4 ms·

Electing judges was considered a reform. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Obviously Supreme Court justices are appointed.

jacquesm 7y ago
The appointment of supreme court justices in the United States looks to outsiders as though political operators do their best to stack the deck in their favor in case they ever need a get-out-of-jail-free card.
- Clubber 7y ago
  I can see that, sure. Which is better, electing or appointing judges? It doesn't seem clear cut to me that there is a good answer with those options. As an aside, in the US, in some jurisdictions including federal, being a lawyer isn't a requirement for judgeship. https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/
- zeveb 7y ago
  I don't think it's that — it's that the Supreme Court has become the unchallengeable super-legislature, and thus both sides of any issue desperately want to get their guys onto the court, so that they can get the laws they wish to pass. It's a weird sort of legislature, though. It doesn't have the ability to originate laws itself: third parties have to propose laws to it. And those proposals have to be in the form of arguments that the actual laws passed by the legislative branch are unconstitutional. Once a party has managed to phrase his proposed law in that fashion, though, the Supreme Court is practically capable of passing any law, repealing any law, revoking any provision of the Constitution and amending the Constitution in any way it wants. It's an odd system.
- mlindner 7y ago
  That didn't use to be the case. In the last few years the supreme court appointment system has become way more political than it ever used to be. I'd argue it means that there is becoming more and more disagreement in the general public on what laws even mean. This causes politics to be inserted into the legal system because the "meaning of laws" itself has become politicized. Why this change has happened is a good question.

jacquesm 7y ago

The appointment of supreme court justices in the United States looks to outsiders as though political operators do their best to stack the deck in their favor in case they ever need a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Clubber 7y ago
I can see that, sure. Which is better, electing or appointing judges? It doesn't seem clear cut to me that there is a good answer with those options. As an aside, in the US, in some jurisdictions including federal, being a lawyer isn't a requirement for judgeship. https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/
zeveb 7y ago
I don't think it's that — it's that the Supreme Court has become the unchallengeable super-legislature, and thus both sides of any issue desperately want to get their guys onto the court, so that they can get the laws they wish to pass. It's a weird sort of legislature, though. It doesn't have the ability to originate laws itself: third parties have to propose laws to it. And those proposals have to be in the form of arguments that the actual laws passed by the legislative branch are unconstitutional. Once a party has managed to phrase his proposed law in that fashion, though, the Supreme Court is practically capable of passing any law, repealing any law, revoking any provision of the Constitution and amending the Constitution in any way it wants. It's an odd system.
mlindner 7y ago
That didn't use to be the case. In the last few years the supreme court appointment system has become way more political than it ever used to be. I'd argue it means that there is becoming more and more disagreement in the general public on what laws even mean. This causes politics to be inserted into the legal system because the "meaning of laws" itself has become politicized. Why this change has happened is a good question.