From a comment earlier but worth discussion: “Seems our whole system of “checks and balances” has a weak spot - the judiciary is not accountable to anyone but themselves, unlike the other branches. Once they’re entrenched it’s hard to remove them, and there’s no periodic review of their rulings and what type of cases they choose. It’s a place where corrupt or subversive elements could get into and hide out.”
Other than initial appointments, what checks and balances are there on the judicial branch? How could the system be improved moving forward?
Yes. Number one is properly conducted elections. The US, for example imposed ID-presented paper ballots, with thumb ink, on Iraqis. that election was internationally recognized as fair. But, the hipocrisy was that elections back home were impossibly corrupt, and worsening.
So, now the US elections are not credible. And EVERYBODY in the world can see it, and it needs to stop, starting at local levels.
Number two is a competence argument. This works on several levels: of course one needs literate, and educated people to do the moving-and-shaking stuff. Get rid of the smooth-talking transformative managers relying on very expensive comms departments. But the problem is: we live in a blanket of propaganda coming from those satanic mills. Many people still believe the government channels parading as newspapers or TV news, believing the myth that that information is credible, because it is 'mainstream'. The regular Joe cannot even discern smear articles from truth. So, there is an issue of pepe-competence to recognize the lies from the get go, and that there, is a culture change.
Culture changes are best effected via human networks.