decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Why do we hate people who are lucky? | 131 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why do we hate people who are lucky?
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:17 AM EST
Oh - and by the way, my post recommended a way to PREVENT "ruler for
life", not encourage it!

The US Supreme Court is for life, is it not? What accident of luck placed those
Judges there? The UK House of Lords had a MASSIVE advantage in that while most
of its birthright members are reasonably well off, they're a far better
cross-section of society than pretty much any other governing body anywhere else
in the world. After all, time has done a reasonable job at turning it into a
random selection of society, something which can NOT be said of any elected
body.

The other massive advantage is we don't have "government for sale".
Look at the stats. I think you'll find pretty much EVERY election, for fifty
years or more, in the US has been won by whoever spent the most. It's not true
here because we have campaign limits.

Oh - and while you may be thinking of our Queen, I was ALSO thinking of people
like Hindenberg. As president of the Weimar Republic I don't think he had a lot
of power. I personally don't *want* an elected figurehead, but I don't see any
problem with it.

As for saying "the monarchy is currently quite benign", can't that be
true of ANY body in power - the problem is when people legitimately in power
make an illegitimate grab for more.

That's the point of the House Of Lords and the Monarchy in the current UK
system. The Lords run a toothcomb over legislation, and the Queen keeps the
Commons in its place. The problem at the moment stems from attitudes like yours
- the Commons is quite happily neutering the other two - fuelled by those
attitudes - in readiness for making a power grab!

I *WANT* a bunch of people there, who have little power other than that of
keeping the legislature in check. The US system is clearly failing. The UK
system was working, but is steadily moving towards a US model. I don't know
WHERE the European system is moving !!! :-(

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )