The federal judiciary is independent in the sense that lifetime tenure and no-reductio-in-salaries means that the Prez cannot fire, nor Congress cut the salaries, of judges who make unpopular decisions. If you think that doesn't matter, ask Rose Bird, former S.Ct. justice in CA, who was defeated in an election campaign because she was anti death penalty.
Your point that sometimes, perhaps often, we get reactionary federal judges is irrelevant. R's past is shady, although even if it were spotless his jurisprudence would be loathsome. Contrast Hugo Black, who has a loathsome past--he really was a KKK member--had had great jurisprudence. But the promise of the independent judiciary is not that it will provide us with progressive judges or even, always, able cones (think of Clarence Thomas), but that it will insulate them from political pressure and enable them to interpret and enforce the law as they see it.
--jks
In a message dated Thu, 10 Feb 2000 1:47:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, "William S. Lear" <rael at zopyra.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 22:46:58 (EST) JKSCHW at aol.com writes:
> >...
> >But what's wrong with a tripartite government? Shouldn't we have a more or
> >less independent judiciary? ...
>
> Putting aside the question of from whom are the judiciary independent,
> the current structure of the three branches, in relationship to the
> democratic masses, is I think the main objection. The Supremes serve
> for life ("during good behavior"), are appointed by President,
> confirmed by Senate. The Senate has already been mentioned, but
> important also are the long terms they serve. Were every part of the
> three branches directly elected, with short terms, and other
> structural deficiencies fixed, there would not be much gain to
> democracy, in my opinion. The first-past-the-post rule coupled with
> the freedom of Money to enter politics (not to mention the lack of an
> independent national media) is the real killer.
>
> But since you mentioned an "independent judiciary", I couldn't resist
> digging up a tidbit on Rehnquist I wrote to a few friends of mine last
> May:
>
> Rehnquist is an arch-conservative (in real terms, a reasonably
> well-mannered fascist) who wrote a memo early in his career that
> Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) "was right and should be re-affirmed."
> Plessy, remember, was the case that *upheld* the "separate but equal"
> bullshit allowing de-facto segregation of education. Rehnquist also
> authored another memo to his then-boss, Supreme Court Justice Robert
> Jackson in which he urged Jackson to vote against a black challenge to
> all-white Democratic primary elections in Texas, saying "it is about
> time the Court faced the fact that the white people in the South don't
> like the colored people". Further burnishing his reputation as a
> judicious thinker, Rehnquist in 1974 (three years after being
> appointed to the Supreme Court) purchased a home with a covenant which
> prohibited ownership by anyone of the "Hebrew race". Guess he forgot
> his spectacles that day!
>
> I think I got most of the above from one of Philip Burch's volumes...
>
>
> Bill