politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I disagree.
The way they looked at it: If judges were elected or could otherwise be replaced or removed easily, their decisions would much more likely be based not on a correct interpretation of the law, but what would keep the lobbyist money flowing in, what they think would get them re-elected, or they would simply parrot the rulings of whoever could have them removed from the bench. Having them be lifetime appointments (in theory) would remove all of that, and they still gave Congress a way to remove a corrupt judge anyway if one of them did get out of line.
They expected (perhaps naively) that corruption would be rare and would never engulf more than one branch of government. They never expected a situation where two branches of government became equally corrupt at the same time. That's where the real problem lies; the fail-safe that they put into place in case of corruption became corrupt itself.
Had our government worked the way the founding fathers intended, Clarence Thomas would have been heaved off the bench at warp speed by Congress about four seconds after his first bribery scandal broke. The problem isn't the system. The system that the founding fathers gave us in the late 1700s was fine. The problem is that there's no way they could have possibly foreseen the levels of corruption that exist 250 years later.
250 years from now, there are going to be a ton of policies we're coming up with today that are going to seem just as stupid and naive.
Corruption in government isn't an American invention.
See also: Rome.