Project 2025

This is a lie, there are no rape/incest exceptions in multiple states, and the politicians you go to bat for absolutely want a complete nationwide ban.

"The head of Project 2025 called my kids' favorite playground 'anti-family'"

A key Project 2025 leader has taken aim at America's real problem: dog parks

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, "the park's use of land is
tilted too heavily in favor of childless dog owners and away from parents"

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/project-2025-swampoodle-dog-park-rcna166791

MSNBC.com

Opinion | The head of Project 2025 called my kids' favorite playground 'anti-family'

I would love for you to actually go into detail about any of this stuff. I have no reason to believe you are representing these things correctly. For one, I don’t have any background information that can confirm to me that the entirety of the policing apparatus is independent in the UK and Italy. And while you’re championing the investigative power of the congress being supreme to all, that investigative power is partisan, and it’s not all that uncommon for the executive to not fully cooperate with the legislative branch ever since the Republicans tried to use Lewinski as the original fake impeachment, and Benghazi as the original Russiagate.

I’m not going to prostrate myself to condemn Biden as you want me to when you spend almost 0% of your time on this forum condemning Trump’s politicization and abuse of our institutions, and calling out every single one of Biden’s at the top of your lungs, even though Trump ran up the score on those issues. Yeah sometimes you give some tepid criticism but it is usually lukewarm and rate.

The prosecuting in Italy and the UK, not the policing, is completely independent.

In Italy prosecutors are part of the independent judiciary. They select themselves and regulate themselves and are completely sovereign on their field.

It's deeply anti democratic yes.

Not sure which part you misunderstood of what I wrote, I said the executive can oppose privilege to the house, and then it's a strongarming competition, as co-equals.

Congress supreme over each and all non elected bodies yes (except the judiciary).

You use partisan as if that was a negative.

Partisan means political, representing the will of the people at the time of the vote.

Partisan mean "the expression of democratic will", the opposite is "disregarding the will of the people".

The will of the people should be sovereign in all matters with absolute no exceptions within the limits of the constitution, as determined by the judiciary.

I am not condemning Biden for using the DOJ as he sees fit. I am saying the DOJ is not independent and it should be formalized as such.

Fair enough, even though you pretty much just restated again something I was asking for context on, Italy does seem to be completely independent in their prosecutors. Honestly seems like a pretty bad system all in all, not sure how much the complete independence contributes to that, but not looking for exculpatory evidence and having to automatically prosecute every single case seems like some pretty silly rules, but I didn't look too much into it.

The UK is also independent, but since it was created by an act of parliament, it appears that their independence is strictly a norm, just like a lot of things in the United States. We share a common system of using common law and other norms to decide cases and how things should be run. The fact that every now and again a norm might be contravened, like for instance Boris Johnson using the power of the Queen to compel parliament back into session, despite the fact that the Queen supposedly has no power in the system other than ceremonial, shows that the idea of an "independent prosecution" in the UK is really a matter of NORM and not a matter of CONSTITUTION. Just like the United States constitution has nothing that says that the prosecutors of the DoJ (they also have police force which is why I mentioned it) can by and large be independent despite people like Nixon, Trump, and perhaps it can be argued Biden when he used executive immunity have violated that norm.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-e...

See above. The whole notion that the .01% of the time (in non-Trump/Nixon presidencies) should make it pointless that the DoJ is largely seen as independent in its role means that it is a completely partisan institution is ludicrous.

Yes, perhaps this is a problem of terminology, because I'm using partisan in the sense it is used in American parlance. Partisan, when used pejoratively, basically means that the use of some institution is done for the goal of advancing the aims of a political party. Also the will of the people and the will of partisan interests is generally separated out, because the American people tends to be pretty schizophrenic and weird in its views, or at least they don't match perfectly well with what's going on in the political parties. Remember, the first president under the constitutional system was Washington, who was not a part of a political party and largely hated the idea of having them. So Americans do tend to, or at least they used to before Trump, want to have some semblance of continuity and unity within its system that allows for us to understand that while we are adversaries politically, we all strive towards one common goal which is the betterment of America.

So yeah it's hard for me to understand wanting a completely partisan DoJ that conducts its affairs based on the political whims of either congress or the presidency. I want the DoJ to investigate democrats when they commit campaign finance violations or take bribes, regardless of who is in office. I say that as someone who embraces partisanship every day of my political life, and believes that for POLITICAL PARTIES, it's good to not cede ground to the other side when they don't want to give us any charity whatsoever. I still don't want the DoJ to be investigating random Republicans who haven't committed a crime in the hopes that they catch them snorting cocaine or something stupid like that.

