The Supreme Court justice flew to Montana and other destinations on the billionaire GOP donor’s dime. Crow’s lawyer revealed these flights to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose ongoing investigation was sparked by ProPublica’s reporting.
It’s also a pejorative that people only use when the ruling is against their interests.
My state (Wisconsin) elects its Supreme Court justices. It’s a mixed bag. We had several years of conservative rule on the court with some terrible consequences. Now we have a liberal majority pretty well entrenched and things are starting to work out better.
What I do know is that federal Supreme Court justices shouldn’t have lifetime terms. It should be long, but not lifetime.
I’m not even sure if terms are necessary, though I don’t mind the idea of a long term where at the end, Justices would have to be re-nominated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) does just fine with lifetime appointments (though we do have mandatory retirement at 75).
I think we could tinker with rules and procedure (for example, instituting strong codes of ethics), but I think what SCOTUS needs is a change in cultural norms, and that’s extremely hard to bring about. The process for appointments to the SCC and SCOTUS are very similar, yet SCOTUS appointments are highly politicized while any “seemingly political” appointments of judges in Canada have faced huge public backlashes.
I think there are many differences that created these cultural norms but IMHO, one of the biggest is the politicization of lower-level judges (as well as other positions). This interweaves law and politics, and it’s not unheard of for members of the judiciary to jump into full political-positions and back again. This is very different than Canada, where we also have many lawyers who enter politics, but that basically closes the door on ever entering the judiciary.
It’s also a pejorative that people only use when the ruling is against their interests.
My state (Wisconsin) elects its Supreme Court justices. It’s a mixed bag. We had several years of conservative rule on the court with some terrible consequences. Now we have a liberal majority pretty well entrenched and things are starting to work out better.
What I do know is that federal Supreme Court justices shouldn’t have lifetime terms. It should be long, but not lifetime.
I’m not even sure if terms are necessary, though I don’t mind the idea of a long term where at the end, Justices would have to be re-nominated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) does just fine with lifetime appointments (though we do have mandatory retirement at 75).
I think we could tinker with rules and procedure (for example, instituting strong codes of ethics), but I think what SCOTUS needs is a change in cultural norms, and that’s extremely hard to bring about. The process for appointments to the SCC and SCOTUS are very similar, yet SCOTUS appointments are highly politicized while any “seemingly political” appointments of judges in Canada have faced huge public backlashes.
I think there are many differences that created these cultural norms but IMHO, one of the biggest is the politicization of lower-level judges (as well as other positions). This interweaves law and politics, and it’s not unheard of for members of the judiciary to jump into full political-positions and back again. This is very different than Canada, where we also have many lawyers who enter politics, but that basically closes the door on ever entering the judiciary.