2 ms·

Holy jumping Jesuits. No. Just... No. This has never worked well on any private org, and it will definitely not work in the Judiciary, especially since to esta

Holy jumping Jesuits. No. Just... No. This has never worked well on any private org, and it will definitely not work in the Judiciary, especially since to establish that vaunted KPI you'd need to measure against something objective, and so much of the legal system would be undone since the subjective weighs very heavily into it. Otherwise you wouldn't have things like the Ninth Circuit (which I think would be an improvement), yet I'm reluctant to say that throwing that subjectivity out isn't in some way part of a long term check or balance...

hotpotamus 5y ago
Indeed, it would seem that meritocracy is something of a myth? Or perhaps a half-truth? How can one work hard to achieve a subjective indicator? This subject just made me think about it a bit. There are probably thousands (10's of thousands?) of judges fit to sit on the Supreme Court who have all the merit, and yet statistically speaking basically none of them ever will which makes any selection unfair, no? This might actually be one reason to enlarge the court, but of course you'll still have many more qualified candidates than slots.