Four more years for President George W. Bush.

Good work all of you who got out and participated in grassroots efforts for our President!

Too bad Ohio went republican over democratic.  Otherwise it would've been President John Kerry.  Even worse, now there's a bigger republican advantage in congress, and the new supreme court judges will be appointed by George Bush.  I have to wonder though, did the Civil Rights document have any effect on whether our president was republican or democratic?  Anyways, congratulations to George Bush; I hope we have a democratic president next term though...

Bush said he is not going to have a litmus test for his judges... I believe him.

Kerry was very considerate to the american people for doing what he did. Instead of being like gore and challenging everything under the sun and keeping america in limbo as to who their next leader is, Kerry gave up on it. Kerry did not have much of a chance, so why drag it out and annoy the people and make us look bad to the world? Thank you for being a decent guy mr. Kerry. You win a few respect points from me.

I had just finished taking a quiz in 3rd period when it poped up on CNN.

Someone shouted it in lunch after getting a phone call and we were all like... "FOR REAL!!?", then we checked the news on my friend's cell phone va the 8th wonder of the world... mobile internet.

I talked my mom into letting me stay home since I was physically exhausted from non-stop campaigning, working the polls, and then going to a GOP Victory Party that lasted kinda late so I heard about it right when they got off the phone.

[quote]Even worse, now there's a bigger republican advantage in congress, and the new supreme court judges will be appointed by George Bush.[/quote]

Typically, if a judge is in an opposing party of the president they'll not retire until one of their guys are elected. That can only last for so long though, and America is moving in a more conservative direction.

Its a wonderful day to be an American, and an even better day to be a Republican. All I can say is congratulations to the President and all who have given their time and energy on this great election. This is hands down one of the greatest Republican victories in history, and its just four more years.

To quote Senator Nick Rerras from last night: "It's a great night to be a Republican."

And now, today, it's a great day to be one. I don't think there's anything the liberals here or anywhere can say to dampen our spirits, we've all worked hard to put our man back in office. Be it making phone calls, spreading the word, putting in countless hours of going door to door handing out stuff (and in turn lots of sore feat. :P), or just going out to vote. Everybody helped make a difference, and now the Democrats don't know what to do. They are outnumbered in every which way now, and are beginning to realize Americans don't want their liberal agenda. This is a great victory for us and I'm definately excited over it as I can imagine most of the country is.

[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20041102/i/r492677992.jpg[/img]

I see nothing right now that the democrats can complaign about either, unlike last election where Bush did not win the popular vote.

And it's not like it was by a few thousand votes that he won it,  he won it by a lot. All they can do now is whine and be angry, but they've not no ground to say Bush "stole" the election like they did in 2000.

Yea he won both the popular vote and electorial vote.

That's too bad.

you suckas got servvvved

I will say, tentatively, that it does look like Bush won fair & square.. so congratulations to you guys. Nonetheless, I'm somehwat disappointed :P

I will (once again) draw comfort from the fact that I don't live in the US :)

European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?

Also, I disagree that America doesn't want the liberal agenda.  It was 51% to 48%.  Pretty close.  I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office next term.  :)

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]
European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?

Also, I disagree that America doesn't want the liberal agenda.  It was 51% to 48%.  Pretty close.  I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office next term.  :)
[/quote]
We'll see who the Republican candidate is. :)

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]
European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?

Also, I disagree that America doesn't want the liberal agenda.  It was 51% to 48%.  Pretty close.  I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office next term.  :)
[/quote] I sure hope not because I will be willing to bet it is going to be Hillary who runs on the democrat ticket.

Yes hillary... oh god, can we say socialist/fascist?  I think we should get alan keyes to run for president and a woman to be running mate, that way they cant call us a "racist, male political rich party..."

Hilary Clinton definitely may be the next Democratic nominee, but quite possibly not.  I wonder if they'll have Kerry run again...

