Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
The US government is made up of three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These in theory are supposed to be three distinct and separate offices that make up one entity that is the federal government. In practices this isn't the case. Presidents can appoint supreme court judges and other people in the judiciary, etc. You can't always expect the judicial to be impartial to the will of the executive that got them their jobs.
Given human nature and quid pro quo attitudes that tend to prevale everywhere, I don't think I'm that far off base. There are plenty of examples in the world where the courts are manipulated by the executive branch of the government. Just look it up.
|
So because there are and have been corrupt judiciaries there will be in the US? Or it's at least reasonable to believe that could possibly occur? That's the argument?
Yes the President can appoint Supreme Court justices, and they're vetted by the Senate. They're questioned and rejected over the smallest of detail based on partisan interests or general feelings that they're unqualified to hold the position. Once appointed they're there for life, there is absolutely no benefit to pleasing the President that appointed them. Even if there was, there is rarely more than 2 justices who are serving the court during the Presidency that put them forth, and that gets you the oh so powerful minority opinion.
Do you have any examples of manipulation of the judicial branch by the executive? And don't give me Angola, we're talking about the US legal system here. There are many examples of the judicial branch making decisions that were directly counter to the position the executive branch wanted.