It isn’t. The framers of the constitution believed that judges would put the letter of the law ahead of their own personal convictions and conduct themselves honorably by recusing themselves from cases where there could be even a hint of impropriety or conflict of interest. I’m sure they also assumed that a judge who ignored those social norms and committed such a nakedly partisan act would be held to account by Congress, who would have a collectively vested interest is using their constitutional power as a check against the Judicial.
Unfortunately, we live in a timeline where loyalty to one’s political party comes ahead of all else, and Congress would rather cede their ability to govern entirely than turn against “one of their own”. Even if the result is objectively bad for everyone. The failure of the framers to codify these rules are exactly why we are in this situation today, and nothing short of a constitutional convention will fix it at this point.
It isn’t. The framers of the constitution believed that judges would put the letter of the law ahead of their own personal convictions and conduct themselves honorably by recusing themselves from cases where there could be even a hint of impropriety or conflict of interest. I’m sure they also assumed that a judge who ignored those social norms and committed such a nakedly partisan act would be held to account by Congress, who would have a collectively vested interest is using their constitutional power as a check against the Judicial.
Unfortunately, we live in a timeline where loyalty to one’s political party comes ahead of all else, and Congress would rather cede their ability to govern entirely than turn against “one of their own”. Even if the result is objectively bad for everyone. The failure of the framers to codify these rules are exactly why we are in this situation today, and nothing short of a constitutional convention will fix it at this point.