Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tptacek 4637 days ago
And in addition to the fact that they're 4 judges out of 9,800 total state and federal judges (which federal judges are also regionally allocated so as not to have Connecticut judges hearing Alaskan controversies), those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.

It's impossible to look at the US judicial system and come away with the conclusion that it heedless of the concerns of Floridians hearing Alaskan cases. The US system is almost literally the opposite of that.
1 comments
DanBC 4637 days ago
> those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.

And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.

link
tptacek 4637 days ago
The limitation you're referring to is substantive, and the limitation I'm referring to is procedural. They aren't remotely the same thing. The implicit proposal you're referring to gives an unrepresentative international tribunal the power to override democratic process over a whole area of policy.
link