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@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem with elected judges is undemocratic elections. Democracy fixes the problem.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, and I'm responding to how a bad system actually works in the real world in my country. The lack of democratic input and oversight of the Judiciary in the US is the problem. US judges have always been bad because they were either appointed to undermine democracy or elected by undemocratic means. The problem has never been democracy.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.

The US ranges from failure to bad.

Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that's trusted internationally.

Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn't relevant anywhere else.

Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Mexico, being a US neighbor, is probably basing some of this decision off of the shit show happening across the border. I suppose that does bias their decision making.

I guess we'll see how it works out, since this looks like a done deal.