Nothing wrong with lost long, never met before, BFs sorting each other out, as long as it’s paid for in the good old fashioned way of cold hard cash on arrival at the destination of choice.
Tough wank, that.
Can someone explain to me how the appointment of justices in the UK is not also political? I know very little about it, though what I've learned suggests the process can be just as political would a lunatic PM or Lord Chancellor choose to abuse it.
There is a body called the Judicial Appointments Committee. The details of the Board of Commissioners is at the bottom of this page.
judicialappointments.gov.uk
As far as I can make out, all US judges are appointed by the administration of the day, which means by default they are political appointee's. That doesn't mean they are politically active, but it does mean they often lean more left or right, in some cases more than others.There is a body called the Judicial Appointments Committee. The details of the Board of Commissioners is at the bottom of this page.
- Judicial Appointments Commission
Judicial Appointments Commission The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers. It is our statutory duty to select people on merit, who are of good character. We believe the judiciary should reflect...
In general terms, District Judges are picked from the ranks of solicitors and Circuit Judges from the bar, although that certainly isn’t a hard and fast rule. Both professions have a very wide range of political views within their ranks but these don’t form part of the selection process. Inevitability, the views of much of the judiciary are (or become upon appointment) pro-establishment but that doesn’t mean those views are rooted in politics, as much as wanting to uphold the status quo. The government or parliament has no direct influence over these appointments. The judiciary is certainly male, white and middle class at its core, but all three of those things are changing, probably in that order (sex most noticeably - wouldn’t be surprised if female appointments in recent years outstripped male ones).
The senior judiciary, who interpret and shape the law, are (generally) genuinely there on apolitical merit although there’s no doubt they are also overwhelmingly middle class and tend to have even more entrenched establishment views, which stands to reason as they are closer to the very heart of it. They are also almost universally insanely intelligent.
i think in general terms the higher up the England and Wales judiciary you go, the more right wing the views are, but that is more a function of the types that seek that higher office and their views being shaped as they head closer towards the centre of power, rather than any sense of those views forming a central part of the appointments process.
I think sadly, the present position with SC appointments in the USA, as much as any other fundamental part of the USC (and as your post suggests) illustrates why a document that was conceived of around a quarter of a millennia ago cannot have the same efficacy or outcome today because of changes that could not have been anticipated back then. It may have worked once, but that process is plainly no longer serving the people. People are living for longer for one. That must have had a ‘law of intended consequences’ upon the process. There will be other, more sinister forces at work too. The vagaries of happenstance also play too much of an important role. Too much of the process is down to chance.
I think much is wrong with UK society, and certainly the institutions within it, and it’s also correct to say that the judiciary is far from perfect. Like any human being its members will all have their own unconscious (and conscious) biases and, as I’ve said, tend to have (perhaps inevitably) views that favour the establishment, and it’s completely impossible to completely divorce the lawmakers/shapers at the top of the judiciary from their political views - of course their perspective on the world will influence their interpretation of cases to a certain (but imo limited) extent but that doesn’t make those determinations overwhelmingly political, and nor is the appointment process
I would say our judiciary overall is fair, impartial and straight.
I don’t think the same applies to the US judiciary, certainly not at the very top.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
A friend of mine is a KC (formerly QC). The process to get there is archaic. You have to attend dinners and all sorts of weird stuff alongside doing the hard yards in the profession. It's heavily slanted to private school white men, but that problem was picked up years ago and the profession basically polices itself independently of government and in order to maintain that independence they are making the changes. The rumblings about lack of diversity have died away. Still can't decide if they should wear wigs or not though.There is a body called the Judicial Appointments Committee. The details of the Board of Commissioners is at the bottom of this page.
- Judicial Appointments Commission
Judicial Appointments Commission The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers. It is our statutory duty to select people on merit, who are of good character. We believe the judiciary should reflect...
In general terms, District Judges are picked from the ranks of solicitors and Circuit Judges from the bar, although that certainly isn’t a hard and fast rule. Both professions have a very wide range of political views within their ranks but these don’t form part of the selection process. Inevitability, the views of much of the judiciary are (or become upon appointment) pro-establishment but that doesn’t mean those views are rooted in politics, as much as wanting to uphold the status quo. The government or parliament has no direct influence over these appointments. The judiciary is certainly male, white and middle class at its core, but all three of those things are changing, probably in that order (sex most noticeably - wouldn’t be surprised if female appointments in recent years outstripped male ones).
