• Ross_audio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      ·
      3 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
        ·
        3 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
          3 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
            ·
            3 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.

              • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.

                Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.

                As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it’s much more efficient and successful most of the time.

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

                  But by that logic there’s no reason to ask millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional legislator.

                  You’re creating an arbitrary professional difference between creation of legislation and interpretation of legislation, but that’s ideological. When it comes down to it, by your logic, legislators should be chosen by an unbiased selection committee. That’s where your antidemocratic logic leads.

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

                    There are no illusions that politicians are experts.

                    Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.

                    Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.

                    I’ve said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I’m antidemocratic.

                    The difference between you and me is you’re sprouting ideology and I’m explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.