, but instead of making new amendments, the state legislators declare the current Federal Government corrupt and no longer able to govern the country In Good Behavior. Instead, the states write up a new Constitution, which is a carbon copy of our current one, with some modifications to make it so you can't misinterpret the 1st or 2nd amendments, add judicial review as a constitutional mechanism in Article III, and put in those necessary term limit and balanced budget types of amendments in the Expanded Bill of Rights, while at the same time rescinding the unlimited taxing potential of the 16th Amendment, and getting rid of the corruption inducing populism inherent in the 17th Amendment. It would basically fire the federal gvmt all at once, but instantly recreate it without the 7 thousand pages of bloat in the abridged Constitution via US code, throw out the tax code, and get rid of all the corrupt intel agencies and their protectors in congress who won't do any of the above themselves. New elections coming forthwith as enumerated, as the elections for the first gvmt after the Constitution was ratified created a precedent for, and then we will get back to something that resembles the Founder's ideals. It would be more complicated than that with reappointing naval secretaries and probably some sort of new, small and very limited intel and investigative agencies, then get back to being free people who can fail or succeed without the gvmt getting involved in our affairs, unless they have constitutional due process.
The corruption these days is staggering, and this one has been in play for a very long time. I remember going on about this very subject back when I was in highschool. Highschool for me ended way back in 1999. Granted England's legal system has long since failed, and the chaos is ready to go off in their union as it falls away from one, and Scottland may finally have enough of their ties to England. And people don't even see it coming.
Haaaaay, Captain Hindsight here. ain't this great?
They need to force Congress to release who we, as tax payers, have been paying millions in hush money to cover up for their sexual crimes. Millions of our money is used and we don't know which official is even using it. Maybe a F.O.I. request could get it.
This video continues to age like a fine glass of wine.
It's becoming more and more appearent the Judiciary has become a blight.
The legislative branch is losing power to the executive and judiciary. The pile of representatives is losing power to the 1 guy who wins and the people he appointed. Absolute presidential power, here we come!
Justices are in fact impeachable by Congress and that is how they are removed from the Federal Bench when appointed for life. That being said, many states don't allow lifetime appointments for justices. For example in my Home state of Michigan Justices have to be continuously reelected or reappointed which also itself has a big caveat. Many Justices are appointed by the Governor which often leads here to Democrat after Democrat after Democrat pretty much until very recently with Gov. Rick Snyder.
Fuck me you were right
I want to yell YEAH!!!!!! after everyone of your videos. It's a rare talent you have, indeed.
Civil War when? Let's settle this shit!
Hey Razor, it'd be nice if we could see a link to the news source about the hate crime charges being dropped. It seems that the charges were UPGRADED from a hate crime to aggravated kidnaping/ransom.
I am trying to investigate the judges up for reelection here in Arizona. And it fucking SUCKS! I have to dig through each ones court decisions to find what activism they may have done.
Congress can impeach any federal judge but neither party wants to. Better for congress to get unpopular laws enacted by the bench than have to face the voters. Please, blame congress for not doing their jobs.
I just realized how much of this (possibly the whole thing) is a single take. Damn.
You are so fucking hilarious that even my blue balled brethren can’t help laughing at themselves when I play your rants. 😂😆. Godfuckingspeed indeed.
Spluuged a little in my pants on that rant Razorfist!
Razorfist for President!
All Hail Razorfist!
I got reccommended this video by a friend.
Insta subbed.
The Legislative branch has the power to impeach judges.
Good luck with that in our hyper-polarized congress.
Don't worry Razor. At least your judiciary system isn't prosecuting people for jokes.
That's why they need a congressional override of supreme court decisions. Either a 2/3rds or 3/4ths override just like for presidential vetos.
Supreme court term limits would be nice also.
I know this is a old comment but I haven't thought of the first part of your comment before.
Anchorman: "Rageaholic scandal update: Razor sleeps nude in an oxygen tent, which he believes gives him sexual powers!"
Razor: "HEY! That's a half-truth!"
70's Scorpions is just as awesome as 70's Priest. We need a Scorpions and Michael Schenker mythos.
Not an American here, I am from India. But heck man I am floored and addicted!!! You should run for office someday man...
Thoughts on the proposed loot box ban?
Jim Giant Hates it because it involves government intervention and possibly the ability to ban TCG’s as well for the same reason (gambling), but lootboxes suck is what I gathered from his Twitter
Pretty much my thoughts. I'm nowhere near as right wing as Razorfist but I don't trust politicians understand enough about gaming to write legislation which isn't either weak bullshit which is easy to find loopholes around or overreaches to the point of hurting innocent devs.
Jim Giant I disagree because they aren’t going to stop with this lootbox nonsense (especially with Wall Street admitting it was their idea to start with and promptly throwing a fit when EA removed the ability to buy credits with money shortly after Disney getting pissed off at them for the state of BF2) without an intervention, no matter how many people don’t buy them and protest because it’s not meant for them or us. It’s for the people who suffer from gambling addictions and whales who will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lootboxes. Whales are also where most freemium games make their money from too. This was inevitable.
Razor asks, "How do you fire one of these guys?" And every military person who ever had to deal with an obstructionist GS-government employee chuckles and repeats a phrase that is well known to us: "Act of Congress". They can't be fired. People who can't agree on a time of day looking at the same clock have to remove them. Imagine having a pretty well paying AND compensated job that you almost cannot be fired from. How many goats would you service for a job like that? So, you might be kinda loyal to the person who gave you that job, wouldn't you?
