• grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It was honestly incredibly stupid of the American founders to assume making these guys practically untouchable would make them above corruption rather than the perfect targets for it. Childishly naive.

    • LeadSoldier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      People used to be able to storm the courthouse and physically remove judges who were corrupt. The government militarizing the police and separating the elected officials from the people is the problem.

      The corrupt should fear us (First amendment).

        • LeadSoldier@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I totally meant the second amendment. I’m a retired federal official. I’m embarrassed with myself. Lol. I’m getting old, though, so I forgive my mistakes.

      • Anticorp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        –Thomas Jefferson

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was honestly incredibly stupid of the American founders to assume making these guys practically untouchable would make them above corruption rather than the perfect targets for it. Childishly naive.

      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.

      • evatronic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that there’s no way they could have possibly foreseen the levels of corruption that exist 250 years later.

        Corruption in government isn’t an American invention.

        See also: Rome.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the founders really thought that much about it. Article III was pretty much phoned in- so much so that the basic function of SCOTUS–constitutional review of the rest of the government–was created out of thin air by the Court itself. Literally all the constitution says about it is that the judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court and lower courts to be created by federal statute.

    • Anticorp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The founders envisioned a weak government that could be torn down and rebuilt by the people as needed. Perhaps we have been neglecting our duty.

      That to secure these rights, Governments are ilnstituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      –Thomas Jefferson