I wouldnât be that much more confident in the Supreme Court justices in the US. In the US, constitutional law, and the federal judiciary are highly politicized. The most visible and attention-grabbing parts of the job involve figuring out how to use the constitution and legal precedent to advance the policy goals of the Democrat or Republican party (or maybe your own idiosyncratic moral and political goals), whilst pretending, to yourself and others, that you are a neutral arbiter who is just applying the law.* This is why who gets appointed to the Supreme Court in the US has been so politicized since the late 80s, at an absolute minimum. (Itâs not a case of nasty right-wing populists appointing hacks and liberals appointing neutral professionals either, as far as I can tell.)
More generally, itâs always easy to look at big important institutions and conclude âthatâs where the sensible, competent adults areâ. But nearly everyone who sees these institutions close up, seems to end up somewhat disabused of that belief. An acquaintance of mine who is a top Scottish civil servant told me they once had major problems in her department because they simply could not find a key administrative document. I donât know if you consider this âunprofessionalâ, but I also know of another UK civil servant whoâs held highly responsible positions, who could be pretty reckless with their recreational drug use at parties. The Tory politician Michael Gove who has held multiple cabinet posts since the Tories got in in 2010, once had to admit to taking coke as a young man, at exactly the same time period as he was writing tabloid newspaper articles demand harsh punishment for cocaine users.
*For boring historical reasons, the last thing is a bit more common on the Republican side, and liberal judges tend to hew to theories of legal interpretation that make it a bit clearer they are to some degree making stuff up.
Supreme court judges in any country have vastly more experience in their profession than EA grantmakers.
They have to do a much more thorough job of justifying their decisions and connecting them to constitutional law and case law, even if they have an agenda.
I wouldnât be that much more confident in the Supreme Court justices in the US. In the US, constitutional law, and the federal judiciary are highly politicized. The most visible and attention-grabbing parts of the job involve figuring out how to use the constitution and legal precedent to advance the policy goals of the Democrat or Republican party (or maybe your own idiosyncratic moral and political goals), whilst pretending, to yourself and others, that you are a neutral arbiter who is just applying the law.* This is why who gets appointed to the Supreme Court in the US has been so politicized since the late 80s, at an absolute minimum. (Itâs not a case of nasty right-wing populists appointing hacks and liberals appointing neutral professionals either, as far as I can tell.)
More generally, itâs always easy to look at big important institutions and conclude âthatâs where the sensible, competent adults areâ. But nearly everyone who sees these institutions close up, seems to end up somewhat disabused of that belief. An acquaintance of mine who is a top Scottish civil servant told me they once had major problems in her department because they simply could not find a key administrative document. I donât know if you consider this âunprofessionalâ, but I also know of another UK civil servant whoâs held highly responsible positions, who could be pretty reckless with their recreational drug use at parties. The Tory politician Michael Gove who has held multiple cabinet posts since the Tories got in in 2010, once had to admit to taking coke as a young man, at exactly the same time period as he was writing tabloid newspaper articles demand harsh punishment for cocaine users.
*For boring historical reasons, the last thing is a bit more common on the Republican side, and liberal judges tend to hew to theories of legal interpretation that make it a bit clearer they are to some degree making stuff up.
Iâm basing this view on two things:
Supreme court judges in any country have vastly more experience in their profession than EA grantmakers.
They have to do a much more thorough job of justifying their decisions and connecting them to constitutional law and case law, even if they have an agenda.