• Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Legislators are there to directly reflect the opinions and interests of their constituents, judges are there to have expert knowledge of the law and how it applies to each case uniquely. The first needs some form of democratic mechanism to ensure that they represent people’s current opinions, the later needs a meritocratic mechanism to ensure they are experts in the correct fields.

    If judges were the only element of a court I would agree that it would be problematic to have no democratic input, but in common law systems at least that element is represented by juries who are the most powerful element of a court case as they are unchallengable arbiters of fact and drawn through sortition which is even more democratic than election.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This is ideology. There’s no material mechanism to actually ensure judges are experts or have merit. They’re just picked by politicians, who themselves are selected democratically rather than by merit.

      This just cuts out the middlemen. If the selection process is unable to select for merit, then it might as well be democratic.

      • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

        Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.

        Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          All it takes is getting a few panel members with an ideological axe to grind and suddenly the selection process for judges and the JAC panel itself becomes politicized in that particular direction.

          But furthermore, the very framework of law is political. You can’t actually non-politically adjudicate disputes or reviews or appointments or dismissals, there are always political underpinnings and ideological assumptions embedded within the process. The very fact that they currently “particularly welcome applications from ethnic minority candidates and Welsh speakers” is political, and acknowledges that it is political and ideological and not truly objective.

          Law isn’t math.

          • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            An attempt to be representative is not equal to being “political”.

            It’s actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.

            No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.

            There’s no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The concept of representation is political - and anti-representation would also be political. You can’t escape politics in law.

              Where there’s power, there’s politics.

              And the worst parts of the American system are the parts where judges are unelected, so that’s a pretty bad example lol

              • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Well if that’s the meaning of "political you’re using then all judges are. That’s why I put it in quotes in my last reply, I assumed you meant partisan. Otherwise you’d have been making an irrelevant point.

                Unfortunately the US has a storied history of elected local judges allowing lynchings, for example, while the appointed federal courts passed civil rights so I won’t be taking notes.

                Of course the appointed judges and elected judges are now targeting women and minorities. So your appointment system is also broken.

                Again, not taking notes.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  The problematic politics of elected judges in the US come from its fucked electoral system. US elections, for most of its history, were undemocratic at their core… and they still aren’t very democratic tbh

                  But the worst judges, today, are appointed.

                  Your conception of politics being only partisan is very narrow; partisanship in liberal democracy is mostly just kayfabe.

                  • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    So the problem with elected judges is the elections.

                    There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.

                    There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won’t.

                    Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.

                    Partisan politics is avoidable.

                    Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.