So yeah, to summarize, I don't buy this binary system you've set up where if Biden thinks that congress is overstepping their bounds to make the DoJ do something it never does, not even in the Trump case, and uses his executive power to block it, that means he might as well use the DoJ to investigate whether JD Vance ever did financial crime when he worked for Peter Thiel or some stupid crap like that. And just because they investigate Trump, who they gave every leeway to that no person in history other than an ex-president would ever get in both of his federal charges , that doesn't mean they are doing so because Democrats elected Biden to put Trump in jail. Nor should they do that!

Only reason i didn't provide sources is because in my google only italian ones come out because of geolocalization and search history.

But i can find some in english, although not good articles clarifying everything

These are the articles in the italian constitution about the judiciaries (remember this, in italian, means both the people who judge you behind the bench AND THE PROSECUTORS).

And in italy you can switch from prosecutor to judge and viceversa. Berlusconi tried for many years to reform that (so called "separation of the careers") to become a normal country but he never managed. That's mainly why he got persecuted by the judiciary. They prosecuted him 32 times in 30 years, found guilty only once of tax evasion because he sold some TV rights through a spanish subsidiary to pay fewer taxes and that was found to be a violation of tax laws.

In italy a judge can also enter politics WITHOUT LOSING HIS SLOT ON THE JUDICIARY, just suspending it, so he can try politics for a while then go back prosecuting and deciding sentences and so on (yes it's insane).

TITLE IV
THE JUDICAL BRANCH
Section I
The Organisation of the Judiciary
Art. 101
Justice is administered in the name of the people.
Judges are subject only to the law.
Art. 102
Judicial proceedings are exercised by ordinary magistrates empowered and
regulated by the provisions concerning the Judiciary.
Extraordinary or special judges may not be established. Only specialised
sections for specific matters within the ordinary judicial bodies may be
established, and these sections may include the participation of qualified
citizens who are not members of the Judiciary.
The law regulates the cases and forms of the direct participation of the
people in the administration of justice.
26
Art. 103
The Council of State and the other bodies of judicial administration have
jurisdiction over the protection of legitimate rights before the public
administration and, in particular matters laid out by law, also of subjective
rights.
The Court of Accounts has jurisdiction in matters of public accounts and
in other matters laid out by law.
Military tribunals in times of war have the jurisdiction established by law.
In times of peace they have jurisdiction only for military crimes committed
by members of the armed forces.
Art. 104
The Judiciary is a branch that is autonomous and independent of all other
powers.
The High Council of the Judiciary is presided over by the President of the
Republic.
The first president and the general prosecutor of the Court of Cassation are
members by right.
Two thirds of the members are elected by all the ordinary judges belonging
to the various categories, and one third are elected by Parliament in joint
session from among university professors of law and lawyers with fifteen
years of practice.
The Council elects a vice-president from among those members designated
by Parliament.
Elected members of the Council remain in office for four years and cannot
be immediately re-elected.
They may not, while in office, be registered in professional rolls, nor serve
in Parliament or on a Regional Council.
Art. 105
The High Council of the Judiciary, in accordance with the regulations of
the Judiciary, has jurisdiction for employment, assignments and transfers,
promotions and disciplinary measures of judges.
Art. 106
Judges are appointed through competitive examinations.
The law on the regulations of the Judiciary allows the appointment, also by
election, of honorary judges for all the functions performed by single
judges.
27
Following a proposal by the High Council of the Judiciary, university
professors of law and lawyers with fifteen years of practice and registered
in the special professional rolls for the higher courts may be appointed for
their outstanding merits as Cassation councillors.
Art. 107
Judges may not be removed from office; they may not be dismissed or
suspended from office or assigned to other courts or functions unless by a
decision of the High Council of the Judiciary, taken either for the reasons
and with the guarantees of defence established by the provisions
concerning the organisation of Judiciary or with the consent of the judges
themselves.
The Minister of Justice has the power to originate disciplinary action.
Judges are distinguished only by their different functions.
The state prosecutor enjoys the guarantees established in the prosecutor’s
favour by the provisions concerning the organisation of the Judiciary.
Art. 108
The provisions concerning the organisation of the Judiciary and the judges
are laid out by law.
The law ensures the independence of judges of special courts, of state
prosecutors of those courts, and of other persons participating in the
administration of justice.
Art. 109
The legal authorities have direct use of the judicial police.
Art. 110
Without prejudice to the authority of the High Council of the Judiciary, the
Minister of Justice has responsibility for the organisation and functioning
of those services involved with justice.