"There's Piping Fresh Fuckery Afoot" - Razorfist
Me: well put master.
I heard the whole hate crime was dropped for a harsher thing.
Love your channel, and I do agree with a lot of what you say. I could not agree with you more on the SCOTUS. And Roe is possibly the most insane decision in the history of the republic for the exact reasons you stated. I am against abortion, but per the US Constitution, it is a state level issue. There would have to be an amendment for it to be a Federal issue. Here is a fun fact about the separation of powers though, in the US system, ultimate power rests with the Legislature. Sure, the President can veto a bill, and then Congress can override the veto, and then the President could technically sue Congress and the SCOTUS could rule for the President and strike down the law. But then Congress and state Legislatures can create and Amendment....game/set/match. In my opinion, every Justice the voted for Roe should have been impeached and remvoed form office by Congress as that was clearly an illegal decision.
Keep speaking the truth, Raz0r! One of your best rants yet. The judiciary is out of control
I expected justice for all from metallica to play us out
Yep.
Man if you ever went to see a psychiatrist I think their head would explode scanners style.
Dude I would sooo buy a book of poetry written by you....angry poetry.
Damn, this aged like fine wine dude.
Since when has America had a perfect judicial system? In reality we all have justice.... for the rich
Life time appointment to any post is a horrible idea (King, anyone?) What's wrong with a 10 year SCOTUS term? And while we're at it, how about a consecutive terms limit for the Senate and House? These assholes who have been in Congress for 40 fucking years, making 60k a year but somehow manage a 3 million dollar house and a vacation cottage cause me to lift an eyebrow. Razorfist for any damn office you're interested in! But not for life. Just for the next 100 years.
Razorfist? Yes please!
You need to make the video longer had to watch it twice so I didn't miss the point but I think the point you're making as you're not calling for Supreme Court judges to be elected, you're calling for some sort of check against the Supreme Court to make them more accountable to their actions and limiting their power, right?
For there to be some effective way to remove Supreme and District justices that doesn't involve trying to get two-thirds of a hyper-partisan-polarized legislature to agree that they fouled up.
Juliet Hotel please elaborate. 👍
Rather than direct voting, maybe the judiciary should have terms. So after X years the process that put in them place has to be repeated. So they can be indirectly changed by voters picking politians that would make the changes.
Well spoken, well read, sharp, clever, insightful... you know, if you had a British accent, you'd be touring college campuses!
Prophetic.
Figured I'd watch it one more time while I'm still able!
Exactly right I thought that for years even when I was a kid
The American court system of 12 jurors of one's peers and a defendant innocent until proven guilty is the old British system. It was not created by the American Constitution, but rather by the Magna Carta (originally to protect a small group of landowning elites from the tyranny of the crown, but its liberties extended to all free men). The only significant alteration made by the founding fathers was that no authority could deny a criminal defendant trial by jury in favour of a special tribunal (wherein a judge or panel of judges could be more readily influenced to give the desired verdict).
The fact of the matter is that our system is as susceptible to activist justices as Navajos were susceptible to fucking small pox.
Answering your political science ? It is the legislative who has power over the judicial.
If they don't act...
Article 5 in Constitution...CONVENTION OF STATES!
Happening in a state near you...ADD YOUR VOICE. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!
In theory, the check and balance of a Judge is the law itself.
Hey Razor, you think you could do a video on the recent controversies surrounding defining lootboxes and whatnot as gambling? It fills the obvious checkbox of being gaming related but also has political elements seeing as politicians and government committees are starting to really investigate it. I would love to see that caustic wit of yours pointed in Valves direction (the CS:GO gambling incident), what with all the people who just love to forgive all the bullshit they pull.
Piping fresh fuckery, indeed..
Thank you Razor! I toast to you tonight!! Prost!
Razorfist dislikes the House of Lords
Dude how could you have not done a metal mythos for Raven or Armored Saint yet?
as a wheelchair user I must be cautious in certain neighbourhoods in America
Either we get for life apointees, or we can swap over to random lotteries replaced every decade.
See I've been mulling this one over here in Australia, where our High Court is basically a facsimile of the American Supreme Court (Hey there's a reason our political system is oft referred to as a 'Washminster' system).
I don't think it's a bad idea for the highest judges to be unelected, given that every now and then there needs to be a bulwark against populist zeal that can act without worrying about job security to curb the worst aspects of populism.
My thoughts, as part of a longer series of thoughts on how I think our constitution ought to be altered when we inevitably become a republic (I hope in my lift time) is this: Judges may never have been a member of a political or activist organisation at any point in their lives. I'd also apply this idea to our President when we get one.
For the simple reason that I think the Executive and Judicial branches should be as apolitical as humanly possible. Given that their role is not to make laws but to enact and enforce them.
Admittedly this would be a stretch and a half for the USA since you guys have this fucked up system where your register as a member of a party when you register to vote, something that does not happen in any other first world democracy that I am aware of.
About a hundred videos in on Razorfist and am continually amazed how few of his old videos end up losing prescience as time passes.
Love the video razor
Soooooo civil war on chiraq when?
Black Friday! Paint with blood upon the wall!
Was that udo derkschneider!!! Hell yeah!!