undefined | Better HN

0 pointsclaytongulick1y ago0 comments

The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is done specifically so that they aren't financially influenced by politics and party.

I.e. their job doesn't depend on them ruling the "right" way.

There are pros and cons to different approaches. There are differences at the state level for judges, being appointed vs elected. Each has problems. In TX, for example, judges are heavily influenced by mob mentality - they're afraid to practice sentencing restraint because next election their rival will run ads saying they love murderers/rapists/whatever because they let someone off lightly in extraordinary circumstances.

0 comments

woooooo1y ago

That all sounds great in theory but.. waves hands at Clarence Thomas

Buttons8401y ago

Indeed. It's already the case Clarence Thomas's way of life may depend on whether or not he rules the way certain friends and acquaintances want.

His job is safe, but much of his salary--no, not quite the right word--much of his overall reward is dependent on what powerful friends want him to do.

Ultimately, people don't care about keeping their job--who the hell likes their job?--people want to keep their compensation, and for the US Supreme Court, their compensation can easily be controlled by powerful third parties.

Ancapistani1y ago

Approximately half the country loves Thomas, and agrees with him. The fact that the perspective of each member of the Court is effectively frozen in time when they are appointed is intentional.

hughesjj1y ago

I don't know where you get 'half the country loves/agrees with him', other than the (incorrect) assumption that the population of the country is divided 50/50 along party lines (no Republican president has won the popular vote since 2004, and only once since 1992)

Clarence Thomas is notably the least loved justice in a historically hated court

https://thehill.com/homenews/4019788-poll-thomas-has-highest...

2 more replies

brendoelfrendo1y ago

So, Thomas's perspective comes from an era when bribery and collusion with monied interests were accepted and normal?

The recent controversy around Thomas's behavior did not spring up because his opinions on governance date back to his appointment, but because--to the outside observer--it looks like he is perfectly comfortable with selling his opinion to the highest bidder. Lifetime appointments are supposed to keep judges aloof from external influences, but it seems like that logic failed in this case.

woooooo1y ago

He's taken a suspicious quantity of "gifts", you can look it up.

1 more reply

tacticalturtle1y ago

Federal justices still have lifetime appointments - and what the OP is describing wouldn’t change that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

woooooo1y ago

That all sounds great in theory but.. waves hands at Clarence Thomas

Buttons8401y ago

Indeed. It's already the case Clarence Thomas's way of life may depend on whether or not he rules the way certain friends and acquaintances want.

His job is safe, but much of his salary--no, not quite the right word--much of his overall reward is dependent on what powerful friends want him to do.

Ancapistani1y ago

Approximately half the country loves Thomas, and agrees with him. The fact that the perspective of each member of the Court is effectively frozen in time when they are appointed is intentional.

hughesjj1y ago

Clarence Thomas is notably the least loved justice in a historically hated court

https://thehill.com/homenews/4019788-poll-thomas-has-highest...

2 more replies

brendoelfrendo1y ago

So, Thomas's perspective comes from an era when bribery and collusion with monied interests were accepted and normal?

woooooo1y ago

He's taken a suspicious quantity of "gifts", you can look it up.

1 more reply

tacticalturtle1y ago

Federal justices still have lifetime appointments - and what the OP is describing wouldn’t change that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse