In a healthy legal system there has to be a popular respect for the rule of law. The population and its political leaders should ideally abide by the decisions that flow from its courts. 

One of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes is that Judges are not independent of political leaders and the decisions they often issue in important cases, don't reflect constitutional norms, but rather the wishes of those who appointed them. In such cultures the wishes or the rights of citizens are either ignored or treated as subservient to the wishes of the leaders. In such cultures the population has little respect for the rule of law and judicial decisions are accepted with with a resigned sigh. Our own Court of Appeal recently commented upon the justice system in China, making the following observations (Kim v Minister of Justice [2019] 3 1 NZLR 173)

(i) The right to a hearing before an independent panel or public tribunal: 

Mr Kim has a right to be tried before a tribunal that decides cases on the evidence before it and free from political pressure. There was material before the Minister to suggest that political influence is pervasive in the PRC’s criminal justice system and this is how the system is designed to work. There was also material to suggest that the political influence prioritises social policy objectives over individual procedural protections. 

(ii) The right to legal representation, including the right to present a defence, receive legal assistance, adequately prepare a defence and to examine witnesses: 

there were a number issues in connection with this right including the discretionary nature of disclosure to the defence and the fact that witnesses for the prosecution rarely give evidence with trial mostly being conducted on the papers. More troubling is the position of the defence bar in the PRC. Defence counsel must be able to honestly and responsibly represent an accused person without fear of repercussion if the procedural right is to operate in accordance with its purpose. There was material before the Minister to suggest that defence counsel operate in an environment in which they fear persecution for their representation of their client. 

(iii) The right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt: 

there was material before the Minister to suggest that Mr Kim could be interrogated for a period of months in the absence of a lawyer.

A justice system that lacks independence from the political process is corrosive of fair trial rights and the rule of law. Similarly a justice system where the results are an outcome of political patronage is similarly corrosive. For decisions to be respected by the population it is important that people understand why decisions are made and to a degree that outcomes accord with principles that the general population accept. 

Part of this also includes the fact that the senior judiciary is to a degree representative of the nation. If judges come to be seen as alien and non-reflective of the values of the nation it erodes public confidence in the courts. This is a legal, social and constitutional matter. 

As a matter of practice, if a potential court user does not have faith in the process, it's reasonable to expect that they will be less likely to bring a claim or come forward as a witness in a case, negatively affecting the administration of justice. 

That a non-representative judiciary is a hallmark of authoritarianism can be seen from our Court of Appeal's observations in Kim (above) 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is rapidly finding itself winding up in this position now. Through political machinations the GOP are in the process of completing a extreme right-wing super majority in the nation's highest court. What is worrying about this, is that the Republican Party has only one the popular vote once out of the last seven presidential elections. SCOTUS is increasingly reflective in its decisions of extreme right wing views of the fringe of legal thinking. 

Barring a miracle, the court Trump is fashioning will be viewed for decades with anxiety and derision by the majority in a society that has traditionally looked to it as the ultimate bulwark against government oppression. That would be a shame for the court, but it will be a catastrophe for Americans whose liberties will be on the chopping block