The senior judiciary, who interpret and shape the law, are (generally) genuinely there on apolitical merit although there’s no doubt they are also overwhelmingly middle class and tend to have even more entrenched establishment views, which stands to reason as they are closer to the very heart of it. They are also almost universally insanely intelligent.
i think in general terms the higher up the England and Wales judiciary you go, the more right wing the views are, but that is more a function of the types that seek that higher office and their views being shaped as they head closer towards the centre of power, rather than any sense of those views forming a central part of the appointments process.
I think sadly, the present position with SC appointments in the USA, as much as any other fundamental part of the USC (and as your post suggests) illustrates why a document that was conceived of around a quarter of a millennia ago cannot have the same efficacy or outcome today because of changes that could not have been anticipated back then. It may have worked once, but that process is plainly no longer serving the people. People are living for longer for one. That must have had a ‘law of intended consequences’ upon the process. There will be other, more sinister forces at work too. The vagaries of happenstance also play too much of an important role. Too much of the process is down to chance.
I think much is wrong with UK society, and certainly the institutions within it, and it’s also correct to say that the judiciary is far from perfect. Like any human being its members will all have their own unconscious (and conscious) biases and, as I’ve said, tend to have (perhaps inevitably) views that favour the establishment, and it’s completely impossible to completely divorce the lawmakers/shapers at the top of the judiciary from their political views - of course their perspective on the world will influence their interpretation of cases to a certain (but imo limited) extent but that doesn’t make those determinations overwhelmingly political, and nor is the appointment process
I would say our judiciary overall is fair, impartial and straight.
I don’t think the same applies to the US judiciary, certainly not at the very top.
Thank you! Very helpful.There is a body called the Judicial Appointments Committee. The details of the Board of Commissioners is at the bottom of this page.
- Judicial Appointments Commission
Judicial Appointments Commission The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers. It is our statutory duty to select people on merit, who are of good character. We believe the judiciary should reflect...
In general terms, District Judges are picked from the ranks of solicitors and Circuit Judges from the bar, although that certainly isn’t a hard and fast rule. Both professions have a very wide range of political views within their ranks but these don’t form part of the selection process. Inevitability, the views of much of the judiciary are (or become upon appointment) pro-establishment but that doesn’t mean those views are rooted in politics, as much as wanting to uphold the status quo. The government or parliament has no direct influence over these appointments. The judiciary is certainly male, white and middle class at its core, but all three of those things are changing, probably in that order (sex most noticeably - wouldn’t be surprised if female appointments in recent years outstripped male ones).
The senior judiciary, who interpret and shape the law, are (generally) genuinely there on apolitical merit although there’s no doubt they are also overwhelmingly middle class and tend to have even more entrenched establishment views, which stands to reason as they are closer to the very heart of it. They are also almost universally insanely intelligent.
i think in general terms the higher up the England and Wales judiciary you go, the more right wing the views are, but that is more a function of the types that seek that higher office and their views being shaped as they head closer towards the centre of power, rather than any sense of those views forming a central part of the appointments process.
I think sadly, the present position with SC appointments in the USA, as much as any other fundamental part of the USC (and as your post suggests) illustrates why a document that was conceived of around a quarter of a millennia ago cannot have the same efficacy or outcome today because of changes that could not have been anticipated back then. It may have worked once, but that process is plainly no longer serving the people. People are living for longer for one. That must have had a ‘law of intended consequences’ upon the process. There will be other, more sinister forces at work too. The vagaries of happenstance also play too much of an important role. Too much of the process is down to chance.
I think much is wrong with UK society, and certainly the institutions within it, and it’s also correct to say that the judiciary is far from perfect. Like any human being its members will all have their own unconscious (and conscious) biases and, as I’ve said, tend to have (perhaps inevitably) views that favour the establishment, and it’s completely impossible to completely divorce the lawmakers/shapers at the top of the judiciary from their political views - of course their perspective on the world will influence their interpretation of cases to a certain (but imo limited) extent but that doesn’t make those determinations overwhelmingly political, and nor is the appointment process
I would say our judiciary overall is fair, impartial and straight.
I don’t think the same applies to the US judiciary, certainly not at the very top.
There couldn't be more of a contrast between what these people say in the press and when they're under oath.
Fucking idiotic but not as idiotic as voting for judges and sheriffs.
