Independent Judiciary? Does Not Look Like It

Constitutional Judiciary or Not?

As I recall, the old Constitution of the United States instituted an independent judiciary, even though its judges at the federal level are appointed by the President.

As an adjective, “independent” once meant “not subject to control by others,” and “not subordinate.” Plain enough. But, it also included, “not conditioned,” and “being or acting free of the influence of something else” (Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2000, s.v. “independent [adjective]”).

To my antiquated thinking, the intent of an “independent judiciary,” especially in higher courts, included taking on cases that touched the very fabric of constitutional issues–such as election integrity, and interstate disputes that have the potential to affect national outcomes. Looks like I was completely mistaken.

I guess the role of American judiciary has been relegated to determining whether a child’s shoelaces that have the words, “mother,” “father,” “husband,” “daughter,” and “son” are offensive, and therefore must not be worn in public institutions for fear of offending someone who thinks those words are indicators of privilege, and perpetuate an outdated sexually-binary caste system. Apparently, “acting free of the influence” of adverse public opinion, or the fear of civil protest or riots is no longer part of the meaning of “independent.”