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9411.msg87291#msg87291 date=1099539903]
Yes hillary... oh god, can we say socialist/fascist?  I think we should get alan keyes to run for president and a woman to be running mate, that way they cant call us a "racist, male political rich party..."
[/quote] Or Colon Powell... Maybe even Mrs. Rice as running mate. Man, two black people, one a woman. That would be interesting.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]
European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?

Also, I disagree that America doesn't want the liberal agenda.  It was 51% to 48%.  Pretty close.  I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office next term.  :)
[/quote]

It wasn't as close as you think. Clinton never got above 50% of the vote. If Pero hadn't been running the GOP might have swept 1992 and 1996.

The last president to get this much of a percentage of the vote was LBJ.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg87294#msg87294 date=1099541798]
[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9411.msg87291#msg87291 date=1099539903]
Yes hillary... oh god, can we say socialist/fascist?  I think we should get alan keyes to run for president and a woman to be running mate, that way they cant call us a "racist, male political rich party..."
[/quote] Or Colon Powell... Maybe even Mrs. Rice as running mate. Man, two black people, one a woman. That would be interesting.
[/quote]

Colin Powell is a republican...

Cheney Bush '08 :)

[quote author=Newby link=topic=9411.msg87299#msg87299 date=1099542078]
Cheney Bush '08 :)
[/quote]

Joke? Otherwise, you really are a Newby.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=9411.msg87299#msg87299 date=1099542078]
Cheney Bush '08 :)
[/quote]

Only before 1945.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87298#msg87298 date=1099542002]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg87294#msg87294 date=1099541798]
[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9411.msg87291#msg87291 date=1099539903]
Yes hillary... oh god, can we say socialist/fascist?  I think we should get alan keyes to run for president and a woman to be running mate, that way they cant call us a "racist, male political rich party..."
[/quote] Or Colon Powell... Maybe even Mrs. Rice as running mate. Man, two black people, one a woman. That would be interesting.
[/quote]

Colin Powell is a republican...
[/quote] Yes... so is Condoleeza. I thought we were talking about the republicans here. Keyes is a republican too.

I am going to have to keep this sig for a few weeks as a mild form of Gloating  :D. The sticker on my car shall be there no less then a month.

[quote author=Maddox link=topic=9411.msg87302#msg87302 date=1099542182]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=9411.msg87299#msg87299 date=1099542078]
Cheney Bush '08 :)
[/quote]

Joke? Otherwise, you really are a Newby.
[/quote]
<3

[quote author=Newby link=topic=9411.msg87308#msg87308 date=1099543168]
[quote author=Maddox link=topic=9411.msg87302#msg87302 date=1099542182]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=9411.msg87299#msg87299 date=1099542078]
Cheney Bush '08 :)
[/quote]

Joke? Otherwise, you really are a Newby.
[/quote]
<3
[/quote]

Jeb Bush & Mary Cheney. Bush/Cheney '12! :)


Seriously, I think McCain and Guiliani will both be participating in the 2008 Republican primary.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]
European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?

Also, I disagree that America doesn't want the liberal agenda.  It was 51% to 48%.  Pretty close.  I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office next term.  :)
[/quote]

Don't be so sure, the Democrats don't have a candidate.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?[/quote]

I heard an interesting theory on this recently.  The gist is that the European leaders are secretly pleased Bush won, as now they can continue to refuse to send troops.  After endorsing Kerry like they did, they'd be harder pressed to deny him help than they would to deny Bush (and if they'd truly wanted to get involved, they'd do it no matter who was president here).  So, Bush's victory saves them from the political rock&hard place of sending troops (undesirable at home) vs. denying Kerry (whom they'd previously supported). :)

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg87371#msg87371 date=1099601969]Don't be so sure, the Democrats don't have a candidate.[/quote]

Eh, they have four years.  Even if we assume half of it will be spent moaning about Bush, that still gives them two years to pull a campaign together. ;)

[quote]European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?[/quote]

Maybe the citizens, but I doubt the leaders (except maybe France.) But we do know that Kim Jong Il wanted Kerry, if Communists for Kerry was a serious organization, he'd be the head of it. ;)

I'll bet all the terrorists wanted Kerry so they could "negotiate" and then blow us up again.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=9411.msg87415#msg87415 date=1099613440]
I'll bet all the terrorists wanted Kerry so they could "negotiate" and then blow us up again.
[/quote]

Kerry: Mr. Il, sir, would you mind joining with me, President Chirac, and the prophet Bin-Laden?

