Wow I thought of a lottery too and I researched and say this information. Also know person is allowed to have any legal issues noted against them at all . They would be disqualified to be a Justice.
I think a citizens' assembly is probably the wrong venue for picking judges. Most citizens don't know much about the law or the judicial process, which is no slight to them, they have their own affairs to tend to. But it would mean that the assembly would be practically paralyzed without experts and consultants to hold their hands, which (unless the citizens did decide to go it alone, likely leading to poor, uninformed decision making) would ultimately leave the process reliant on whatever small group of consultants, or worse, media figures, has the ear of these randomly selected citizens. That's even less democratic than the present system.
And yes, the citizens don't actually pick the judges, but there's a lot of room for outside influence in deciding who qualifies for consideration and what criteria decide the ideological positioning. This second is not a simple decision. Of course everyone cares about abortion and corporate power but there's also censorship, privacy and surveillance, religious liberty, affirmative action, environmental issues, disputes over regulatory authority, and the list continues. These are areas where it's not always self evident what the "conservative" or "liberal" position even is, let alone how to weight these factors in deciding how to label a candidate's ideology.
Lottery seems to cumbersome and every year WOW! However love the idea of term limits, love the idea of 3 conservative, 3 moderates and 3 liberal and let them work to form consensus or get to a majority. Having the judges own their world view is a great idea and then go from there. hermeneutic good word - had to look it up. LOL
Wow I thought of a lottery too and I researched and say this information. Also know person is allowed to have any legal issues noted against them at all . They would be disqualified to be a Justice.
I think a citizens' assembly is probably the wrong venue for picking judges. Most citizens don't know much about the law or the judicial process, which is no slight to them, they have their own affairs to tend to. But it would mean that the assembly would be practically paralyzed without experts and consultants to hold their hands, which (unless the citizens did decide to go it alone, likely leading to poor, uninformed decision making) would ultimately leave the process reliant on whatever small group of consultants, or worse, media figures, has the ear of these randomly selected citizens. That's even less democratic than the present system.
And yes, the citizens don't actually pick the judges, but there's a lot of room for outside influence in deciding who qualifies for consideration and what criteria decide the ideological positioning. This second is not a simple decision. Of course everyone cares about abortion and corporate power but there's also censorship, privacy and surveillance, religious liberty, affirmative action, environmental issues, disputes over regulatory authority, and the list continues. These are areas where it's not always self evident what the "conservative" or "liberal" position even is, let alone how to weight these factors in deciding how to label a candidate's ideology.
Lottery seems to cumbersome and every year WOW! However love the idea of term limits, love the idea of 3 conservative, 3 moderates and 3 liberal and let them work to form consensus or get to a majority. Having the judges own their world view is a great idea and then go from there. hermeneutic good word - had to look it up. LOL