2 ms·

> Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they

by roenxi 2y ago

> Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they appointed? They aren't elected directly and the alternatives I can come up with to political appointment are outrageous affronts to democracy.

defrost 2y ago
In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...
- roenxi 2y ago
  Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults with same group of people who organise the whips for legislative votes when making decisions. That isn't differentiating the process from the US except in a cosmetic fashion. If a judge could get the whips' support in the US for a vote then they can get the AG's support in Australia through the same channels. If 51% of the ALP party room disagrees with Quigley's choices he is going to make different choices. Although there is also an argument that it'd be easier to get partisan results because only the AG has to be shameless and he is already selected as someone deeply embedded in politics. If there is a difference I assume it would be who is allowed to be in the candidate pool.

by roenxi 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...

roenxi 2y ago
Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults with same group of people who organise the whips for legislative votes when making decisions. That isn't differentiating the process from the US except in a cosmetic fashion. If a judge could get the whips' support in the US for a vote then they can get the AG's support in Australia through the same channels. If 51% of the ALP party room disagrees with Quigley's choices he is going to make different choices. Although there is also an argument that it'd be easier to get partisan results because only the AG has to be shameless and he is already selected as someone deeply embedded in politics. If there is a difference I assume it would be who is allowed to be in the candidate pool.