Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)? Isn't it true that many US laws are created by regulatory agencies of various kinds, and then implemented/enforced by unelected judges?
The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an observation of how the system really works, especially in the US where - unusually - regulatory agencies can create new laws without involving Congress.
You mean the power given to unelected departments like the FTC, FDA, etc that actually create regulations or the unelected judges with lifetime appointments or the unelected officials in the Department of Justice?
The rules are that the executive can appoint judges. Right wing executives take advantage of this rule. Doing the same from the other corner seems reasonable too. The failure to do so means that the Democratic party is incompetent, uninterested in enacting their own supposed policies, or some combination of the two.
Some people say "if you're not cheating, you're not trying" but this is even a level removed. This is a perfectly legal move that they've denied themselves for no material reason.
That is just another part of the check. The executive nominates judges, legislative approves judges, judges then interpret. Ya, it isn’t perfect, but you still have a few judges (Kennedy before and Roberts now) who are independent enough to sometimes do the right thing against their ideology (judges are mostly independent after being approved, so influence is limited).
That's not helpful. There are "rules", and there are "norms".
People follow the rules assuming that everyone is operating in good faith, and that everyone agrees the rules exist for the benefit of everyone. If rules are only there to be exploited, you end up with a disaster.
I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?
The rule was overturned by a federal court for overstepping the DOL’s statutory authority. What “constituency” are those unelected, life-tenured judges serving, exactly?
Maybe the rule is a good idea, or maybe it isn’t. But the Obama administration tried to promulgate a massive new financial regulation through aggressive interpretation of existing statutory authority. A federal court didn’t buy it. That sometimes happens when you try to create new laws through executive bureaucracy rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing has repeatedly happened to Trump.)
>Unelected judges will have free rein to impose their own views in these cases.
As opposed to unelected bureaucrats who serve at the whim of the executive branch and are often political appointees? Do you not remember the meltdown this site had over Trump's FCC commissioner and his views on net neutrality?
I don't see U.S. (or any) elected officials, including Congress and the White House, making better decisions. All have made atrocious decisions.
The argument in the parent is well-worn, but it fails serious consideration if it ignores the facts that the U.S. courts interpret laws made by the elected officials, that the judges are appointed by elected officials, that their unelected status is established by elected officials and a national referendum (i.e., the votes that established the Constitution), and the reasons for their unelected status.
Judges are also unelected bureaucrats, and they are less subject to democratic oversight since they have lifetime appointments vs agency heads who are appointed by the executive branch and can be effectively "voted out" if voters choose a different president who replaces them.
That sounds interesting. My main point was just that right now, a huge amount of judicial power is bundled under a single big presidential election, instead of being allowed to have more political granularity like Congress. Imagine if the president got to nominate congresspeople. Think about how broken that would be.
Judges everywhere tend to be "unelected". That's not innuendo. It's a fact that constitutional and legal scholars tend to be acutely aware of when determining the scope and balance of powers in a judiciary. Constitutional scholars constantly raise the same point about the US Supreme Court: its justices are unelected, and we are not a nation governed by philosopher kings.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant).
Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge.
You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.
It's nowhere near "merely". The Congress traditionally has a lot of deference to Presidential nomination and cases where nominated judge is not confirmed are very rare and are considered exceptional.
Is it true that all US judges are either elected or politically appointed? Both seem like a terrible idea.
I admit I don't know how judges in other countries are appointed, but I think it usually involves a pretty thorough screening process involving several different requirements and organisations.
what seems silly about electing these officials, is that it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a matter of competence, and compliance with rules. What good are laws whose effects depends on the mood of voters or the whims of the enforcer?
It's not great to have lawyers appoint other lawyers. You end up with an in-group. But that kind of system does seem to give you law whose effects are fairly predictable, at least. But you have to explain how the topmost lawyers get appointed, the ones who appoint other lawyers.
The US Supreme Court seems to be nominated by the Pres, and then confirmed by the Senate, which is full of lawyers. So the USSC seems to be appointed, by their juniors.
Hmmm. I wondered how UKSC justices are appointed; it's rather good.
A commission is formed, consisting of the president of the court, another senior judge who is not on the UKSC, and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. At least one of them must not be a lawyer. The commission is set up by the Minister of Justice, who apparently can overrule them. The PM and the Queen both have a final veto.
>The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention.
Judges in England and Wales (including supreme court judges) are selected entirely by unelected officials; The government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with their decision. Given the influential nature of English law, I would be very surprised if this was unique.
As I understand it, the Constitution was designed to provide several layers of indirection when selecting federal officials. In the original design before subsequent amendment, voters only directly elected their congress person and their state legislatures. US Senators were behind one layer of indirection, being selected by state legislatures who were selected by popular vote. The Presidency was behind two layers of indirection: selected by vote of electors, who were selected by state legislatures, who were selected by popular vote. Finally, the Justices of the Supreme Court sit behind multiple layers of indirection: nominated by a President who is selected by electors, and confirmed by Senators, with both electors and Senators selected by state legislatures, who in turn were selected by popular vote. The idea was that the greater individual role an office had in preserving the constitutional system, the more insulated they were from the direct influence of unruly voters, and the more institutional support was necessary to assume office.
I always thought this system was overly complex and did not adequately respect the views of the people, but now in the year of Trump, it increasingly seems like a wise idea lol.
Yeah, and the other way you get judges is via appointment. So there's a chance you have a hack that put in because the executive leader likes their politics.
The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an observation of how the system really works, especially in the US where - unusually - regulatory agencies can create new laws without involving Congress.
reply