Jong-Il: Are we meeting in Geneva again?  I really wanted to meet in Pyong-yang.

Kerry: Colonel al-Qadhafi wanted us to meet in Tripoli.

Jong-Il: Hrm.  Sure, that would be fine.

Kerry: Pick you up around seven?

Jong-Il: I'll be here!

You'd expect them to have a candidate ready immediately after the election?  *shrug*  Besides that, at last minute they could always put Gore (like they originally wanted but Gore didn't because he thought it would look like a showdown rivalry match between Gore & Bush) who would probably be elected or run close.  :P

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87436#msg87436 date=1099619173]
You'd expect them to have a candidate ready immediately after the election?  *shrug*  Besides that, at last minute they could always put Gore (like they originally wanted but Gore didn't because he thought it would look like a showdown rivalry match between Gore & Bush) who would probably be elected or run close.  :P
[/quote]

No matter what you may think, Gore would not have won the election.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg87376#msg87376 date=1099603448]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87279#msg87279 date=1099535050]European countries wanted Kerry didn't they?[/quote]

I heard an interesting theory on this recently.  The gist is that the European leaders are secretly pleased Bush won, as now they can continue to refuse to send troops.  After endorsing Kerry like they did, they'd be harder pressed to deny him help than they would to deny Bush
[/quote]
[quote][/quote]

This is probably partly true. Maybe not secretly pleased, but I'm sure it's a relief to some people that USA still leads the evil axis. Much easier to focus your people that way.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg87450#msg87450 date=1099624885]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87436#msg87436 date=1099619173]
You'd expect them to have a candidate ready immediately after the election?  *shrug*  Besides that, at last minute they could always put Gore (like they originally wanted but Gore didn't because he thought it would look like a showdown rivalry match between Gore & Bush) who would probably be elected or run close.  :P
[/quote]

No matter what you may think, Gore would not have won the election.
[/quote]

And you say this why?

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87552#msg87552 date=1099695065]
And you say this why?
[/quote]

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

Also, a lot of the places florida recounts happened were elderly, middle to upper class, white, and retired - typical description of a republican voter.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9411.msg87608#msg87608 date=1099741032]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9411.msg87552#msg87552 date=1099695065]
And you say this why?
[/quote]

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

Also, a lot of the places florida recounts happened were elderly, middle to upper class, white, and retired - typical description of a republican voter.

[/quote]

So what's a typical description of a democrat?  I know so many people who are like that description who are democrats/republicans I think that that's a totally invalid statement.

According to my AP Government class last year, the sterotypical democrat is: uneducated, poor, female, and a minority.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9411.msg87646#msg87646 date=1099760573]
According to my AP Government class last year, the sterotypical democrat is: uneducated, poor, female, and a minority.
[/quote]

Eh... that could be considered true. The demographics Democrats tend to win are those without or only with a high school diploma/GED, women, lower class, and african-american.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88127#msg88127 date=1100043185]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9411.msg87646#msg87646 date=1099760573]
According to my AP Government class last year, the sterotypical democrat is: uneducated, poor, female, and a minority.
[/quote]

Eh... that could be considered true. The demographics Democrats tend to win are those without or only with a high school diploma/GED, women, lower class, and african-american.
[/quote] Though they also control the extremely educated minority: Those with PHDs and other forms of extra schooling. One theory suggests this is because they have been in the liberal college setting for a bit too long.

Another simple way to describe it is to ask yourself what is included in this "highly educated" minority. Does this include lawyers, because there is your explaination. More often than not you will notice medical doctors tend to vote Republican because of the Republicans battling malpractice bullshit and Democrats and lawyers, well, they're a pretty slimy group. Also you might ask if these "doctors" are professors or teacher in the school system, because that would also add to the explaination.