So in Italy:

1) judges select themselves (they decide how the exam is, and they oversee it) article 106
2) the Council is the only organ that can punish them for anything, and it's by 2/3 made up of ... judges (99.9% rate of innocence in proceedings)
3) complete autonomy everywhere

Btw there is also case law clarifying those principle, clearly case law decided by... the judges, which includes funny stuff like "it's illegal for parliament to reduce judges salaries or not increment them as much as public employees get in increases every year" and other similar provisions.

Completly independent. They have a legal obligation to investigate all "crime news" (notizie di reato), and to prosecute every time there is preponderance of evidence, but given they obviously can't for lack of resources, they end up being allowed to pick and choose anyway and if you disagree their high council clears them.

The prosecutor in italy "in theory" is out to seek THE TRUTH, not a guilty verdict, so he should care about exculpatory evidence, but you can easily imagine how it works in practice.

///

Yes in the UK they don't have a constitution so it needs to be by act of parliament.

Yes I agreed that they are independent and the system generally looks like trash. I’m not sure if the problem is the independence though. Supreme court is independent and despite some horrible courts, most have been fine. Even the current court which I think is bad still doesn’t go completely off the wall most of the time.

Supreme court (in the USA, i think you meant that) is independent after an extreme selection filter from *other, outside sources* is applied to members though. Same as the fed.

Imagine an american SCOTUS picked by federal court of appeals judges, who are picked by district judges, who become so through an exam like mandarins did in China.

NO outside pressure at all at any point in the composition of the WHOLE federal judiciary body, with the same power as now, and removing the possibility of impeachment by congress.

A caste severed from society completly , with immense power, to make or break elections as well btw (think 2000), and never once touched by the political (voting) democratic process.

It would degenerate quickly (2-3 generations at max) and will be reformed after a huge constitutional crisis (other powers refusing to comply to orders).

Ok but before we do that, you do acknowledge that part of the American system isn’t just what’s written in the constitution, but also norms, right? For instance, the Supreme Court wasn’t even structurally set up the way it was by the constitution, it just called for one. The procedures and norms was established later. It’s not going to make sense to talk about American institutions without a specific acknowledgement of this.

Yes I acknowledge even worse than that: that some part isn't written explicitly and is based on "gentlemen norms".

That's a mistake as we learnt with the attempt to use the VP to change election results (and many other cases of attempted "crisis").

Write down anything in stone very very very clearly, play the game as if you were playing against the devil after you summon it .

Marbury should be a constitutional amendment for example.

What is the plan if the Senate refuses every single nominee by the president in every single role for example?

What is the plan if the Senate opposes passing any budget for years?

You are playing with fire than can burn the Reichstag

While the laws are important to establish core principles for government, norms are far more important, simply because the branches of government has a lot of power of law and its interpretation. This is evident when we consider that dictatorships and corrupt regimes can have perfectly reasonable sounding laws that would not look out of place in a fully functional democracy, they just don't have the norms or culture necessary to fulfill them.

This is also why the eradication of norms that is currently happening in the US is bad. Under the Trump presidency the goalpost shifted very clearly from "is it wrong?" to "is it illegal?", and while the deep state and various institutions will provide some buffer against such corrosion, it can't go on like that forever. Nor can it be fixed by just plastering on more laws.

It’s funny you use Germany as an example. From my understanding, Germany is an example of how lack of norms led to the rise of an authoritarian fascist. I mean among other things like the cringe lefties betraying the social democrats (sound familiar?), but that’s another story.

To make a more general point, I highly disagree with the notion that a rigid system is more important than a robust democratic culture. The founding fathers understood that the power was in the consent of the governed, and you only attain that consent through the dedication of good men willing to uphold democracy.

Yeah of course this system can sometimes suck because people can be corrupted and systems can fail. However in the strictest sense, the democratic system will never matter so long as the violent mob can rise up and take power. Look at the problems in the Middle East when it comes to setting up democratic government. Some of it is due to Western Meddling, maybe, but a lot is due to the unwillingness of the culture to adapt to democratic values.

A "robust democratic culture", if you mean "both, or all the main, parties have a leadership that is very wise" ofc work best than everything else, but if they do, there is nothing you need to do so... you have to prepare for the worst, not the best.

If 90% of the people want something they will get it, there is no defense vs such a huge majority of the people either.

IN BETWEEN, there are the real world cases. Of 30% of the people sucking a lot, and the rest wanting some decency but with a lot of weird caveats, and some very very evil people managing to get into positions of high power, and THAT's where you need very rigid, specific rules, enforcement, and a division of power to enforce it.

Like in the USA, it would be the case to give a 20-30-50k people armed forces under the direct control of the judiciary and no one else. Because if some new "Jackson" comes along, you have the answer. You get what i mean? it already happened.

It should be a state by state decision