> He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain.
In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.
What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position. The lifetime appt likely means your side will defend you at most or all costs.
Even if I am able to verify one side or the other of the Court is being hypocritical with their argument for lifting Roe v Wade (abortion legality) soon via the careful examining of the results, will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
> What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position
I think you mean political appointment.
The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit).
> will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term.
That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
It is often said that the USA Supreme Court is politicized because it is chosen by elected officials, whereas in Britain the recommendations for the high court are made by legalists, and therefore the British high court is less political.
As an outsider, it's really weird to see the intense debates over the supreme court couched in terms of political points of view. I mean, that's what elections should be about... it really comes across as if Americans have given up hope of a functioning democracy and have retreated to battling for political appointments to the SC for long-term policy.
That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain.
In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.