College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg88174#msg88174 date=1100054365]
College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.
[/quote]

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88205#msg88205 date=1100088298]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg88174#msg88174 date=1100054365]
College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.
[/quote]

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.
[/quote]

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.

No, it's because doctors are scared to operate because they're getting sued - even when they don't do stuff wrong. That is why we're losing doctors here in the states.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88222#msg88222 date=1100102869]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88205#msg88205 date=1100088298]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg88174#msg88174 date=1100054365]
College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.
[/quote]

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.
[/quote]

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.
[/quote]

No, I'm saying that doctors side with Republicans because we care about health and wellbeing, because the liberal whores that are also lawyers suck the life blood out of our doctors. Lawyers become Democrats because Democrats fight alongside the lawyers in courts to rip off doctors in high-risk practices. What would happen if the Democrats had their way? Doctors would no longer practice high risk procedures because the insurance rates and lawsuits would be too high. Liberals = scum? Of course.

Ah, of course. Your legal system is seriously flawed. I didn't think of that. Way too much money to be extracted through lawsuits. Is it safe to assume that your new strong republican majority will put a stop to that forever now? Make it so suits will only produce as much money as here in safe cozy little Sweden?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88273#msg88273 date=1100126035]
Ah, of course. Your legal system is seriously flawed. I didn't think of that. Way too much money to be extracted through lawsuits. Is it safe to assume that your new strong republican majority will put a stop to that forever now? Make it so suits will only produce as much money as here in safe cozy little Sweden?
[/quote]

The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88281#msg88281 date=1100126689]
The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.
[/quote]

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88313#msg88313 date=1100132817]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88281#msg88281 date=1100126689]
The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.
[/quote]

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.
[/quote]

When a man A sues man B after man B hit him with a sledgehammer for parking too close to the curb, a lawsuit is certainly in order for any damages. When a doctor performing a dangerous operation is unable to save a life and is sued for "malpractice" for a ridiculous amount of money, it is way out of line.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88322#msg88322 date=1100136934]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88313#msg88313 date=1100132817]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88281#msg88281 date=1100126689]
The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.
[/quote]

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.
[/quote]

When a man A sues man B after man B hit him with a sledgehammer for parking too close to the curb, a lawsuit is certainly in order for any damages. When a doctor performing a dangerous operation is unable to save a life and is sued for "malpractice" for a ridiculous amount of money, it is way out of line.
[/quote]

A lawsuit for the actual damages, $1000 or so is entirely ok. A lawsuit for $100000 or $1000000 is completely out of proportion for virtually every issue.

In America, a human life is worth more than $1,000. That's how they get away with sueing for a large amount of money.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88222#msg88222 date=1100102869]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9411.msg88205#msg88205 date=1100088298]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg88174#msg88174 date=1100054365]
College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.
[/quote]

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.
[/quote]

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.
[/quote] Its because of the corruption of trial attorneys and it is screwing up our healthcare. I want to tell you to yank your head from your ass, but then again I am not going to say that because you are the admin. Please refrain from making comments ike that when you do not understand what is going on in our country. It is ignorance at its finest.

Blame Halliburton!

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9411.msg88360#msg88360 date=1100148126]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88222#msg88222 date=1100102869]
So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.
[/quote] Its because of the corruption of trial attorneys and it is screwing up our healthcare. I want to tell you to yank your head from your ass, but then again I am not going to say that because you are the admin. Please refrain from making comments ike that when you do not understand what is going on in our country. It is ignorance at its finest.
[/quote]

That was already commented on, and as you should've seen, I've responded further on along that line... Honestly, I don't see how corrupt attorneys should be a problem. If the justice system works, having someone accuse you corruptly should just cause them trouble?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9411.msg88355#msg88355 date=1100147569]
In America, a human life is worth more than $1,000. That's how they get away with sueing for a large amount of money.
[/quote]

But how often are human lives lost? I was thinking more of things like spilling coffee in your lap and other similarly stupid things.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88400#msg88400 date=1100176863]Honestly, I don't see how corrupt attorneys should be a problem. If the justice system works, having someone accuse you corruptly should just cause them trouble?[/quote]

To my knowledge, there's nothing formal that can be done about a corrupt attorney as long as he/she stays within the letter of the law (i.e. there's no explicit provision for asserting that he is "corrupt" in a sense recognizable and punishable by the system).  It might be possible to revoke their bar license if the bar association gets annoyed with them, but since it is itself run by lawyers, don't count on them turning out one of their own until he really screws up big.  A few dozen frivolous lawsuits isn't enough to annoy the bar association.

