4 ms·

Giving career politicians the power to exercise discretion in the process of selecting judges does end the rule of law, and that's true even if their are shell

by chalst 5y ago

Giving career politicians the power to exercise discretion in the process of selecting judges does end the rule of law, and that's true even if their are shell committees formed to hide this exercise of power from those who don't see what is happening. Purging corruption in legal institutions is a hard problem, but that doesn't mean there is any hysteria in using strong words when they are deserved.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Almost every nation has judges appointed by politicians, including every nation in the EU and North America. Kakistocracy is not rule of law. The idea that only in Poland should judges appoint their own replacement creates a different yardstick for them versus everyone else. I get why the EU bureaucrats wouldn't want to give Polish politicians the same influence over judges as German or French politicians, as the EU views polish politicians as enemies, but no one with integrity or honesty would go along with that kind of doublespeak.
- chalst 5y ago
  This is not quite true, but indeed it is typically true that there is some ability for certain politicians to veto the appointment of judges, and in some countries (esp. the US) this has led to politicisation of the whole process of appointments (which I do actually regard as a failure of the rule of law), so what I wrote was also not quite true. And of course in the US and Canada, the appointment to the Supreme Court is entirely political, although there are substantial checks on the executive. However, the context was talking about firing of judges. That is far more important. It is the difference between what is happening in the US (which leads to bad judicial activism, but not a complete breakdown of the rule of law) and Nazi Germany (apologies for violating Godwin's law, but since I live in Germany and my wife and kids are German, I feel I have the right to violate it once per year).

by chalst 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

Almost every nation has judges appointed by politicians, including every nation in the EU and North America. Kakistocracy is not rule of law. The idea that only in Poland should judges appoint their own replacement creates a different yardstick for them versus everyone else. I get why the EU bureaucrats wouldn't want to give Polish politicians the same influence over judges as German or French politicians, as the EU views polish politicians as enemies, but no one with integrity or honesty would go along with that kind of doublespeak.

chalst 5y ago
This is not quite true, but indeed it is typically true that there is some ability for certain politicians to veto the appointment of judges, and in some countries (esp. the US) this has led to politicisation of the whole process of appointments (which I do actually regard as a failure of the rule of law), so what I wrote was also not quite true. And of course in the US and Canada, the appointment to the Supreme Court is entirely political, although there are substantial checks on the executive. However, the context was talking about firing of judges. That is far more important. It is the difference between what is happening in the US (which leads to bad judicial activism, but not a complete breakdown of the rule of law) and Nazi Germany (apologies for violating Godwin's law, but since I live in Germany and my wife and kids are German, I feel I have the right to violate it once per year).