Should Supreme Court judges be politically partisan?

[StringJunky]

I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank.

That's my opinion.

Edited July 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank.

That's my opinion.

I agree, it's nothing but political corruption mostly supported by the evangelical/dominionist movement... 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I agree, it's nothing but political corruption mostly supported by the evangelical/dominionist movement... 

This is 7 years old, but this article on the appointment of a UK Supreme Court judge illustrates the glaring difference in attitude of the respective national judiciaries. Note how the appointee is warning of the politicisation of the UK judiciary:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/08/supreme-court-appointee-judges-politicised

Edited July 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is 7 years old, but this article on the appointment of a UK Supreme Court judge illustrates the glaring difference in attitude of the respective national judiciaries. Note how the appointee is warning of the politicisation of the UK judiciary:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/08/supreme-court-appointee-judges-politicised

Ever notice when an alarm sounds that most people sit around wondering how this could happen rather than doing something about it? The Alarm has been sounding here for decades but the people keep allowing the fire to spread while arguing if there is a fire or not... 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Ever notice when an alarm sounds that most people sit around wondering how this could happen rather than doing something about it? The Alarm has been sounding here for decades but the people keep allowing the fire to spread while arguing if there is a fire or not... 

Yes indeed. In the US there is a serious lack of separation and mutual critical oversight between the judicial and political pillars. You've got religion messing it up as well. We have another oversight mechanism in the Royal Assent, of which, the Queen's team scrutinises any laws before receiving it.

Edited July 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes indeed. In the US there is a serious lack of separation and mutual critical oversight between the judicial and political pillars. You've got religion messing it up as well. We have another oversight mechanism in the Royal Assent, of which, the Queen's team scrutinises any laws before receiving it.

Does the Queen really have any power?

[Sensei]

Quote

Should Supreme Court judges be politically partisan?

The worse than that can be only when some politicians have knowledge about crimes committed by judges (or unwanted unpleasant and reputation devastating stories from their life), and eventually blackmailing them, to support their case..

Edited July 16, 2018 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Does the Queen really have any power?

Of everything i've read over the years, it has not been tested. You see, everything has been done according to the law, to date. But if the shit hit the fan, she's the head of the Armed Forces and a lot of other things but she is not a political head and her only concern is that correct procedure is followed. 

31 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The worse than that can be only when some politicians have knowledge about crimes committed  by judges (or unwanted unpleasant and reputation devastating stories from their life), and eventually blackmailing them, to support their case..

 

 

A reason why they should be separate.

Edited July 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank.

That's my opinion.

I'm not convinced they are politically partisan. For example, I don't see a belief that the Constitution should be "interpreted" rather than "applied as written" as Democratic vs. Republican. Just because Republicans or Democrats prefer a specific judicial philosophy does not mean those judges with the same philosophy are being partisan.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Ever notice when an alarm sounds that most people sit around wondering how this could happen rather than doing something about it? The Alarm has been sounding here for decades but the people keep allowing the fire to spread while arguing if there is a fire or not... 

This is part of an extremist capitalist tactic I've been noticing for some time now. Ignore things until they get really bad, then supply the overpriced experts to overcharge to fix it in a way that means when the job is done, it will be time to do it over again. 

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not convinced they are politically partisan. For example, I don't see a belief that the Constitution should be "interpreted" rather than "applied as written" as Democratic vs. Republican. Just because Republicans or Democrats prefer a specific judicial philosophy does not mean those judges with the same philosophy are being partisan.

In the UK, there seems to be only one judicial philosophy and they all speak the same language. I'm open to being corrected. i think in time, some of your judges become above partisanship, as witnessed when they vote with the other side.

Your judges are clearly chosen for how they might benefit the government of the day and that particular politic into the future.

Edited July 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Your judges are clearly chosen for how they might benefit the government of the day and that particular politic into the future.

I'm not sure that is true either. For example, a judge might be chosen because they have a history of narrowly ruling on abortion issues or Right to Privacy, but that does not really help the government (other than goodwill from their constituents for selecting such a judge); there is no quid pro quo. I don't believe judges say "I'll vote for that because the Republicans want me to". I think they are selected by politicians in the first place because politicians have a good idea how they'll vote in the future based on their history of previous decisions and opinions.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

... I think they are selected by politicians in the first place because politicians have a good idea how they'll vote in the future based on their history of previous decisions and opinions.

