We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – the For Fuck Sake School of Jurisprudence Our judges will bend over backwards to find ways to allow people who ought to be deported to remain, and will connive with charities performing strategic litigation in order to allow this to happen. And their genuflections have become so convoluted that it is almost pointless to try to subject them to careful doctrinal analysis. We simply need to cut to the chase: the problem is not a legal, but a political or even sociological one. It is an issue concerning the makeup of the judiciary itself.
– David McGrogan
Read the whole thing.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
You’re always going to get this sort of thing while the judiciary judges itself. Restore parliamentary supremacy with the abolition of the Blairite Supreme Court and the return of the Law Lords.
Then parliament has the last say, not the retards from…where was Two Tier Keir? The “Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers”. I kid you not.
Hanging’s too good for ’em.
It is the same in the United States – only yesterday a Federal judge based in California ruled that illegal immigrants could not be detained without the permission of the courts – if this ruling stands (if it is not overruled by a higher court) it would make mass deportations impossible as there are MILLIONS of illegal immigrants – so if each single one has to have “their day in court” the United States will collapse, already New York City is in financial crises – with Mayor Mamdani blaming former Mayor Adams, but Mayor Adams warned, many times, that the flow of illegal immigrants was an impossible burden for the city – and for other cities.
“But they just come to do jobs Americans will not do” – the same establishment liars who come out with that line also come out with the propaganda line that illegal immigrants commit less crimes (per person) than citizens do – and if you believe that, you will believe anything.
However, corrupt judges do NOT validate the Marxist attack on the legal system – as the Marxists claim that the judges are reactionaries who defend the “capitalist” order, in reality many judges are Progressives who do all they can to undermine the “capitalist” order. Standard “Cloward and Piven” doctrine – try and get as many people dependent on government benefits and services as possible, in order to destroy “capitalist” society. But the Marxists did NOT invent all this – Mayor Curley of Boston was doing this sort of thing more than a century ago – hence the “Curley Effect” in local government – deliberately promote poverty (destroy business enterprises), in the hope that people who out of work and desperate will vote for politicians who offer them free stuff – it worked for Mayor Curley and many other Democrats.
The answer in Britain is simple to say, but hard to do – get Parliament to pass an Act removing these judges and replacing them with “Reactionaries”.
In theory Parliament can do anything it likes – but even Mr Farage and the Reform Party do not seem to have the will to clean out the corrupted system.
The United States? Appeal everything to the Supreme Court and see what happens.
If the Supreme Court sides with the invaders (for invaders they are) then the United States is finished – it is over.
Before anyone points it out – I know judges can serve Marxist doctrine without knowing it is Marxist.
As the Italian Marxist Gramsci explained, almost a century ago, the Progressive objective is to make Marxist doctrine so universal in the institutions that people in the institutions (whether they are Bishops, Judges, or whatever – even military officers, or “capitalist” Corporate managers) do not even notice that they are serving this doctrine, as its assumptions become automatic, a bit like fish, supposedly, not noticing water.
Why does the Chancellor not arrange for the removal of the judges who are incapable of doing their jobs properly? I’m guessing that this Chancellor is not inclined to do so but surely that will not be true for all future ones.
Problem is, a bunch of voters and pols will tell you that he IS doing the job properly.
“Properly” does a lot of heavy lifting in this context. They get the results they want – hence, “proper.”
We need to fix The People. Then the judges will be fixed automatically.
@bobby b
We need to fix The People. Then the judges will be fixed automatically.
This is a really important observation and it doesn’t only apply to judges but to everything in the political realm. Wanna fix the national debt? Fix the people. Wanna fix abuses of civil rights? Fix the people. Wanna fix the healthcare crisis in America? Fix the people. Wanna fix the disastrously bad immigration policy? Fix the people.
Generally speaking our political leaders are really just followers — followers of people who vote for them and give them power and wealth. Politics, as someone once observed, is downstream of culture.
@Fraser
Breitbart, it was Andrew Breitbart who said that.
bobby b -= the people have no say in picking British judges, none.
A committee set up under Prime Minister Blair picks the judges – and they operate by “Group Think”.
A for “fix the people” – the same population in the United States who voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 when he promised lower taxes and less government spending, voted for him in 1936 long after it became obvious it stood for the exact opposite of these things – and that he stood for stealing privately owned monetary gold, and violating all contracts – public and private.
“He who puts his trust in the people, builds his house upon sand” – most people do not have the time to study political matters (they are trying to earn a living and feed their family), so they trust the media – and the media deceive them.
For example, most British people believe “Liz Truss crashed the economy” when the lady did no such thing – they believe it because the media tell them so.
The reason I “bang on about” history (recent history and further back) is that most people, even most libertarians, believe a series of lies they have been fed – both by the media and the education system.
And “fixing” this is very difficult – very difficult indeed.
Appoint better judges – “the people” may (perhaps) be horrified at first, but they will come round.
If you do not get rid of leftist judges and appoint “reactionaries” instead – then you do not have a country anymore.
Want to fix the national debt – then fix the national debt.
Want to fix the abuse of Civil Rights – then fix the abuse of Civil Rights.
Want to fix health care costs – then fix health costs.
Want to fix mass illegal immigration – then fix mass mass illegal immigration.
Most people are followers – not leaders, it is pointless to talk of “fixing” them, as their opinions reflect what they are told, and what they experience, and can flip over night, and then flip back again the next day. That is not to condemn them – again most people just do not have the time to look into matters in any depth, they are too busy trying to earn a living and feed their families.
If things improve – then the people will support what you are doing. Do it – do the work, actually fix the problems.
Do not wait for “the people” – as you will be waiting for ever.
This constant focus on the Supreme Court strikes me as weird.
