Which branch is more broken - Executive, Judicial, or Legislative?

sweet thread

CAGE MATCH

SINCE 1789, THE THREE BRANCHES HAVE DUKED IT OUT IN A FRAGILE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, BUT NOW THE PEOPLE MUST DETERMINE WHICH THE MOST BROKEN

http://www.pro-wrestling-america.com/images/Hulk-Hogan-big-boot.jpg

The Executive has it so easy compared to the Legislative. All it has to do is faithfully execute the laws. Just like a Terminator robot. You never see a big group of Terminators sitting around debating taxes or tariffs, do you? I thought not.

Maybe ppl are preoccupied w/ the wrong (ie fed) level? What is it, 69 of 99 state legislatures in CaveParty hands? Whatever's "working," they have it.

xpost except when the laws or authorizations being executed are vague enough to exploit (i.e. the surveillance state or the 2001 AUMF-authorized war on terror that will never end in our lifetimes)

Hell, vague laws just make the job easier. You can hardly go wrong if you just concentrate on killing as many foreigners as you can, incarcerating your poorer citizens, and stuffing money into the pockets of the richer ones on any pretext -- or fuck it, no pretext at all. Presto! Job's a breeze!

I'm feeling kind of cynical this morning

realistic

Legislative, but I'm with Morbs on this one - people don't even know who their state reps are half the time!

State legislatures count as the Legislative Branch in my book (self published, extremely limited edition)

Gubernatorial

legislative. landslide victory.

no "all three" option

on Judicial breakage

legislative in a walk. I mean, the judicial branch has problems but they are fixable, except another branch stands in the way.

as i understand it, if one of the branches breaks down completely then the remaining two compete to determine the champion. the traditional method is to have one of the remaining two branches "take a breather" for a year to see how the other does as the sole branch, and then they reverse roles in the second year. the order is determined by a coin toss. after this two year period has ended the branch that broke down completely in the first place votes to determine which branch is the best. in case of a tie, the vice-president is the tiebreaker UNLESS the executive branch is the one that broke down completely in the first place (igniting the grudge match), in which case the winner is determined by coin flip.

Also the judicial branch somewhat functions, it's just that we mostly probably disagree ideologically with the results it's producing (although I have been hearing that the federal bench has quietly improved a lot under Obama). The legislative branch just seems objectively broken, regardless of what outcome you hope for.

xpost
this is a very reasonable system that would be in effect today...if it wasn't for the legislative branch, which refuses to send this bill to committee. or the executive branch, since many presidents have made clear their intention to veto if it made it to their desk. it could be judicial branch's fault though, too, because i've heard that the whole plan may be on very tenuous legal ground

legislative obv the right answer. executive works too well and judicial - despite obv ideological stacking and things like citizens united - seems to be working w/ some level of integrity and effectiveness. legislative w/ gerrymandering is completely non-representative and obv they are compositionally unable to do anything but shut down the government.

i don't think the judicial branch is 'broken' at all in any structural sense. even the current SC lineup has made some very good calls (along with some disastrous ones). it's hard to compare that to the legislative branch which has basically ground to a complete halt.

but what about that whole theoretical thing where the judiciary is supposed to act as a neutral, disinterested party? i realize that hasn't been the case in at least several hundred years or so, but when people complain about "activist judges", isn't that based on some shared idea that may or may not have existed at one point? or was it broken on day one? or am i overreacting (which i NEVER do, ha ha. ha. oh.) and the vast majority of judges' decisions really are based upon a disinterested understanding of the law?

I get stuck wondering if I want courts filled with incompetent hacks who rule how I want or nine Ivy Leaguers on the high court who often ruin our lives.

Courts have always been political and laws are as subject to interpretation as Milton or Keats; that's why so many judges began as English majors and why they can't write.

The judiciary at its best attempts to reconcile the law with reality. Sometimes it fails through partiality or ideology, but sometimes it fails because the law and reality don't have enough overlap.

Judicial because judges can do whatever the fuck they want and have no accountability whatsoever under the guise of protecting their impartiality. Tossers.

but what about that whole theoretical thing where the judiciary is supposed to act as a neutral, disinterested party? i realize that hasn't been the case in at least several hundred years or so, but when people complain about "activist judges", isn't that based on some shared idea that may or may not have existed at one point? or was it broken on day one? or am i overreacting (which i NEVER do, ha ha. ha. oh.) and the vast majority of judges' decisions really are based upon a disinterested understanding of the law?

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Karl Malone), Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:04 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There is no such thing as a disinterested understanding of the law. Especially when it comes to the Constitution, which is very different from, say, a statutory scheme.

Assuming this is only about the US, legislative.

legislative on the federal and state level
for example, the ohio state senate just met for the first time since June
this week

it's November

sorry for not capitalizing Ohio

i assumed it was a shoutout to their small-government philosophy

no they are just not interested in working afaict

mordy otm

The executive has gotten completely, terrifyingly out of hand but the legislature is broken from the ground up. I mean even before you get to all the innovations of gridlocking, bill-killing, poison-pill amending and everything else that happens between subcommittee and floor vote, or what corporate money and 24-hour sound-bite news do to a two-year election cycle, the whole premise of the Senate is just fucked up and wrong, and the House is so susceptible to gerrymandering it might as well be the Senate for how much it reflects the voting public.

today i pledge to fuck up the executive branch a little more so this poll will be more competitive

the fourth branch is fucked too

aka the fourth estate

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

nothing, to me, says 'broken government' like the inverse correlation between incumbent retention and congressional approval ratings.

Constitution, Civil Society

voted legislative w/o a doubt.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Someone should look into fixing that branch

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_justice_john_roberts_nt_120628_wg.jpg

bump

the Supreme Court added another liar who assaults women to their ranks, and trump and the dream team oversee the executive branch.

guess the answer is still the same - part of the reason the trump administration is such a disaster is because republicans failed to conduct any oversight over the last two years.

but you have to admit it's becoming more of a horse race