To address the other part of the statement, the implication that a corrupt accusation should be easy to defeat: yes, it should, but it usually isn't.  During jury selection, each side is permitted a small number of dismissals, so you can get rid of the unacceptable jurors before you waste time presenting evidence to them.  This is intended to be for situations like a juror who has already reached a decision before opening statements. ;)  "He just looks like such a nice young man, he's definitely innocent."  This also goes the other way, dismissing people who might have undue bias against the defendent (e.g. cops in a case against an alleged cop-killer), or who are deemed to be a little too trusting ("Would you believe any testimony from a cop?"  "Of course."  "Why?"  "Because he's a cop."  <Judge> Next!).

Anyway, lawyers who are out for victory in a frivolous suit will pick their dismissals to get rid of certain classes of people, such as the college-educated (particularly masters/PhD), on the assumption these people are highly analytical and won't readily succumb to theatrics.  The result is that the jury ends up composed of the less competent section of the populace, which can be more easily manipulated with theatrics and appeals to irrational emotion.  In the case you mention about coffee, an emotional appeal might include the alleged victim testifying about all the problems the scalding has caused him.  The problems it caused him are a direct consequence of his spilling the coffee on himself, and thus are as much (or as little) his fault as the original spillage, but the emotionally-susceptible jurors will generally be swayed more in his favor by a good tear-jerker story.

[Side note on terminology, in case you haven't seen this before: frivolous lawsuit is the term commonly applied to suits that are allowed by the system despite that most people with a little common sense would say that the suit has no place in the court system.]

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88420#msg88420 date=1100185689]
To address the other part of the statement, the implication that a corrupt accusation should be easy to defeat: yes, it should, but it usually isn't.  During jury selection, each side is permitted a small number of dismissals, so you can get rid of the unacceptable jurors before you waste time presenting evidence to them.  This is intended to be for situations like a juror who has already reached a decision before opening statements. ;)  "He just looks like such a nice young man, he's definitely innocent."  This also goes the other way, dismissing people who might have undue bias against the defendent (e.g. cops in a case against an alleged cop-killer), or who are deemed to be a little too trusting ("Would you believe any testimony from a cop?"  "Of course."  "Why?"  "Because he's a cop."  <Judge> Next!).
[/quote]

I suppose that makes a bit sense, but how are people for a jury / the replacements selected?


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88420#msg88420 date=1100185689]
Anyway, lawyers who are out for victory in a frivolous suit will pick their dismissals to get rid of certain classes of people, such as the college-educated (particularly masters/PhD), on the assumption these people are highly analytical and won't readily succumb to theatrics.  The result is that the jury ends up composed of the less competent section of the populace, which can be more easily manipulated with theatrics and appeals to irrational emotion.
[/quote]

That sounds like a really really stupid system. Are suits/trials generally handled by a jury there? Here, very few cases are handled by a jury. What I can think of is issues related to freedom of press mostly. Crimes and suits are handled by judges, either lay judges elected (politically) for four year terms, or legally trained, professional judges, depending on what the case is about. You can't somehow get a group of non-analytical people to judge your case.


