5 ms·

This is what's terrible about being a lifetime appointment. Once a politicial driven justice gets appointed there's literally nothing that will change them. Pe

This is what's terrible about being a lifetime appointment. Once a politicial driven justice gets appointed there's literally nothing that will change them. Perhaps in the "old" days when Justices had the feelings you're attributing it might be true but now in the current political situation ideologues are who are sought out to appoint and they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion.

rexpop 7y ago
> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion. I'd be surprised to discover any alternatives to this constraint.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 7y ago
  Because people aren't actually like that in real life. Just because they've gotten a to a particular lifetime job in life, it doesn't mean they don't still crave the approval of their peers. They don't live in a vacuum. They want to still be invited to speak at the places they usually speak, attend the same parties they usually attend, etc. And beyond that, there's a more fundamental issue: people like this are chosen for these roles because of their fervent, polarized political beliefs. Their principles, if they have any, are either aligned with or overcome by the politics. Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics. I certainly hope current SCOTUS justices have a solid grasp of history and what happened to the last SCOTUS justice who acted in a manner you're suggesting. And this is an institution that (also, as history would have it) does a pretty good job giving a wide berth to precedent.
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      Ooo, bad timing on that "wide berth to precedent" point. The new majority just threw out a 40 year old precedent today: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court-precedent-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
      - dvtrn 7y ago
        Hilariously bad timing on my part, thanks for the link--I legitimately missed this story.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Exactly. And the Heritage Society goes out of its way to cultivate a bunch of peers, current Supreme Court Justices being the first and foremost of those peers.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Do you mean the Heritage Foundation?
      - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
        Dangit. I meant the Federalist Society.
  - cataphract 7y ago
    Yes, there's a recent book arguing just this: https://www.amazon.com/Company-They-Keep-Partisan-Divisions/dp/0190278056/ https://www.amazon.com/Company-They-Keep-Partisan-Divisions/... : > Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? Most people think "yes," and they point to the influence of the general public and the other branches of government on the Court. It is not that simple, however. > As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting far more to subtle social forces in their own elite legal world than to pressure from the other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, the authors draw from social psychology research to show why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
A sub-lifetime appointment is also really bad for the Court system, too- the Court gets the final say in the law- and needs independence- and if we were to hold elections every few years for the Supreme Court, we would have an even more partisan government, as people would go campaigning for that office, with all its mud-slinging and hyper-partisanship that seems to be necessary to get elected in the United States' current political climate. Sometimes, having an old guy say "whoa, slow down! That's a bad idea" is a good idea.
- oblomovshchina 7y ago
  Having an elected judiciary is in itself a terrible idea, and not the only option against lifetime appointment. There's also term limits for appointments.
- jayesobj 7y ago
  I agree with you, but also think SCOTUS and similar picks need to require a supermajority vote. That is, I don't have a problem with lifetime appointments to SCOTUS, but I do think if that's the case we need to base those appointments on some kind of trans-partisan consensus.
sieabahlpark 7y ago
That's why you don't let a single political side appoint all of the judges, regardless of what side you reside on. You don't have a balance of opinions if everyone has the same opinion.
nazgulnarsil 7y ago
I'm a visionary, he's politicking, they're ideologues.

rexpop 7y ago

> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion. I'd be surprised to discover any alternatives to this constraint.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 7y ago
Because people aren't actually like that in real life. Just because they've gotten a to a particular lifetime job in life, it doesn't mean they don't still crave the approval of their peers. They don't live in a vacuum. They want to still be invited to speak at the places they usually speak, attend the same parties they usually attend, etc. And beyond that, there's a more fundamental issue: people like this are chosen for these roles because of their fervent, polarized political beliefs. Their principles, if they have any, are either aligned with or overcome by the politics. Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics. I certainly hope current SCOTUS justices have a solid grasp of history and what happened to the last SCOTUS justice who acted in a manner you're suggesting. And this is an institution that (also, as history would have it) does a pretty good job giving a wide berth to precedent.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Ooo, bad timing on that "wide berth to precedent" point. The new majority just threw out a 40 year old precedent today: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court-precedent-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      Hilariously bad timing on my part, thanks for the link--I legitimately missed this story.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  Exactly. And the Heritage Society goes out of its way to cultivate a bunch of peers, current Supreme Court Justices being the first and foremost of those peers.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Do you mean the Heritage Foundation?
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      Dangit. I meant the Federalist Society.
- cataphract 7y ago
  Yes, there's a recent book arguing just this: https://www.amazon.com/Company-They-Keep-Partisan-Divisions/dp/0190278056/ https://www.amazon.com/Company-They-Keep-Partisan-Divisions/... : > Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? Most people think "yes," and they point to the influence of the general public and the other branches of government on the Court. It is not that simple, however. > As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting far more to subtle social forces in their own elite legal world than to pressure from the other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, the authors draw from social psychology research to show why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago

A sub-lifetime appointment is also really bad for the Court system, too- the Court gets the final say in the law- and needs independence- and if we were to hold elections every few years for the Supreme Court, we would have an even more partisan government, as people would go campaigning for that office, with all its mud-slinging and hyper-partisanship that seems to be necessary to get elected in the United States' current political climate. Sometimes, having an old guy say "whoa, slow down! That's a bad idea" is a good idea.

oblomovshchina 7y ago
Having an elected judiciary is in itself a terrible idea, and not the only option against lifetime appointment. There's also term limits for appointments.
jayesobj 7y ago
I agree with you, but also think SCOTUS and similar picks need to require a supermajority vote. That is, I don't have a problem with lifetime appointments to SCOTUS, but I do think if that's the case we need to base those appointments on some kind of trans-partisan consensus.

sieabahlpark 7y ago

That's why you don't let a single political side appoint all of the judges, regardless of what side you reside on. You don't have a balance of opinions if everyone has the same opinion.

nazgulnarsil 7y ago

I'm a visionary, he's politicking, they're ideologues.