4 ms·

It strikes me as naive to think it would ever work otherwise. Justices are political appointees and political actors. I see no reason to expect anything differe

It strikes me as naive to think it would ever work otherwise. Justices are political appointees and political actors. I see no reason to expect anything different. Believing they are somehow "above politics" strikes me as similarly fanciful to believing in the divine right of kings.

adastra22 4y ago
Judges are NOT political appointees. Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government. Heads of agencies and such. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference.
- eli 4y ago
  This is needlessly pedantic. They are appointed by politicians.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Words have meaning, even if that meaning is not clear from the direct composite words used, as in this case. The word “political appointee” has the technical meaning I stated.
- danenania 4y ago
  Appointed by politicians = political appointee in my book. But yes, they are lifetime political appointees. "Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference." I also think this is naive. In my view, they serve lifetime appointments because they don't want to give up power, and no one's been able to force them to so far.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    It’s written into the constitution.
    - danenania 4y ago
      And?
      - adastra22 4y ago
        (1) it is not the case that they serve lifetime appointments "because they don't want to give up power." They serve lifetime appointments because the framers of the constitution decided it was better for the court to be structured that way hundreds of years before they were born. (2) Forcing them to give up power, as you put it, would require a constitutional amendment, which is not something any one person can do.
        danenania 4y ago
        What I'm questioning is that the motivation for lifetime appointments ever had anything to do with avoiding political interference. Regardless of the claimed justification, I think lifetime appointments were just a naked, cynical power grab by factions that favored oligarchy over democracy, and have remained so to this day.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Judges are NOT political appointees. On the contrary, any officer appointed by the President, Vice President, or an agency head, with or without Senate confirmation, is a “political appointee”. > Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government. It is true that within the executive branch, political appointees often serve at the pleasure of the President (though even there are a number of exceptions where political appointees have fixed terms and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.)

adastra22 4y ago

Judges are NOT political appointees. Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government. Heads of agencies and such. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference.

eli 4y ago
This is needlessly pedantic. They are appointed by politicians.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Words have meaning, even if that meaning is not clear from the direct composite words used, as in this case. The word “political appointee” has the technical meaning I stated.
danenania 4y ago
Appointed by politicians = political appointee in my book. But yes, they are lifetime political appointees. "Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference." I also think this is naive. In my view, they serve lifetime appointments because they don't want to give up power, and no one's been able to force them to so far.
- adastra22 4y ago
  It’s written into the constitution.
  - danenania 4y ago
    And?
    - adastra22 4y ago
      (1) it is not the case that they serve lifetime appointments "because they don't want to give up power." They serve lifetime appointments because the framers of the constitution decided it was better for the court to be structured that way hundreds of years before they were born. (2) Forcing them to give up power, as you put it, would require a constitutional amendment, which is not something any one person can do.
      - danenania 4y ago
        What I'm questioning is that the motivation for lifetime appointments ever had anything to do with avoiding political interference. Regardless of the claimed justification, I think lifetime appointments were just a naked, cynical power grab by factions that favored oligarchy over democracy, and have remained so to this day.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Judges are NOT political appointees. On the contrary, any officer appointed by the President, Vice President, or an agency head, with or without Senate confirmation, is a “political appointee”. > Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government. It is true that within the executive branch, political appointees often serve at the pleasure of the President (though even there are a number of exceptions where political appointees have fixed terms and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.)