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88420#msg88420 date=1100185689]
In the case you mention about coffee, an emotional appeal might include the alleged victim testifying about all the problems the scalding has caused him.  The problems it caused him are a direct consequence of his spilling the coffee on himself, and thus are as much (or as little) his fault as the original spillage, but the emotionally-susceptible jurors will generally be swayed more in his favor by a good tear-jerker story.
[/quote]

I.e., they judge by emotion, not reason? Like lynch mobs judge by emotion instead of justice? :P


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88420#msg88420 date=1100185689]
[Side note on terminology, in case you haven't seen this before: frivolous lawsuit is the term commonly applied to suits that are allowed by the system despite that most people with a little common sense would say that the suit has no place in the court system.]
[/quote]

Yes, I'd seen that term, and the hope I had was that corrupt lawyers would be found to make frivolous lawsuits, and that there'd be suitable punishments for them.

Trimming your quotes of me for brevity.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88429#msg88429 date=1100190548]I suppose that makes a bit sense, but how are people for a jury / the replacements selected?[/quote]

It varies some by area (I think), but it's a fundamentally random selection of people from the eligible populace.  Someone is ineligible if he's imprisoned, among other reasons.  I'd have to go look up the exact circumstances that make someone not eligible to serve on a jury.  Replacements are generally selected in advance.  That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88429#msg88429 date=1100190548]That sounds like a really really stupid system. Are suits/trials generally handled by a jury there? Here, very few cases are handled by a jury. What I can think of is issues related to freedom of press mostly. Crimes and suits are handled by judges, either lay judges elected (politically) for four year terms, or legally trained, professional judges, depending on what the case is about. You can't somehow get a group of non-analytical people to judge your case.[/quote]

It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired. :)  The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.  Answering your question in greater detail would require a bit of research, since the law about what is allowed / what is required varies depending on location of alleged offense and nature/value of the offense.  For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88429#msg88429 date=1100190548]I.e., they judge by emotion, not reason? Like lynch mobs judge by emotion instead of justice? :P[/quote]

Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok. :P

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88429#msg88429 date=1100190548]Yes, I'd seen that term, and the hope I had was that corrupt lawyers would be found to make frivolous lawsuits, and that there'd be suitable punishments for them.[/quote]

Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit. :)  That kind of thing is quite rare though.

There've been some attempts to modify the legal code to cut down on frivolous suits and/or discourage them by making them not valuable (e.g. cap the "non-economic" damages, which is where the big money comes in because nobody can prove how much or how little is deserved).  Such efforts have been met with opposition from lawyers' groups for obvious reasons, and with opposition from people who feel (maybe rightly, depends on situation) that the cap is "too low", which would deny real victims an appropriate amount.  What constitutes the "right" cap is a matter of hot debate whenever this comes up.  I'm rather disappointed to note that I haven't yet heard of anybody with the foresight to make it an adjustable limit.  IIRC, the U.S. constitution has a section about disputes which exceed $20.  At the time, that was big money.  Now, the average college student (who is notoriously broke) owns several times that amount. :)

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
Trimming your quotes of me for brevity.
[/quote]

That's good, as long as you leave enough for context. I tend to have to trim two layers when I reply to most other posters!


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.
[/quote]

Can both parties prune out jurors? Couldn't the other party prune out all jurors that seem too stupid?



[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired. :)  The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.
[/quote]

It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough. 

Interestingly enough, Sweden has separate courts for crime cases and civil cases, vs cases where the government is acting as a part with an interest. Maybe that would've been a better solution for you too.


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.
[/quote]

I actually looked up a pdf document in English about the Swedish legal system in case it'd be required... :P 

Anyway, you consider a random jury trial to be greater than a trial by judges? Here, a crime case is first tried by 3 laymen judges and 1 legally trained one. If you appeal, you get 3 legally trained judges and 2 laymen. And finally if you go to the supreme court, you get 5 legally trained judges. And if those want to rule against a previous supreme court ruling, the case is handled by either 9 supreme court judges, or all of them.

Shouldn't legally trained judges be better suited to interpreting law and administering justice than some randomly selected people from the street?


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok. :P
[/quote]

Don't you think that has to do with the properties of picking a random sample out of a large population?



[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]
Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit. :)  That kind of thing is quite rare though.
[/quote]

This is another interesting thing I've noticed. Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...

