Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.
The US ranges from failure to bad.
Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that's trusted internationally.
Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn't relevant anywhere else.
Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.
There are no illusions that politicians are experts.
Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.
Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.
I've said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I'm antidemocratic.
The difference between you and me is you're sprouting ideology and I'm explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.
Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.
Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.
As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it's much more efficient and successful most of the time.
Resign from the senate.
Rather than just going back to that job after the campaign.
This campaign is literally zero cost for him as it stands. He's a senator and will continue being a senator if he loses.
He should be forced to resign for things he's done and admitted doing publicly.
So the problem with elected judges is the elections.
There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.
There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won't.
Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.
Partisan politics is avoidable.
Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.
Well if that's the meaning of "political you're using then all judges are. That's why I put it in quotes in my last reply, I assumed you meant partisan. Otherwise you'd have been making an irrelevant point.
Unfortunately the US has a storied history of elected local judges allowing lynchings, for example, while the appointed federal courts passed civil rights so I won't be taking notes.
Of course the appointed judges and elected judges are now targeting women and minorities. So your appointment system is also broken.
Again, not taking notes.
An attempt to be representative is not equal to being "political".
It's actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.
No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.
There's no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.
The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.
Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.
And yes it is weird.
A bangla house was one in the Bengali style. Those were single story buildings the colonial British encountered in India.
So it became the posh way of saying "single story house" and then everyone started using it. Because it's better to say you're choosing not to build extra stories than saying you can't afford them.
She read Ayn Rand, Hayek simplified by tax cut lobbists and no conflicting positions.
Most of what she did was wrong and people knew at the time. But she fooled enough voters like Regan.
In the UK the Conservative party decided to get rid of DEI initiatives in education. When?
When the minority specifically recommended to be targeted for support became poor/working class white boys.
Conservatives will go out of their way to harm the working class because as long as things are going badly for them they'll be angry enough to vote for the ones with dog whistles pretending it's someone else's fault.
On 31 March 1998, the XP5 prototype with a modified rev limiter set the Guinness World Record for the world's fastest production car, reaching 240.1 mph (386.4 km/h),[6] surpassing the modified Jaguar XJ220's 218.3 mph (351 km/h) record from 1993.
So 1993 to 1998 for the independently verified record.
McLaren's own test of the XP3 was in 1993 so it was really just waiting for that formality from that point on.
My guess is this was made in 1992 or 1993
At that point the Jaguar XJ220 was the fastest production road car in the world.
When fusion or fission occurs you get new atoms.
It's Hydrogen that's existed since the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to make atoms. Seconds after the big bang.
That's most hydrogen.
It's never been fused into heavier elements just still sticking around and caught in the planetary part of the solar system rather than the sun itself. Or any previous suns.
There's some helium like that but most helium was formed inside suns later, and heavier elements all formed later in suns or supernovas.
But the SEO garbage sites active up to 2023 have updated since 2023 to keep up with each other.
So it works really well.
VLC
Exceptions are possible. Money isn't everything for everyone.
If you look at the graph, 0GW.
It's unlikely that the batteries stored power for several days. Highly likely that abundance of solar is the source.