Most recently, Dan Souter said:
but in all fairness, it’s not just Dan; a lot of people say the same thing. My point is that the Supreme Court wasn’t really the mad Blairite innovation so often claimed; the Supreme Court is just a fancy rebranding of the old House of Lords, judicial division. It got a fancy new logo and smart new offices, but otherwise, the Supreme Court and the old Law Lords are the same thing. No difference in power, authority, personnel or indoctrination.
Some of the real changes that Blair brought in were:
The removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Law Lords/Supreme Court, meaning there is no longer a Minister who sits on the country’s highest court
Transfer for responsibility for judicial appointments from the Lord Chancellor, a government Minister, to the Judicial Appointments Commission. This body is often mistakenly believed to be just a group of judges appointing their own, but actually it currently includes a civil servant, a professor of psychiatry, a barrister and a solicitor and someone who day job is as an “Arts Consultant”.
Creation of the Sentencing Council (formerly, Sentencing Guideline Council)
There are those (notably, David Starkey) who think the mere name “Supreme Court” gives it ideas above its station even if it is just window-dressing, and there may be some merit in that, but I would argue each of the three points above had more impact.
Mary Contrary.
Whatever one calls the courts – the fact remains that we need better judges, we need “Reactionary” judges.
And the establishment will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the appointment of such judges.
In theory Parliament can do whatever it likes – it will be interesting to see if Mr Farage, if he gets a majority in the House of Commons, will test that theory in practice – by passing an Act of Parliament to dismiss the current judges and appointing “Reactionary” ones.
I am not a great fan (to put it mildly) of the idea that the House of Commons can do anything it likes – but that is less bad than the rule of a “liberal” establishment.
Neither am I, but when a political party is elected on explicit manifesto commitments to reduce immigration, repeal NetZero, get tough on crime and prevent spongers living off the sweat of others then it is not the role of the judiciary to frustrate that.
But that is exactly what has happened previously and what the current judiciary intends to continue into the future unless similarly frustrated.
If the only way of preventing such judicial interference in political matters which have already been decided by the electorate is the sweeping away of all such judicial barriers (including international treaties where they are so enabling).
This is not just about parliamentary sovereignty, it is also about the constitutional principle that one parliament cannot bind a future one, but that is exactly what much of the Blairite legislation (UK Supreme Court, membership of the ECHR, etc.) and liberal judicial rulings have succeeded in doing.
So yes, get elected with a legitimate mandate to do so and then sweep it all away.
Dunno about the UK but too many Canadian judges, at all levels, are lawyers who got promoted into the judiciary by their law partners who wanted them bloody well out of their firm.
They were usually a toxic mix of nasty, stupid, lazy, perverts, dishonest, drunk or drug addled.
By promoted into, I mean a senior partner of the firm would have a quiet word with someone in whatever government structure selected judges.
Fred_Z – that is also my impression of the Canadian “Justice” system.
Dan Souter – yes indeed Sir, this is not the judiciary of Sir Edward Coke or Sir John Holt – and whilst the British judiciary is certainly NOT the worst in the world, its basic assumptions (on the principles of jurisprudence) are just wrong – so the system does need to be swept away.
But how can any elected government sweep away all the institutions – and make no mistake, all the institutions (all-of-them) are intellectually corrupted.
For example, expensive private schools teach the same toxic political and cultural doctrines that the government schools do.
Struth! But what do you do? The 2023 act you would have thought was clear enough but still they found a way to neuter it. Sure, you can get rid of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act but the people – as McGrogan points out – remain. If they can tie themselves up in intellectual knots like this they can do it again.
Sacking judges is a scary thing to do. We haven’t done that in hundreds of years. (I think). But I see no alternative. And if the judiciary is rotten doesn’t that also mean that large parts of the legal profession are too? Should their privileges be abolished?
“My point is that the Supreme Court wasn’t really the mad Blairite innovation so often claimed; the Supreme Court is just a fancy rebranding of the old House of Lords, judicial division. It got a fancy new logo and smart new offices, but otherwise, the Supreme Court and the old Law Lords are the same thing. No difference in power, authority, personnel or indoctrination.”
Thank you, Mary, for being Contrary.
Not really convinced Andrew Breibart was right. Increasingly seems to me that culture is downstream of law in many cases.
We didn’t get madd immigration in Britain for example due to culture. Most of the public opposed it. In the 60s and 70s Enoch Powell was by far the most popular individual MP in the country. The public have been against the Blair-Cameron-BoJo various mass immigration drives. Yet in every case these waves happened, as they were imposed from above.
Likewise with gay marriage, abolition of death penalty etc, they were imposed from above. Before they were they were not participating popular positions with the public (and I can say that as someone is quite sceptical about capital punishment). You have to remember that in 2008 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage in the USA. In California of all places a referendum won to ban gay marriage in 2008. What happened to the proposition? Thrown out by the supreme court as unconstitutional! And following that now most Republicans, let alone Democrats, are to the left of Obama’s 2008 position on gay marriage.
People who think the ‘people need fixing’ need their own heads fixing.
Martin, I just wanted to recommend you (and everybody!) subscribe to McGrogan’s Substack, ‘News From Uncibal,’ for some of the best thinking on the current crises. He is a legal academic, and such types are usually a punishment to read, but Dr McG writes like a grievous angel. Libertarian? Hard to say. He invokes numerous obscure and forgotten writers, deploys very sophisticated arguments, and yet arrives at hardheaded, pragmatic conclusions and prescriptions. He’s fast becoming one of the UK’s most important intellectuals.
Martin – yes policies, both social (cultural) and economic, are imposed from above – they are based on intellectual fashions, with the people dragged into accepting them, indoctrinated – and punished if they resist indoctrination.
It is horrible – but that is what happens.