We're getting into details that may vary from place to place, but I'll answer as best I can. :)  If this goes on much longer, I'm going to need to start doing research (for which I don't have time) or go find a law student to answer this.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.[/quote]Can both parties prune out jurors? Couldn't the other party prune out all jurors that seem too stupid?[/quote]

Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired. :)  The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.[/quote]It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.[/quote]

A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.  As regards choice of judges, the U.S. system was designed with an eye toward limiting the power of a corrupt government, which arguably could be why a system similar to yours was not adopted.  Consider the ramifications if all the trained judges received a memo of who to rule against.  I doubt anything like that has ever happened (and the odds that it ever will are small), but such a situation is less damaging under the U.S. system where you'd also need to control the jury.  (For now, ignore the contempt-of-court laws, which grant judges exceedingly wide latitude.)

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.[/quote]Anyway, you consider a random jury trial to be greater than a trial by judges? Here, a crime case is first tried by 3 laymen judges and 1 legally trained one. If you appeal, you get 3 legally trained judges and 2 laymen. And finally if you go to the supreme court, you get 5 legally trained judges. And if those want to rule against a previous supreme court ruling, the case is handled by either 9 supreme court judges, or all of them.

Shouldn't legally trained judges be better suited to interpreting law and administering justice than some randomly selected people from the street?[/quote]

Probably so, but see above how some areas had their systems designed with serious distrust of subsequent govt. officials as a key part of the design.  Also, U.S. judges do serve some purpose in keeping the lawyers within the general intent of the law.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok. :P[/quote]Don't you think that has to do with the properties of picking a random sample out of a large population?[/quote]

To some extent, yes.  However, poorly designed laws don't help much.  (Take a look at almost any computer crime law, for example.  When CupHead was accused, I read through some of the Colorado law, and it was a mess IMO.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88431#msg88431 date=1100191889]Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit. :)  That kind of thing is quite rare though.[/quote]This is another interesting thing I've noticed. Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...[/quote]

Offhand, I don't know.  Perhaps a legal scholar of the board can answer you better.  *pokes Grok*

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463]
Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).
[/quote]

I.e. the party with the hopeless case might be way more interested in a go in a mud slinging match instead of having justice? :P


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054]It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.[/quote]

A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.
[/quote]

Well, if you from that large sampling don't then dismiss people based on qualifications like "prone to judge based on emotion rather than law", it's still just a random set of people, and an insufficient sample of the population to always come up with a reasonable set of people.


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463]
As regards choice of judges, the U.S. system was designed with an eye toward limiting the power of a corrupt government, which arguably could be why a system similar to yours was not adopted.  Consider the ramifications if all the trained judges received a memo of who to rule against.  I doubt anything like that has ever happened (and the odds that it ever will are small), but such a situation is less damaging under the U.S. system where you'd also need to control the jury.  (For now, ignore the contempt-of-court laws, which grant judges exceedingly wide latitude.)
[/quote]

What about the supreme court in the US? Couldn't those still receive a memo of who to rule against, and they're able to overrule lower courts?

But honestly, I think it'd be easier to control a jury than trained judges. People serving on a jury may be homeless or low income takers, right? What's to stop you from pressuring/bribing the jury when you're already worried about pressure/bribes on judges?


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463]
see above how some areas had their systems designed with serious distrust of subsequent govt. officials as a key part of the design.  Also, U.S. judges do serve some purpose in keeping the lawyers within the general intent of the law.

..

  However, poorly designed laws don't help much.  (Take a look at almost any computer crime law, for example.  When CupHead was accused, I read through some of the Colorado law, and it was a mess IMO.
[/quote]

Working around untrusted government officials doesn't sound like the best way to design a system. And poorly designed laws.... Well, we do have those here too. But anyway: Redesign your system! :P



[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054]Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...[/quote]

Wakey wakey Grok & co? :)

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88637#msg88637 date=1100278217][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463]Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).[/quote]I.e. the party with the hopeless case might be way more interested in a go in a mud slinging match instead of having justice? :P[/quote]Exactly! ;)


