[ketzo]

> automatic mechanism that operates independently

Yes, but I think this is more metaphorical than literal. Of course there aren't literal automatic robots doing the work of rooting out corruption; it's a goal.

I would argue that a high-functioning justice system should appear as close to automatic as possible, in order to most effectively create a sense of "if I do wrong, I know that I will be punished" rather than "if I do wrong, I need to figure out how to get around the law."

[rchaud]

Should or would aside, it's not an automatic system. Even if it were, the trials themselves would be adjudicated by federal district court judges, who are political appointees. If you've ever watched a Senate judiciary hearing, the questions posed to the candidate are often ideological in nature rather than legal.

I probably seem pedantic, but I think it's important to reiterate the scale of human involvement and imperfection underpinning the entire system in which we exist. The solution to that is not "take the humans out of it", but to iterate that system with incremental improvements and fund it to the level commensurate with its importance to our society.

[titzer]

> If you've ever watched a Senate judiciary hearing, the questions posed to the candidate are often ideological in nature rather than legal.

It hasn't always been this way [1]. There have been controversial candidates at times throughout history, but most candidates got supermajority votes. In modern times, things are incredibly, abnormally polarized.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...