TBF, it became obvious and inevitable the day you all decided that politically appointed judges with life tenure was a good idea.
Replies
supposedly to 'remove outside pressure' ideologues're no longer restrained by conscience (nor Law). wtff.
aug 4, 2025, 2:10 pm • 0 0 • view
Nomination is bipartisan, and the judiciary has traditionally asserted its independence, even when attempts were made to stack the court. Tolerating outright deceit from corrupt members of Club Fed, and allowing them to dominate the court was negligent In theory, Justices can be impeached
aug 4, 2025, 5:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Best of luck with that.
aug 4, 2025, 7:09 pm • 2 0 • view
"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else" -- Winston Churchill
aug 4, 2025, 9:50 pm • 0 0 • view
How judicial appointments are made is a fraught question! Zero political input is a laudable goal but there is always the counter-argument that in the public realm "apolitical" is a nonsense word. The other extreme—judges running for elected office—is more democratic, maybe, but more open to abuse.
aug 4, 2025, 2:43 pm • 4 0 • view
Judicial appointments are complex. Zero political influence is ideal but unrealistic, while electing judges may be more democratic yet risks greater abuse.
aug 4, 2025, 8:45 pm • 0 0 • view
Yeah, I'm not buying into the idea of elections being the opposite of political.
aug 4, 2025, 8:48 pm • 1 0 • view
Are you happy with the UK system?
aug 4, 2025, 3:41 pm • 0 0 • view
It's probably not the worst. The Judicial Appointments Commission seems competent, and has a duty to promote diversity in what was once a closed white men's club. Who chooses the JAC itself is unclear to me. How the UK Supreme Court is chosen is even unclearer! Jarndyce v Jarndyce springs to mind.
aug 4, 2025, 6:44 pm • 0 0 • view
Right, but at least there is a conscious and concerted effort to maintain separation of powers. The US seems to have given up on the idea.
aug 4, 2025, 7:07 pm • 2 0 • view