Gerrymandering: Another Good Supreme Court Decision

I've been reading with interest the posts on here relating to SCOTUS decisions.Over in the UK, our judiciary isn't elected (although there have been calls for it to be, on occasion). We emphasise the importance of the separation of powers, more than we do individual accountability of the judges to the people. So we get occasional idiot judges, whose decisions can be influenced by their prejudices, being somewhat unaccountable for their decisions (though the more egregious examples do result in them being quietly retired). On the other hand, they don't end up being the politically partisan institution represented by SCOTUS - effectively, a third legislative body.I wonder whether a middle ground is possible. I suspect not.Edited by vimesey, : Spelling

In many ways, much of what we do is the middle ground, having had several centuries of compromise and political evolution, rather than a moment of single creation (ok, in the US case, several moments, with the various amendments).I was looking more at the contrast between a completely independent judiciary, separated from the politics of the executive and the legislature; and a judiciary which is elected and/or the result of political appointment. I'm not sure there can be any introduction of any element of election of the judiciary (directly or through political appointment), which can be achieved whilst keeping it ruthlessly independent of the legislature/executive.My personal preference is for judicial independence, but I understand that it can rankle with those who cannot accept an authority which isn't formally accountable to a public vote. I do see judicial authority as distinct from political authority, however.

We went with a Judicial Appointments Commission - an independent body set up to deal with judges' appointments.(Slower than rock paper scissors, but a better outcome on the whole).

Thank you for the info NoNukes - that's helpful. The process relies very heavily upon professionalism, and a deep-rooted belief in the value of independence amongst the legal profession. There have been judges who, over the years, have probably pushed the envelope a little in the direction of their own personal morality - Lord Denning was well known for being pretty diligent in digging up obscure law to support those he felt were less powerful than their opponents - but central to any judge's views is the need for ruthless independence from politics. It's an ingrained, professional view.Add to that, we have a reasonably large number of senior judges who are entitled to sit on the Supreme Court's hearings, and they get swapped around from case to case (partly on the basis of their expertise, and partly randomly).The independent commission, having initially been set up by statute, partially self-selects, through interview - and accepts 20% of its membership through nomination by the judiciary itself. There must be a non-lawyer included in the commission, who is a member of the public.

No.We have institutions which are part of the public administration over here, and which are independent of politics. It's an extremely effective part of our constitution.

The judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission have no involvement in politics, and the political parties have no control or influence over them. We don't identify our judiciary as conservative or liberal (or any other shade of political leaning). They aren't appointed by reference to their political views.Nevertheless, they are one of the key institutions in the constitution. Public, yes - political, no.

The use of the word political to refer to the politics of politicians is by a long stretch the most common use of the word in the UK. My apologies if it's more commonly used in its classical sense in the States.

I notice that Scalia was appointed by Reagan back in the day. Has SCOTUS always been the subject of political appointments, historically, or is this something which has occurred (or perhaps become more pronounced) more recently ?

Granted, the JAC is fairly recent, but even before then, the process operated in an independent manner, notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor's position.This is an extract from a lecture given by Lord Phillips, one of our recent(ish) senior judges: We have rightly made matters more transparent with the JAC, but judicial independence from politics has been an ingrained part of our constitution for a very long time.Another example is that whilst our senior appeals judges have always been members of the House of Lords, and technically entitled to take part in the legislative process, they have consistently abstained from all legislative functions, as a matter of constitutional propriety.It hasn't always been as transparent as it ideally should have been, but judicial independence from politics has long been a central feature of the constitution.