356 - 15.10.26 - As the World Falls Down

in a democracy shouldn't the judiciary be free of political influence?

The principle that the judiciary should be free from political influence is a cornerstone of most modern democracies, often referred to as judicial independence. This independence is intended to ensure that legal disputes are decided based on the law and the facts of the case, rather than the preferences of the party in power or the pressures of public opinion.

When judges are insulated from political influence, they can protect the rule of law by holding government officials accountable to the constitution and statutes. If the executive or legislative branches could dictate judicial outcomes, the courts would cease to be an impartial arbiter and instead become a tool for the government to target opponents or legitimize illegal actions. This protection is especially critical for safeguarding the rights of minorities and individuals who may be unpopular with the majority or the ruling party.

However, achieving total independence is a complex challenge because the judiciary does not exist in a vacuum. In many democracies, judges are appointed or confirmed by political actors, such as a president or a parliament. This creates a tension between the need for democratic accountability—ensuring that judges are qualified and reflect broad legal philosophies—and the need for independence once they take the bench. To mitigate this, many systems implement safeguards such as life tenure, fixed terms, or rigorous merit-based appointment processes to ensure that once a judge is appointed, they no longer owe their position to a political benefactor.

once the court has made a decision, is it normal for a politician to overturn the judgement

In a functioning democracy based on the rule of law, it is not considered normal or appropriate for a politician to unilaterally overturn a judicial judgment. The separation of powers is designed specifically to prevent the executive or legislative branches from simply ignoring or reversing a court's decision because they disagree with the outcome.

When a court issues a ruling, it is legally binding. If a politician or government agency refuses to follow a court order, it is generally viewed as a constitutional crisis or a violation of the rule of law. Such actions undermine the judiciary's role as the final arbiter of legal disputes and can signal a shift toward authoritarianism, as it suggests that the government is above the law.

There are, however, legitimate legal channels for addressing a judgment that the government finds problematic:

Appeals: The government can appeal a decision to a higher court. This remains within the judicial system and follows established legal procedures.

Legislative Change: If a court interprets a law in a way the legislature dislikes, the politicians can pass a new law or amend an existing one to clarify the intent or change the policy for the future. This does not "overturn" the specific past judgment—which was based on the law as it existed at the time—but it changes the legal landscape moving forward.

Constitutional Amendments: In cases where a court rules that a law is unconstitutional, the only way to "reverse" that effect is often to amend the constitution itself, a process that typically requires a high degree of consensus and is intentionally difficult.

While politicians may publicly criticize a ruling or express a desire to see it overturned, the actual act of ignoring or voiding a court's decision through executive decree is a breach of democratic norms.

====================================

Riddle me this, despite being possibly the most educated and decorated and richest generation in human history, how come we now have ringside seats to the collapse of civilisation? I can't quite fathom how the Singaporean government can still be going on and on about AI when the actual air is on fire. Like are they actually insane? Also, they had such a long time to sort this out - and once again, they are back to square one. Environmental disaster and collapse. It looks like it might rain - or that the fires are choking the skies even more today. I hope its cloud seeding. Well, since I wrote that, it has rained very heavily but for a short time. That's something I guess.

But I have also discovered that all this shit kicked off in 1997 and it has just gotten worse year and year. I have nothing to say. Nothing whatsoever. 

Apart from - clearly education and degrees and intelligence has nothing to do with how well we are able to bring ourselves into a sustainable future. I really do not understand it. What exactly is going on? How come people are now so stupid? What exactly is being taught in universities? Well, I just have to look at Oisin and his head is completely turned by the whole money thing. I have never fallen for the money thing. I don't know why? I have always considered it some kind of terrible illusion. 

But anyway - it is time to complete today's editing. We can't go out today on account of the terrible choking smog.