Judicial independence

An “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for,” Roberts said after the president's partisan critique of a federal judge.
"With no guarantees of basic freedoms, the fundamental rights of Polish citizens will be destroyed," said the top justice.
Real questions exist whether the rumored court-packing plan could survive legal challenge. However, legal challenges aside
The Supreme Court is hearing a case tomorrow that threatens to further politicize the bench at a time of skyrocketing spending in judicial races.
Sometimes we can learn more about global forces from small countries than large ones. So it is with the recent struggles over the Supreme Court in the Maldives, the tiny island nation in the Indian Ocean better known for its high-end resorts.
Decisions in favor of groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce by judges who attended seminars sponsored by the same institutions have led to the perception that corporations and conservative groups can buy judicial influence.
This is a crisis that has long murmurings in our political culture, but one that the LGBT rights movement has brought to a nasty and shameful head. The crisis: a threat to judicial independence.
Gingrich apparently has this view that judicial independence and separation of powers are some quaint old relics that have seen better days.
Gingrich's attack on the judiciary -- he would abolish courts that issued wrong-headed opinions, force judges to explain their rulings, cut funding for courts and impeach more judges -- is egotistical bluster.
Since when we have ever required judges to disclose the details of the personal lives in such a manner? On what basis does one's sexual orientation affect his or her ability to determine the legality of matters?
The GOP keeps insisting that judges be held accountable; that somehow public opinion should influence outcomes. Nothing could be more inaccurate or contrary to constitutional principles.
Yet meanwhile, many progressives inadvertently embolden fire-breathing sycophants like Glenn Beck by putting Obama/Boxer
Justice of a state supreme court is not a police officer or sheriff. He or she is there to follow statutes and case law precedent and to mete out justice. Sometimes that might mean making a decision that requires siding with someone unsavory or unpopular.
Judicial candidates running election campaigns sound more like they are running for sheriff than running to be a neutral arbiter of the law.