And , in the Uk we have politicians like Robert Jenrick making the same error.

Exactly, it’s the tool for apparent quick results but it is the same error repeated. Needs something better but I really don’t see what, as the politicisation runs from Supreme Court all the way to local judges.

Presidential pardons are and have always been a travesty. Stop them in the Constitutional Review that will be needed to rebuild and strengthen the Republic

I read these repeated stories and see the judgements. When the USA comes to its senses, the politicisation of the judiciary will be recognised as one of the biggest failures of governance. How can it be depoliticised, if at all? Just packing the Supreme Court with supporters seems insufficient

Oh I do hope I see some accountability before I die. The current behaviours are abhorrent

Nor I as a pensioner

Yes but he’s set himself up. Whichever decision he takes he will be heavily criticised. The appropriate position was to support the group of experts and stress the harms they highlight. Being the boss means humility when others know the detail and you don’t

Political interpretation. At one level that’s fine if he is honest but to pretend he adds value is assessing the evidence is very poor

Add over-estimating their own competence. Example today- Mr Streeting intending to “review” the evidence on prostrate screening when the experts have just done this. What does a political overview or review add? It’s confusing politics (lots of people want) with evidence (more harm caused)

I think your post is missing a “not” between administration and blatantly

An incompetent and stupid person. In this case with a hat. They can also be found in a hatless variant. Often in the political or commentator classes