3 ms·

The US judiciary system is an absurd institution. Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability and virtually limitless power to give/take awa

The US judiciary system is an absurd institution. Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability and virtually limitless power to give/take away rights on a whim. Where are the checks and balances that every other branch of government adheres to?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability “In good behavior”, with accountability to Congress. De facto for life with no accountability is, like many problems in the US system of government, largely a side effect of the combination of defective electoral system and the resulting norm of near-balanced partisan duopoly, which in the case of the judiciary combines with the supermajority requirement for conviction on impeachment charges to achieve lack of accountability; the same is also true of the executive, though finite terms, electoral accountability, and in principal (and currently being tested in practice) post-term legal accountability are arguably mitigations there.
naikrovek 4y ago
they can be impeached by Congress and lose their position. it would take a lot of collective effort to make it happen, though.
karaterobot 4y ago
The Supreme Court is a critical piece of the checks and balances system. They need to hold their positions for life because they should not be afraid of losing them due to the whims of the President, Congress, or even the voters. We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed; that is a feature. If a justice is corrupt or incompetent, there are processes to remove them from the bench. The ironic part is that if that doesn't happen, it'll be because the people charged with doing it are so mired in politics that they can't, or won't.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed Yes, we do. However, regardless of what the system intended, that's not what we have anyway.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    Agreed, which is why there are processes to remove them. My point is that those processes fail because the people charged with undertaking them are political. So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution. But this is a political problem. What non-political solutions are even possible?
- thefaux 4y ago
  I can agree that there should be as much insulation from the political process as possible but I believe lifetime appointments actually increase the politicization of the institution. There have been interesting proposals around, e.g. 18 year terms staggered in such a way that there is a new vacancy every two years or so. This has the advantage of limiting the damage a corrupt justice can do even in the event that a a corrupt appointment is made. The current system with lifetime appointments made _through_ an extremely political process with no accountability for sitting justices is awful and already looks like it may be the downfall of the institution. I am as disgusted by our politics is anyone but I am genuinely curious how we could possibly have reform and accountability for the institution without political action.
  - joveian 4y ago
    This is about how it works in Mexico (15 year terms). The 18 years might be needed to avoid a court majority from two four year presidential terms, although I'd say adopting the single six year presidential term would be a good change as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_the_Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
stetrain 4y ago
They are supposed to be accountable to Congress. Their ability to interpret rights and issues is checked by Congress actually passing specific legislation on those issues, or even better constitutional amendments. They are also directly accountable in terms of confirmation and impeachment. The seeming rise in power of the Supreme Court is in some ways a long tail symptom of the continuing lack of efficacy of Congress to fulfill their duties as lawmakers and proportional representatives of the citizens they serve.
- code_witch_sam 4y ago
  the supreme court has a history of "going rogue" when the legislature is divided and weak. ezra klein did a good podcast on this a few months ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability “In good behavior”, with accountability to Congress. De facto for life with no accountability is, like many problems in the US system of government, largely a side effect of the combination of defective electoral system and the resulting norm of near-balanced partisan duopoly, which in the case of the judiciary combines with the supermajority requirement for conviction on impeachment charges to achieve lack of accountability; the same is also true of the executive, though finite terms, electoral accountability, and in principal (and currently being tested in practice) post-term legal accountability are arguably mitigations there.

naikrovek 4y ago

they can be impeached by Congress and lose their position. it would take a lot of collective effort to make it happen, though.

karaterobot 4y ago

The Supreme Court is a critical piece of the checks and balances system. They need to hold their positions for life because they should not be afraid of losing them due to the whims of the President, Congress, or even the voters. We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed; that is a feature. If a justice is corrupt or incompetent, there are processes to remove them from the bench. The ironic part is that if that doesn't happen, it'll be because the people charged with doing it are so mired in politics that they can't, or won't.

JohnFen 4y ago
> We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed Yes, we do. However, regardless of what the system intended, that's not what we have anyway.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  Agreed, which is why there are processes to remove them. My point is that those processes fail because the people charged with undertaking them are political. So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution. But this is a political problem. What non-political solutions are even possible?
thefaux 4y ago
I can agree that there should be as much insulation from the political process as possible but I believe lifetime appointments actually increase the politicization of the institution. There have been interesting proposals around, e.g. 18 year terms staggered in such a way that there is a new vacancy every two years or so. This has the advantage of limiting the damage a corrupt justice can do even in the event that a a corrupt appointment is made. The current system with lifetime appointments made _through_ an extremely political process with no accountability for sitting justices is awful and already looks like it may be the downfall of the institution. I am as disgusted by our politics is anyone but I am genuinely curious how we could possibly have reform and accountability for the institution without political action.
- joveian 4y ago
  This is about how it works in Mexico (15 year terms). The 18 years might be needed to avoid a court majority from two four year presidential terms, although I'd say adopting the single six year presidential term would be a good change as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_the_Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...

stetrain 4y ago

They are supposed to be accountable to Congress. Their ability to interpret rights and issues is checked by Congress actually passing specific legislation on those issues, or even better constitutional amendments. They are also directly accountable in terms of confirmation and impeachment. The seeming rise in power of the Supreme Court is in some ways a long tail symptom of the continuing lack of efficacy of Congress to fulfill their duties as lawmakers and proportional representatives of the citizens they serve.

code_witch_sam 4y ago
the supreme court has a history of "going rogue" when the legislature is divided and weak. ezra klein did a good podcast on this a few months ago