The conceit inherent in their position lies with their elevated view of the Supreme Court. Supporters of appointed judges apparently believe in the concept of "judicial supremacy," which gives the Court heightened importance over the other two branches of state government.Um, no. It has to do with the unique role of judges compared to politicians bought and paid for by interest groups, not their "heightened" or "supremist" role. But thanks for coming out.
While truly impartial justice may be an unattainable ideal, it's an ideal nonetheless, and ideals are not so easily discarded by people clutching soggy straw men in so-called think tanks.
(Hey, at least Patrick McIlheran is impressed.)
1 comment:
In the Canadian and British contexts, where it is common, judicial appointment is also one of the procedures whose integrity is relatively little affected by the gradual transition from Government by Gentlemen to Government by Lawyers. Lawyers, by and large, seem to be pretty non-partisan in recognizing legal competence.
Post a Comment