Report comment

I should have thought it the most obvious common sense to say that judges are "not always the best placed" to decide on questions of the public interest, and that politicians may often be far better qualified to do so. Isn't that what, among other things, we elect them for? Who elects the judges? The absurdity of this thread is that those commenters who are most derisive of the sentiment expressed in the headline would be the very first to declaim against "unelected judges" should those judges start issuing decisions contrary to their own political prepossessions. Let me commend to their better consideration the Dred Scott decision and its political history.