在美國的民主製度下,總統州長這樣的民選官員才是政策的製定者,其下所屬政府機構的成員是政策的執行者。這裏請注意,司法部雖然名字裏掛了“司法”二字,其實與司法獨立毫無關係,司法部隻是屬於執法範疇的聯邦政府中的一部分。雖然司法部長嘴頭上時而會宣稱司法部有獨立性,雖然他可以說自己不是總統個人的律師,但他畢竟屬民選總統一黨,由總統提拔,是總統可隨時任意開革(serving at the President's pleasure)的下屬,他在任內的所作所為要為總統製定的政策服務,最後因為政府政策的成敗青史留名或遺臭萬年的也是總統,基本沒司法部長什麽事。
Another early Justice who ran for political office was the little-known Smith Thompson. He failed in an 1828 to become New York’s governor.
David Davis, who sat on the Supreme Court in 1877, missed a chance of becoming the tie-breaking vote in the contested 1876 presidential election commission when he was appointed as a U.S. Senator from Illinois.
The most famous Justice-turned-candidate was Charles Evans Hughes. In his distinguished public career, Hughes left the Supreme Court in 1916 to challenge Woodrow Wilson for the White House. After a narrow loss, Hughes eventually became Secretary of State, and he served as a United States delegate to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. In 1930, Hughes returned to the Court as Chief Justice of the United States.
William O. Douglas also was mentioned in 1944 and 1948 as a possible Vice President candidate while he was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice, while James Byrnes, who briefly sat on the Court during the FDR era, later became governor of South Carolina.
A most-interesting case was Justice Arthur Goldberg, who quit the Supreme Court in 1965 to accept President Lyndon Johnson’s appointment as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Goldberg left that position in 1968.
In other cases, Supreme Court Justices have taken on important duties in public service while remaining on the bench. Justice Robert Jackson was the Chief United States Prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II.
Justice Owen J. Roberts headed the investigation into the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while Chief Justice Earl Warren famously headed the commission that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
When people talk about conservative/liberal judges, are they not thinking in political terms? When Mr. Trump celebrated his success in placing three justices on the High Court, was he not viewing his as political victories?
———————-
這也是美國司法讓人垢病的地方,
It should not be like that under rule of law.
PrimeryColor 發表評論於
When people talk about conservative/liberal judges, are they not thinking in political terms? When Mr. Trump celebrated his success in placing three justices on the High Court, was he not viewing his as political victories?
這個還真難說。 很多時,成事在天。 總統不能保證被提名的大法官不變節。 以往也有曆史。
回複 '曌' 的評論 : There is the idealistic view that judges are above politics; there is also the reality that their decisions, by impacting on the distribution of rights/resources as well as other political matters, have been gaining political significance. When the cases presented to the courts, such as those concerning abortion rights, voting rights, affirmative action, etc., are themselves imbued with politics, how can the judges' decisions escape the fate of being viewed in political light? When people talk about conservative/liberal judges, are they not thinking in political terms? When Mr. Trump celebrated his success in placing three justices on the High Court, was he not viewing his as political victories? In this regard, please see https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-pretending-the-supreme-court-is-above-politics-1536852330
Under the rule of law, judge should not dip into political water, for example in judicial review cases, the judge only needs to decide the lawfulness of a matter , that is it, rather than agreeing or disagreeing a matter which is politics .
曌 發表評論於
大法官的裁決,特別是大法官對憲法解釋的裁決,屬最高政治範疇,
——————————————-
Judicial is supposed to be politically neutral, and does not dip into political water.
在美國的民主製度下,總統州長這樣的民選官員才是政策的製定者,其下所屬政府機構的成員是政策的執行者。這裏請注意,司法部雖然名字裏掛了“司法”二字,其實與司法獨立毫無關係,司法部隻是屬於執法範疇的聯邦政府中的一部分。雖然司法部長嘴頭上時而會宣稱司法部有獨立性,雖然他可以說自己不是總統個人的律師,但他畢竟屬民選總統一黨,由總統提拔,是總統可隨時任意開革(serving at the President's pleasure)的下屬,他在任內的所作所為要為總統製定的政策服務,最後因為政府政策的成敗青史留名或遺臭萬年的也是總統,基本沒司法部長什麽事。