[lagichikool]

The important difference is that judges are experts at impartiality, ethics, and decision making. They also can draw upon the expertise of multiple independent people. A huge part of law school is about teaching ethics, biases, and critical thinking. Which doesn't mean every judge is good at these things but even the average judge is much better than the average person.

Politically appointed bureaucrats typically have none of these skills, are always beholden to people in power, and often are given an agenda to peruse.

Congress outsourcing law making to bureaucrats is unconstitutional and SCOTUS made the right call legally. If it causes problems, Congress is empowered to fix it.

[zzzeek]

> The important difference is that judges are experts at impartiality, ethics, and decision making.

please spare us, as Clarence Thomas continues to accept tens of millions of dollars in gifts and free airfare from billionaires with business before the court, unabated

[lagichikool]

Of course there is corruption but if you think that means all (or most) judges are corrupt, you're confused.

[Sakos]

Is this a joke? The US justice system is now extremely partisan and conservative judges rule according to the interests of the Republican party.

[lagichikool]

Just because you don't like their rulings doesn't make them wrong, legally speaking. I recommend reading the controversial decisions. What they've said is very different from what the memes about them claim they've said.

[yencabulator]

Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If the judges' opinions happen to divide along party lines, they are by definition partisan. Now go look at the majority vs minority opinions from the last half a decade or so.

[lagichikool]

"Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If the judges' opinions happen to divide along party lines, they are by definition partisan."

Very simple and very wrong.

Yes, partisan politicians appoint judges with legal principles that they favor but that doesn't make the judges themselves partisan.

Trump's SCOTUS appointees have all decided cases in ways that were distinctly not partisan, based on their legal principles and not any kind of party loyalty.

Partisan people (like yourself, presumably) don't even notice these decisions or try to downplay them. This is hyper partisanship itself and it's toxic to a democracy.

[yencabulator]

The justifications don't matter; if the opinions are divided on party lines it's inherently partisan. You seem to be convinced that "one side is right", I'm saying if you can look at the rulings and see the opinions coincide with party boundaries clearly politics are involved.

[lagichikool]

In no way did I imply that "one side is right" because I don't believe either side has a monopoly on being correct.

Because laws often have room for interpretation, conservative justices tend to decide cases in ways that the conservative Republican Party agrees with. And liberal justices tend to decide cases in ways that the liberal Democratic Party agrees with.

But both conservative and liberal justices very often decide cases in ways that go against their own personal views. The Supreme Court judges that Trump appointed have done this multiple times.