Martin wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:08:05 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:

The public are against wind turbines in droves.
Whereas the silent majority are in favor of them.
Only if they're in someone else's backyard.
and only if they don't have to pay for them via taxation or increased
fuel bills.
But they don't realise about that.

It is hardly a well kept secret.
No, it isn't a secret at all, it's just that people don't realise. If
they think about it at all they don't grasp the full future impact.

Bill

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 12:16:03h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

They do things different in the USofA. There they have "high priests"
know as Justices of the Supreme Court of the US. Those "high priests"
make decisions on the acceptability of laws based on the Constitution
interpreted in accordance with their individual beliefs and prejudices.

They are completely outside democratic control.

Total nonsense. The justices of the supreme court have to be approved
by the elected representatives of the people after a thorough grilling
by a senate committee.

Whereas in the UKofGB&NI there are no democratic controls on the
appointment of law lords or any lords come to that.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:00:10 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 12:16:03h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

They do things different in the USofA. There they have "high priests"
know as Justices of the Supreme Court of the US. Those "high priests"
make decisions on the acceptability of laws based on the Constitution
interpreted in accordance with their individual beliefs and prejudices.

They are completely outside democratic control.

Total nonsense. The justices of the supreme court have to be approved
by the elected representatives of the people after a thorough grilling
by a senate committee.

What control is there after their appointment?


Whereas in the UKofGB&NI there are no democratic controls on the
appointment of law lords or any lords come to that.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 15:13:12h +0000, Peter Duncanson asked:

What control is there after their appointment?

Retirement and death.

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 12:16:03h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

They do things different in the USofA. There they have "high priests"
know as Justices of the Supreme Court of the US. Those "high priests"
make decisions on the acceptability of laws based on the Constitution
interpreted in accordance with their individual beliefs and prejudices.

They are completely outside democratic control.

Total nonsense. The justices of the supreme court have to be approved
by the elected representatives of the people after a thorough grilling
by a senate committee.

Whereas in the UKofGB&NI there are no democratic controls on the
appointment of law lords or any lords come to that.

There are no longer any law lords - haven't been for a couple of years.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Peter Duncanson wrote:

They do things different in the USofA. There they have "high priests"
know as Justices of the Supreme Court of the US. Those "high priests"
make decisions on the acceptability of laws based on the Constitution
interpreted in accordance with their individual beliefs and prejudices.

They are completely outside democratic control.

It depends how you define democracy, but I sorta agree. I read the
"Reddit" social news site occasionally, and the grief that atheists have
to put up with in the US is astonishing. The atheism "subreddit" forum is
quite an eye-opener. It does seem that fundamentalist-inspired laws and
social control is ubiquitous in the US, very much unlike the UK:

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

And reading the politics subreddit leaves me with the impression that
large corporations have pretty much taken over the US government, with
enormous donations to political parties that don't have to be declared,
although attempts are being made to change that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

With the likes of the staggeringly biased "Fox News", it seems that the US
oligarchy has become expert at persuading the poorer sections of US
society to vote very much against its own interest.

None. That's the whole point of the system. They are free to follow
their own consciences in interpreting the Constitution, rather than
having to keep on licking the hand that had initially fed them.

I can't remember any details now, but I do remember Alastair Cooke in
his series "America" saying that there had been several incidents
where administrations had elected particular judges to the Supreme
Court in the hope of getting favourable decisions, only to find that
the appointee subsequently held a reaffirmingly independent course.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:13:12 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

What control is there after their appointment?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html