Date: Sat, 28 Mar 98 0:48:27 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Tyranny of the Majority (Charles Brown)


 



		
		C. Schwartz,



	First, the supreme court never has been a protection from *errors* in
lower courts.  I don't know what the hell you're talking about.  For almost
everything, the federal appellate courts and the state appellate and supreme
courts are the courts of last resort.  It was ever thus.  




	As for judges, the federal judiciary is passed on by the
legislature, so that is a democratic intervention, and since we have a
separate legislature and executive (unlike a parliamentary system) that's
fine I guess.  Furthermore, one could hardly look at the appointment
process today and say that it is de-politicized.  I think that is
obviously good and obviously necessary.  It's perfectly appropriate and
desirable for judges to be elected, although I agree that they need some
protection from the election (or re-election) process.  A "civil service
judiciary" (and I may not understand the term fully) seems far too removed
from democracy.  It is unreasonable to think that judges are removed from
politics.  We must *assume* that judges bring opinion to the bench and
therefore the law must confine their powers, as it does fairly well in
most cases.



	The civil law system is unsound.  Arguing is good.  Lawyering is
good.  People who want to trust sage judges to save them are fools.
Conflict will not end, wrangling will always be necessary and nothing, not
plebiscite or "workers councils" or judges bred on apolitical ashrams will
ever do anything to stop it.  Advocate or surrender. 






	peace





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---