The Supreme Court justice flew to Montana and other destinations on the billionaire GOP donor’s dime. Crow’s lawyer revealed these flights to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose ongoing investigation was sparked by ProPublica’s reporting.
I agree with your message, but as a Canadian, I always find it funny how Americans throw around “unelected” as a pejorative. Very few countries hold elections for anything that isn’t a professional-political positions. Maybe I’m biased from my experiences, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with judges being unelected, they should be apolitical and follow a code of ethics.
Why is it a bad thing that the head of law enforcement be accountable to the people directly? Why is it better for them to be appointed by a wealthy politician?
I’m American and I agree with you 100%. You actually can elect local judges in many places in the U.S. and it’s a terrible idea because people have no idea what they’re voting for most of the time, and how can they? It’s not like there’s a lot of easily available literature about the people running to convict criminals. I usually end up voting for anyone who is a woman or a POC if I can just to increase diversity in the courts system, but as with Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, that is obviously no guarantee.
It’s also a pejorative that people only use when the ruling is against their interests.
My state (Wisconsin) elects its Supreme Court justices. It’s a mixed bag. We had several years of conservative rule on the court with some terrible consequences. Now we have a liberal majority pretty well entrenched and things are starting to work out better.
What I do know is that federal Supreme Court justices shouldn’t have lifetime terms. It should be long, but not lifetime.
I’m not even sure if terms are necessary, though I don’t mind the idea of a long term where at the end, Justices would have to be re-nominated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) does just fine with lifetime appointments (though we do have mandatory retirement at 75).
I think we could tinker with rules and procedure (for example, instituting strong codes of ethics), but I think what SCOTUS needs is a change in cultural norms, and that’s extremely hard to bring about. The process for appointments to the SCC and SCOTUS are very similar, yet SCOTUS appointments are highly politicized while any “seemingly political” appointments of judges in Canada have faced huge public backlashes.
I think there are many differences that created these cultural norms but IMHO, one of the biggest is the politicization of lower-level judges (as well as other positions). This interweaves law and politics, and it’s not unheard of for members of the judiciary to jump into full political-positions and back again. This is very different than Canada, where we also have many lawyers who enter politics, but that basically closes the door on ever entering the judiciary.
I agree with your message, but as a Canadian, I always find it funny how Americans throw around “unelected” as a pejorative. Very few countries hold elections for anything that isn’t a professional-political positions. Maybe I’m biased from my experiences, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with judges being unelected, they should be apolitical and follow a code of ethics.
The craziest thing to me as a non-American is that Sheriffs are voted for.
Zero qualifications, just need to be popular.
What. The. Fuck.
Why is it a bad thing that the head of law enforcement be accountable to the people directly? Why is it better for them to be appointed by a wealthy politician?
Law enforcement should always require training and knowledge of the law.
Politicians are there to oversee and be elected, they are accountable to the people directly and they have the power to fire police officers.
Law enforcement shouldn’t be elected and thus be influenced by people directly
They are public servants.
I’m American and I agree with you 100%. You actually can elect local judges in many places in the U.S. and it’s a terrible idea because people have no idea what they’re voting for most of the time, and how can they? It’s not like there’s a lot of easily available literature about the people running to convict criminals. I usually end up voting for anyone who is a woman or a POC if I can just to increase diversity in the courts system, but as with Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, that is obviously no guarantee.
It’s also a pejorative that people only use when the ruling is against their interests.
My state (Wisconsin) elects its Supreme Court justices. It’s a mixed bag. We had several years of conservative rule on the court with some terrible consequences. Now we have a liberal majority pretty well entrenched and things are starting to work out better.
What I do know is that federal Supreme Court justices shouldn’t have lifetime terms. It should be long, but not lifetime.
I’m not even sure if terms are necessary, though I don’t mind the idea of a long term where at the end, Justices would have to be re-nominated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) does just fine with lifetime appointments (though we do have mandatory retirement at 75).
I think we could tinker with rules and procedure (for example, instituting strong codes of ethics), but I think what SCOTUS needs is a change in cultural norms, and that’s extremely hard to bring about. The process for appointments to the SCC and SCOTUS are very similar, yet SCOTUS appointments are highly politicized while any “seemingly political” appointments of judges in Canada have faced huge public backlashes.
I think there are many differences that created these cultural norms but IMHO, one of the biggest is the politicization of lower-level judges (as well as other positions). This interweaves law and politics, and it’s not unheard of for members of the judiciary to jump into full political-positions and back again. This is very different than Canada, where we also have many lawyers who enter politics, but that basically closes the door on ever entering the judiciary.