Does the US court use precedent as its driver or the personal opinion of a judge? I think a lot of UK cases, where there is precedent, will look to that.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Does the US court use precedent as its driver or the personal opinion of a judge? I think a lot of UK cases, where there is precedent, will look to that.

Both. Precedent is very important to judges and could likely result in a different ruling than might be made if the case broke new ground. On the other hand judges do overturn their predecessors.

While less talked about, they are also very cognizant of public opinion. The Supreme Court will often times refuse to take a case until an issue has been debated in the public sphere for several years, and multiple cases have been ruled on in lower courts.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Both. Precedent is very important to judges and could likely result in a different ruling than might be made if the case broke new ground. On the other hand judges do overturn their predecessors.

While less talked about, they are also very cognizant of public opinion. The Supreme Court will often times refuse to take a case until an issue has been debated in the public sphere for several years, and multiple cases have been ruled on in lower courts.

OK. What do you think will happen with the abortion situation and Roe vs Wade? Will it be cast aside?

[zapatos]

IMO that is a possibility. I don't know enough about what the different judges feel about Roe vs Wade, but if they were all shaking their heads in disgust when the decision came down, I suppose they could overrule.

People have the right to an abortion because of the Right to Privacy, which itself is not explicitly granted in the Constitution. However, I suspect that the right to an abortion will remain, even if it is allowed to be further restrained. Roe has been threatened before, and the political parties always play up the doom and gloom.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

IMO that is a possibility. I don't know enough about what the different judges feel about Roe vs Wade, but if they were all shaking their heads in disgust when the decision came down, I suppose they could overrule.

People have the right to an abortion because of the Right to Privacy, which itself is not explicitly granted in the Constitution. However, I suspect that the right to an abortion will remain, even if it is allowed to be further restrained. Roe has been threatened before, and the political parties always play up the doom and gloom.

I mentioned that one because Trump's current pick is known to be anti-abortion and would probably swing any future contest.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank.

That's my opinion.

This is actually a relatively new problem in the U.S.. Following various losses in courts revolving around abortion and civilian rights conservatives decided they needed to groom their own right wing bias lawyers and judges. The Federalist Society was born in 1982 for this purpose and since that time Republicans only seat Federalist judges to circuit courts and the Supreme Court. It is why Republicans refused Bush's initial nomination of fellow Republican Harriet Miers. While she was a Republican she was not a Federalist Society member. A conservative political take over of federal courts has been underway over the last 3 decades and most people are unaware. Current judges Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are Federalist Society members. 

Quote

 

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist or originalistinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.[6][7] It plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers.[8] According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, the author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution, the Federalist Society "has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

 

 

[Brett Nortj]

On 16/07/2018 at 7:33 PM, zapatos said:

I'm not convinced they are politically partisan. For example, I don't see a belief that the Constitution should be "interpreted" rather than "applied as written" as Democratic vs. Republican. Just because Republicans or Democrats prefer a specific judicial philosophy does not mean those judges with the same philosophy are being partisan.

Everyone deserves to be represented, so, to combine the decision making to one person is a bad idea. If there is one party representing one side, another representing the other, the media present to observe the ruling of the third party, then there is hope.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Brett Nortj said:

Everyone deserves to be represented

But judges and justices don't represent the people. They represent the law, or more specifically, the judicial system and it's interpretation

[Brett Nortj]

Just now, iNow said:

But judges and justices don't represent the people. They represent the law, or more specifically, the judicial system and it's interpretation

They represent cases, causes and entities. Any decision made by the state or legal system goes through them.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Brett Nortj said:

They represent cases...

Which are part of the judicial system...

2 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

They represent... causes

Which are interpreted within the judicial system...

3 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

They represent ... entities.

Which are subject to the judicial system...

Was your intent to invalidate my correction of your point? If so, you haven't.

[Brett Nortj]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which are part of the judicial system...

Which are interpreted within the judicial system...

Which are subject to the judicial system...

Was your intent to invalidate my correction of your point? If so, you haven't.

Oh, wait, now I see what you are saying! Yes, they "represent the judicial system" and, people fall under that system too, but not often at supreme court level. Of course, if it is a politician or a political agenda represented by the person, the person will be under scrutiny too, yes?

[iNow]

It’s the legislative branch that represents the people, not the judicial. Judges are part of the latter

[Brett Nortj]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s the legislative branch that represents the people, not the judicial. Judges are part of the latter

Sorry. Okay, split hairs. I give up.