Independence of SCOTUS - split from Yay!

[overtone]

The extent is a different question.

 

It's the fact that you are allowed to choose a biassed set that's the issue

The extent is the central question. The degree of cooption by politica faction is critical.

 

We are constrained to choosing human beings as Supreme Court justices. That does not mean they are "essentially" poltiically biased, no different in their decisions than an NRA official or other unusually baised and politically committed human being.

 

 

Would you say a coin that landed on heads 5% of the time was unbiased?

 

That's what you get if the outcome has a 10% bias.

 

(90 times out of 100 it's random, averaging 45 and the other 10% it's always heads so that gives 55 heads out of 100)

The arithemtic there is a mess. The coin is always random, a coin that lands on heads 5% of the time is far more biased than any reasonable interpretation of the confusing term "10% biased" would predict, and so forth.

 

Ideologies coherently and intelligently held will be consistent over time, while political faction tacks and yaws and spins amid events.

Edited May 19, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

"The coin is always random, a coin that lands on heads 5% of the time is far more biased than any reasonable interpretation of the confusing term "10% biased" would predict, and so forth."

a 5% bias is more than a 10% bias?

[overtone]

 

a 5% bias is more than a 10% bias?

A coin that lands on heads 5% of the time is 5% biased?

 

This is just confused. Suffice it that the degree of political bias is critical, central, essential to the workings of any judiciary.

[John Cuthber]

" the degree of political bias is critical, central, essential to the workings of any judiciary."

Fair enough.

First question, is such a bias a good thing? For example, was it good for justice that the judiciary in the USSR were puppets of the government?

Second question, does having a politician choose the judiciary make it more likely to be biased or less likely?

Edited May 20, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

First question,

Second question,

There really is no point in rehashing this tangent to the thread. The Supreme Court is not "appointed by a politician" (the reason we don't have a Justice Harriet Meiers), works better when it is less influenced by politics, and so forth. The setup was designed in part to create a Supreme oversight judiciary as insulated from immediate political influence in their decisions as possible, and until the recent unusual circumstances it worked fairly well in that respect.

 

In particular, its rulings on gun ownership have adhered to coherent principle and more or less obviously valid readings of the 2nd Amendment so far.