4 ms·
Judicial, prosecutorial, and police immunity really needs to be revisited. You will never ever find a Supreme Court that will rule that judges can be held acco
by namelessoracle 5y ago
Judicial, prosecutorial, and police immunity really needs to be revisited.
You will never ever find a Supreme Court that will rule that judges can be held accountable for what they do though. No matter how you rig/pack/arrange the Court. No Justice will ever vote to make themselves more personally vulnerable.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoHow do you solve the problem of preventing political retaliation for unpopular but morally correct decisions? For example, court decisions that dismantled school segregation and that allowed women to vote. Furthermore the other branches of government could step in when things like this happen too.
- namelessoracle 5y agoThis is a classic who watches the watchman problem. The answer might be that judicial oversight is handled by non judicial actors. Civilian oversight panels are commonly looked at as a solution for police and judges need it as well. Judicial oversight is currently in the hands of other judges who have incentives not to create precedent on cracking down on corrupt judges.
- ahtihn 5y agoMorality is subjective. Why should courts be able to overrule the population's wishes?
- otterley 5y agoUsually it's to protect the rights of minorities. This is well covered in the Federalist Papers.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoLaw is supposed to be independent of people, not a decree from royalty, and the US system is one of limited government. Legislators can't do whatever they want and the check-and-balance system is supposed to limit that.