Comment by crote
10 hours ago
The appointed federal judges in the US are nominated by a political President, and confirmed by a simple majority in a two-party-system Senate, and serve for life. They have (unsurprisingly) become quite political, with either party appointing judges who'd be likely to judge in their favour.
This is not at all comparable to appointed judges in other countries, where politicians usually don't have any input on the appointment process. Usually they are chosen by the current judges at that level, or by an entity like a bar association.
After all, how can you have a Trias Politica if the three branches aren't independent?
Some governments reject separation of powers. Some countries have politicians select judges openly. Some countries' politicians worked around or subverted the systems intended to prevent politicians influencing judge selection.
Appointment is the most common method of selecting lower- and higher-court judges in common-law countries, and for supreme and constitutional courts in civil- and mixed-system countries. In most countries, this appointment is by the executive, but there are systems that assign the minister of justice and members of the judiciary a role in the appointment process.[1]
[1] https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection
I suppose it is quite impossible to design a system that cannot be abused. And a judge is at the end of the day a man or woman who is part of society.
If the public wants to make life miserable for a certain class it will be done. Democracy and the rule of law only exists by the will of the people.
> Usually they are chosen by the current judges at that level, or by an entity like a bar association.
So the judiciary is completely isolated from external accountability?
I do not see how this is a superior approach.