[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88637#msg88637 date=1100278217][quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88527#msg88527 date=1100211463][quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88443#msg88443 date=1100194054]It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.[/quote]A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.[/quote]Well, if you from that large sampling don't then dismiss people based on qualifications like "prone to judge based on emotion rather than law", it's still just a random set of people, and an insufficient sample of the population to always come up with a reasonable set of people.[/quote]You didn't ask a question, and since I'm not exactly a strident supporter of the current system , there's no reason for me to even try to refute you. :P

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88637#msg88637 date=1100278217]What about the supreme court in the US? Couldn't those still receive a memo of who to rule against, and they're able to overrule lower courts?[/quote]The supreme court can overrule any lower court, but only if the case comes to it.  Courts can't just go looking for cases they'd like to make a ruling on -- the case has to come to them.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88637#msg88637 date=1100278217]But honestly, I think it'd be easier to control a jury than trained judges. People serving on a jury may be homeless or low income takers, right? What's to stop you from pressuring/bribing the jury when you're already worried about pressure/bribes on judges?[/quote]Back when some of these systems were designed, jury selection was much stricter than it is now.  Most things then were restricted to white property-owning males (thus excluding the homeless and making the low income folks less likely).  There're laws against trying to improperly influence trials, and the odds of successfully influencing all the jurors (and not having any of them report you) are pretty poor, with a totally random sampling of jurors.  It's theoretically possible, but it's extremely improbable.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9411.msg88637#msg88637 date=1100278217]Working around untrusted government officials doesn't sound like the best way to design a system. And poorly designed laws.... Well, we do have those here too. But anyway: Redesign your system! :P[/quote]
The systems I'm familiar with were set up in the immediate aftermath of serious abuses of the prior system, so "How can we prevent this from ever recurring?" was probably a big influencing factor.  They recognized that they couldn't just omit a judicial system and let crimes go unpunished, but they wanted to make it difficult for the system to be abused to punish people unjustly.  Even that limit is itself somewhat limited by the power of Congress to revise laws.  The only way to be really sure is to build it directly into the constitution and hope that the people will refuse to ratify changes that strip out key constitutional protections.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88688#msg88688 date=1100300727]
The supreme court can overrule any lower court, but only if the case comes to it.  Courts can't just go looking for cases they'd like to make a ruling on -- the case has to come to them.
[/quote]

But an abusive government could just appeal until they reach the supreme court and then settle the case their way?


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88688#msg88688 date=1100300727]
Back when some of these systems were designed, jury selection was much stricter than it is now.  Most things then were restricted to white property-owning males (thus excluding the homeless and making the low income folks less likely).
[/quote]

Ah. A case where the constitution is outdated again :P
That would probably improve things a lot, because successful people can't be all that dumb. Unless they inherited it all, but those will run out of money eventually.


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88688#msg88688 date=1100300727]
There're laws against trying to improperly influence trials, and the odds of successfully influencing all the jurors (and not having any of them report you) are pretty poor, with a totally random sampling of jurors.  It's theoretically possible, but it's extremely improbable.
[/quote]

But you have to think about what we're facing here... You said the idea was to keep the people safe from the government. It would've been enough to make a law against influencing the judges? And if the government is republican and wants republican verdicts, all it has to do is get republican jurors, by kicking the others out or arresting them for fictious crimes long enough to get them out of the jury seats?

If the government could get away with influencing judges against the law, it could surely get away with influencing jurors against the law as well.


[quote author=Kp link=topic=9411.msg88688#msg88688 date=1100300727]
The systems I'm familiar with were set up in the immediate aftermath of serious abuses of the prior system, so "How can we prevent this from ever recurring?" was probably a big influencing factor.  They recognized that they couldn't just omit a judicial system and let crimes go unpunished, but they wanted to make it difficult for the system to be abused to punish people unjustly.  Even that limit is itself somewhat limited by the power of Congress to revise laws.  The only way to be really sure is to build it directly into the constitution and hope that the people will refuse to ratify changes that strip out key constitutional protections.
[/quote]

But the congress is selected by the people, so indirectly the people make the laws.. :)
What kind of abuse could there be that only this would protect from?