Talk:List of the first women holders of political offices in North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judges and librarians[edit]

Dear fellow editors, I propose to remove judges and librarians from the article as - in my opinion - they cannot (should not) be considered political offices (even if a politically active person fills them). It stems from the theory of separation of powers that the judiciary cannot be engaged in furthering the aims of one political party or another, and I simply have no idea what definition of 'political office' would possibly include librarians. Please share your opinions. ZBukov (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed with Zoltqn Bukovsky on their talk page, the librarians would warrant a removal. What I think is interesting is the role of judges, for example, in the political system. In the UK the head of the English and Welsh Courts by virtue simultaneously a member of the House of Lords, which is a legislator. As a result of being the Chief Justice, they are also a law lord which means they have a role to play in the British political system. This means that, as a senior judge in the UK, they also have a role in the political sphere; this could be applied to this article.
What legislative role do American judges have? ZBukov (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of the American judicial system is limited compared to the British system. However, I will provide a few, non-exhaustive, points. Supreme Court Judges in the US, for example, are appointed, on advice from the President, by the U.S. senate. This therefore would suggest that the appointment is political as they have been appointed by a legislator. The fact that they are also themselves guided by the U.S. Constitution highlights political affiliation as it itself was brought in by a legislator. And whilst I accpet this is not the same for everything, the website uses .gov within its html link, suggesting affiliation to the federal governments.--Chip123456 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also arrived at my conclusion on theoretical grounds, rather than based on an intimate knowledge of US constitutional theory. However, if we understand a politician as someone who advocates one political alternative over others (typically affiliated with a political party) and works towards gaining and retaining political power, than it's clear why it would be alarming if the position of a judge was a political one (since they are expected to be unbiased above all). As far as the person of the appointer is concerned, let me use a British example. The head of your Forestry Commission is appointed by your head of state, what's more, the commission's website happens to end in .gov.uk (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/). Does it make the chairperson a politician? And a country's constitution binds every citizen, but that does not turn the citizens into politicians either. ZBukov (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A politician is not the only role, however, which can be considered political. In the case of the Forestry Commision, it is, in a sense, a branch of the DEFRA environmental department, and so is linked by political affiliation. I think what the question is, that because they are high regarded roles, they inevitably become part of a country's politics. Being linked to politics doesn't mean that they are a politican. Thanks. --Chip123456 11:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So just to clarify, are you advocating that judicial positions should be regarded as political offices? ZBukov (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a bit controversial saying so, but I just think senior judicial rules are inevitably going to be an establishment figure if that makes sene.--Chip123456 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense, and that statement in itself is uncontested. Where I disagree is that Establishment equals political office. Apart from top judges and barristers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Family belong to the Establishment too, and so do financiers, industrialists, aristocrats and governors of the BBC. And it would be rather counterintuitive if you defined those as political offices. ZBukov (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of the first female holders of political offices in North and Central America and the Caribbean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_first_women_holders_of_political_offices_in_North_America&oldid=1207234039"