Who holds these guys responsible?

[Nightwing]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_021506J.shtml


We will see if this plays out to be true or not. My question comes from, the Attorney General is appointed by the admin. And the supreme court is one sided, and also appointed, at this point as well as congress. If Gonzolez sticks to his guns will the supreme court and the senate back him because of party affiliation? Will they concider doing favors like this because the admin gave them such cush. jobs. I know we have an election comming up but I am affraid not enough people are going to go out and vote aginst this kind of Government. We are becomming more and more a government led by elitist, and the middle and lower class is getting more complacent or just exausted by the amount of corruption they are facing. The majority of people are getting news from local news programs and they are not reporting the hard hitting facts enough, if they report facts at all, to get the public worked up enough to get out and do something. Also who holds the judges on the supreme court responsible? I don't know if I am making sense or not.

[ 02-17-2006, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Nightwing: We are becomming more and more a government led by elitist[/QB]

We have always had a government run by the elite. Normal people who have to work to make a living cannot afford to run for or hold an office. Even if people could afford it, most people wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the issues to fulfill the duties of their office completely or correctly.

[Nightwing]

I agree with that, it seems now however the working class is not voting and is being walked on more by the elite. It's almost like we have a voting class and a non-voting class. That's our own fault, but before, people could feel somewhat comfortable with the people in power. Right now I don't get the feeling too many people are all that comfortable.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Azred: We have always had a government run by the elite. Normal people who have to work to make a living cannot afford to run for or hold an office. Even if people could afford it, most people wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the issues to fulfill the duties of their office completely or correctly.

Well, in fairness that latter point hasn't stopped certain individuals from a political career

[ 02-17-2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Azred: We have always had a government run by the elite. Normal people who have to work to make a living cannot afford to run for or hold an office. Even if people could afford it, most people wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the issues to fulfill the duties of their office completely or correctly.

Well, in fairness that latter point hasn't stopped certain individuals from a political career [/QUOTE]True, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, the Clintons, etc etc

[Aerich]

Getting back to the subject of the original post, instead of engaging in partisan candidate-bashing...

Holders of political office are, in the democratic system, ultimately accountable, however imperfectly, to the electorate. Therefore, it is that electorate's job to be informed, take a stand, and exert public pressure to make these sorts of things an election issue. It is also the media's job to spotlight such issues with insightful commentary, and to keep the issues of abuse of power, corruption, and backroom dealing in the public's mind.

Here in Canada, the most powerful federal party of the 1990s was reduced to a wreck of its former self over the last two elections. Before that, the most powerful party of the 1980s fell flat for the same reasons, going from a strong majority to 2 seats. Citizen and media attention is what will bring down political arrogance, it just takes time and effort.

As for the judges, that's a bit more problematic. However, don't forget that governments have the right and the power to pass legislation that essentially overturns the rulings of judges - view the recent surge of state legislation around Eminent Domain, for example, or the New Deal federal legislation in the 1930s that overturned Lochner. Public sentiment can have an effect directly and indirectly in the judicial realm, too.

However, Nightwing, you do have a point. As long as people remain indifferent, governments and judges can pretty much do what they want. It's the nature of the beast.

[Azred]

We have some instances of a media campaign and people watching out for governmental abuses leading to a collapse of the power structure, such as the Teapot Dome scandal, but in recent history most downfalls have been of the power structure's own doing--most notably Nixon's resignation over Watergate.