Can the judiciary be considered independent if judges are political appointees?

16 comments

1. They’re not appointed unilaterally. I also think that appointment and confirmation is a better system than the judicial elections that many states have.

2. Do you have a better solution?

   In general, they’re appointed for life, so in theory should not be beholden to the executive who appointed them.

3. Nominees not appointee.
   An appointee just gets the job.
   A “Nominee” like Supreme Court nominees need to be confirmed by the Senate.
   It’s called checks and balances.

4. Everything is political. All you can do is hope the people voted in appoint intelligent people who understand the law and constitution, and that the crazy people on both sides cancel eachother out.

5. Yes.

   First of all the appointees require confirmation from the legislative. That means enough of the “other side” politically have to support them to get the required majority.

   Second, because they do not have a term limit and thus are not concerned with running for reelection even if they were chosen based on political motives they have absolutely no reason to be concerned about that. They do not need to please anyone, they simply have to use their own personal morals and understanding of the law to make their judgements.

6. Yes. Especially at the supreme court level.

   You know what’s worse? Electing judges based on their popular appeal to voters.

7. Because they’re not nominated but appointed. The Senate has to approve the nomination and the judge has a lifetime appointment so they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs if one of their decisions pisses off the president who appointed them.
   I’ll give some examples. Last August, a judge refused to dismiss a defamation case against individuals who claimed that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the election against Trump. That judge was a Trump nominee. Trump didn’t want that outcome but the judge didn’t have to care. He was free to follow the law as he saw fit.

   Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the principle that judges aren’t supposed to be loyal to a party.
   In 2020, the Supreme Court said that Trump had to give documents over to a NY prosecutor. Trump was furious as his nominees voted against his interests. But those nominees have a lifetime appointment once they’re on the Court. So if they vote a way Trump disliked Trump had no authority at all to fire them for the ruling.

   Same thing happened last summer. The Supreme Court threw out a challenge to Obamacare angering Trump. But since they had a lifetime appointment they were free to follow the case where the facts took them. They argued the case in November and decided it in June. They didn’t have to worry that if Trump got re- elected that he’d fire them for not ruling his way.

8. Yes. Because once appointed, they are not beholden to whomever appointed them; they don’t need ongoing approval.

9. They aren’t all political appointees. Many of our judges are elected.

   In Indiana, even though SCOTUS is appointed (a professional law panel selects several nominees and then the Governor chooses one), they stand for a retention vote every few years or so.

10. These kinds of existential exercises don’t end well. If we go by a rigid adherence to the definition of “independent” in the dictionary we would quickly realize that there can never be a truly “independent” judiciary in any system where the masses have input into their selection. Our current system seeks to minimize that influence, with mixed success. Until a better solution comes along it is the best we have. Term limits on judges would probably be a good change, but making them popularly elected is questionable since Joe Sixpack has minimal understanding of the law and would most likely vote for whichever judge said things he liked. At least with our current system we have slightly better processes for selection of actual qualified judges. Not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good.

11. I mean that seems like a subjective opinion more than something that can be objectively answered.

    But really your two options are elected judges or appointed judges and appointed judges is the less political option.

12. **A judge or justice is _not_ a political appointee.**

    In the Federal government, for example, a political appointee is nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and — this is the important part — “serves at the pleasure of the President.” That means the President can end their appointment (i.e. fire them) at any time and for any reason.

    This is not the case with judges or justices. They do not “serve at the pleasure of the President.” So, despite being nominated by the President, they are not beholden to him once they take the bench. The President — neither the President that appointed the judge or justice, nor the Presidents that come after — can’t fire a judge. The only way a judge can be removed is death, resignation, or impeachment.

    Which is why they are independent, and political appointees are not.

13. Absolutely political.

    The federalist society literally acts as a purity test for who conservatives can trust to rule in their interest and I’m sure democrats have something similar.

    If you don’t think it’s political just look at the slew of senate votes along party lines in recent years, I think that really tells it more clearly than anything else.

    Or you could always look at senate republicans refusing to hold a vote to confirm Garland citing the next president should do the nominating, only to turn around and do a 180 when that same scenario played out when they had the presidency. If the nominations were not political why would they refuse to block on democratic president nominations?

14. They aren’t appointees. They are nominees, there is a difference.

15. Because once they are appointed it is for life and can do whatever they like without fearing a political stripping of their position.

16. What system or method would you consider independent enough to satisfy you?