Well, judicial independence is in turn dependent upon which theory of jurisprudence, which interpretation of the constitution under it, the limits to Rights, legislation, regulation, findings (judicial discretion), which limits to interpretation of texts used. Fix 1st things 1st.
If we use reciprocity (tort, trespass), strict, textual, operational construction of rights from it, strict, textual operation construction of constitution, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings from it, then fine.
That’s Rule of Law and judicial independence.
But whether discretionary rule by a dictator, an oligarchy, a legislature, a bureaucracy, or a judge makes no difference. And the left has done a fine job of inserting dictators who violate that law to the bench – a fine enough job to discredit the judiciary.
Our constitution was a good first draft of legal expression of the scientific evidence of the natural law of reciprocity – our customary law for millennia.
But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible.
It’s exasperating that a hole in our constitution that neither demands ascent of the supreme court, nor demands warranty by its legislators, nor provides means of returning an undecidable case to the state, is obfuscated by discussions of independence instead.
( Apologies for letting me rant a bit on the primary subject of my work. 😉 Let’s fix the constitution with a third american revolution…. )