I think of it as a general democratic problem: finding an expert, unbiased, uncorruptible person for below market rate.
If we had an infinite supply of those, democratic staffing would be a solved problem.
But we don't, and every other solution involves trade-offs.
Do you increase the risk of corruption in exchange for increased expertise, by sourcing staff from industry?
Or do you decrease the risk of corruption at the expense of less expertise, by banning pre/current/post industry exposure?
The judiciary option boils down to a punt, by creating an alternative profession vertical (judicial) that someone can live and progress in... to shield them from influence while making decisions in other areas. But then you have the appointment problem, especially vis lifetime appointments.
The "interested parties" Supreme Court model seems the best way to split the difference to me, where technical experts can offer technical arguments, without having any ability to judge. But that presupposes the judge can understand the points being made.
If we had an infinite supply of those, democratic staffing would be a solved problem.
But we don't, and every other solution involves trade-offs.
Do you increase the risk of corruption in exchange for increased expertise, by sourcing staff from industry?
Or do you decrease the risk of corruption at the expense of less expertise, by banning pre/current/post industry exposure?
The judiciary option boils down to a punt, by creating an alternative profession vertical (judicial) that someone can live and progress in... to shield them from influence while making decisions in other areas. But then you have the appointment problem, especially vis lifetime appointments.
The "interested parties" Supreme Court model seems the best way to split the difference to me, where technical experts can offer technical arguments, without having any ability to judge. But that presupposes the judge can understand the points being made.