Democrats creating the expectation that judges should act as politicians in robes is a dangerous precedent to set, threatening the very independence of the judiciary.
In England the judges should have independence to protect the people against the crown. Here the judges should not be independent of the people, but be appointed for not more than seven years. The people would always re-elect the good judges.
I have to say that the judges and our judiciary system makes better decisions than the politicians.
Democracy demands that judges confine themselves to a narrow sphere of influence - that is why the late Alexander Bickel called the judiciary the 'Least Dangerous Branch.' In a world governed by a proper conception of their role, judges don't play at being legislators - they leave that job to our elected representatives.
If we set the precedent that a government can use their royal prerogative to take away people's human rights, that is taking us into a very dangerous political environment.
Every institution of India - politicians, journalists and corporate chieftains - comes within the purview of the judiciary but when it comes to auditing their own conscience, judges want everyone else to stay out.
Independence of Judiciary means independence from Executive and Legislature, but not independence from accountability.
Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.
For the first half of this century, High Court judges have been cautious to the point of timidity in expressing any criticism of governmental action; the independence of the judiciary has been of a decidedly subordinate character.
The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary cannot be the sole domain of a few members of the higher judiciary. This turf must be shared.
The debate over judicial nominations is a debate over the judiciary itself. It is a debate over how much power unelected judges should have in our system of government, how much control judges should have over a written constitution that belongs to the people.
Whatever the police or politicians may tell us, this is a violent and threatening place. Living here is dangerous.
Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.
Judges wear legal professionalism and precedent as a mantel that secures legitimacy for their decisions. It's how they distinguish themselves from politicians or administrative agencies, while wielding power that is sometimes much greater than those democratically accountable actors.
The Supreme Court's non-transparent attitude on the disclosure of assets is in line with the judiciary's steadfast refusal to allow any transparency in the matter of appointment of judges, or for that matter, in the judiciary as a whole.
Grace is the most dangerous, expectation-wre cking, smile-creating, counterintuitiv e reality there is.
When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are - usurpers and petty tyrants.