The idea that the Supreme Court is not just naked politics is something pushed by lawyers and politics nerds to confuse the rest of the public in to taking it seriously so that politicians can exercise more unaccountable power over the public. I don’t know if spracs is dumb enough to buy it or if he is just trying to play the same game.
Yeah, I disagree. Yes, judges and justices are human beings living in society, and so they have their own faults and biases like the rest of us. The "everything is naked political power" mantra is too cynical for me, and I consider it a facile explanation that does not comport with the complexities of reality. No doubt there have been judicial appointees who were reliable arbiters for the parties that elevated them, but to a far lesser degree than the other two branches of government. And yes, we do have politicians who meddle with the courts and treat them as their own personal sandbox for promoting political agendas.
I think it is an insult to the great majority of judges, however, to paint them as mere political actors (federal judges, that is). We have only three branches of our national government, and only one was structurally designed to minimize political interference with its decisions. That was a good idea in 1791, it's a good idea now, and I will always root for and promote the independence of the judicial department. Indeed, when the political branches of government fail to act for generations, and when the collective action problem becomes so intractable that the machinery of democracy breaks down, sometimes you need the third branch of government to grease the zerks, so to speak. Lifetime appointments are the structural component that allows that to happen.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
