reer wrote:
agip wrote:
Is ya sure? You want unelected people deciding the fate of the republic? Elected representatives answer to the people. Unelected judges lack that check on their power.
But aren't they supposed to be making decisions based on matters of law? Elected representatives have a strong incentive to make political decisions so that they can get re-elected. A judge (i.e. someone appointed/approved by elected officials, so indirectly elected by the people) would only have to answer to the law.
I'm not saying there aren't other pros/cons to this approach, but there's a clear conflict of interest in relying on popularly elected representatives to determine if a president broke the law.
First thought: While they were obviously incredibly smart men, and they got it right for over 200 years, it's quite surprising to me that they didn't/couldn't imagine a partisan congress (it only takes one branch) to side with a badly flawed President. And voila, you have someone truly above the law.
Second, related, thought: Sure, on one hand, one can worry about what, say ONE judge might do to upset the balance of power in the country - and world - in his/her punishment of a President. On the other hand, SHOULD the president have a different standard of justice than the other 330 million people? Don't we say that he/she isn't above the law? And that we are country of laws? But, when it comes to this one REALLY special (TOO special?) person, we have a whole other system? I'm sure that there is a long list of pros and cons to this, but from what we've seen with Trump, I'm not so sure that we have it right.
As the other poster asked, what is the bigger threat? A judge being unprincipled (AND unprofessional)? Or, POLITICIANS being one or both? As much as I know that all judges aren't angels, that question still seems kind of easy.....I think! And again, THAT system is the one that EVERYONE else goes by.
All in all, from media treatment, to the law, to "norms," etc., I think that, while still constrained by basic civility, this country would be very well-served by changes to both the real institutional/legal authority we give a President, AND the general "super special" status we give the person. It would be better, I think, if we could get to "simply" thinking of the President as a super senior civil servant, rather than the oh-so-powerful "POTUS."
(a tiny example is how deferential even highly experienced and competent national journalists STILL are to a man who's salary they pay and who lies to them EVERY day. Would the local county executive, or mayor, or whoever, get that? No. And that would be correct. Same should apply...he's a civil servant.)