Jenrik and Judge Impartiality

 Jenrik complained that judges are no longer impartial. 
      His plan to fix this? Make the Justice Secretary appoint them. 
      But do you know who definitely isn't impartial? Politicians. 
      So how non-impartial politicians are the solution for making judges impartial, I don't know. 
      (*The opposite of 'impartial' nominally is 'partial'. But 'partial' is only ever said in a context like 'He's partial to a cup of tea/piece of cake.' So, in everyday use, 'partial' is not the antonym of 'impartial'. Hence my use of 'non-impartial'.)

A politician belongs to a party with a certain ideology. 
      They'd select judges that match this ideology. (Or, at the very least, they would never select a judge with the opposite ideology.) 
      Ergo, some judges would have less insentive to be impartial because it wouldn't get them anywhere. Of course, many would remain impartial like now because it's the right thing to do. 
      But for those judges who want to rule according to their viewpoints? They're the ones that lose the incentive to be impartial. When they're the ones that require, for the public's benefit, an impartial justice system the most.

We can see this happening in the USA. 
      Judges are selected by a political process (either appointed by politician or elected by constituency). In both instances, they're chosen for their ideology and make judgements based on this ideology. 
      Due to this, law in America is subjective. (Even though the whole point of the law is to be objective!)
      These judges won't get elected again or nominated for higher office if their ruling record doesn't match expectations. So judges chosen via political processes in the USA are certainly not impartial. 
      
Like I said earlier, I think most British judges would remain impartial. 
      But over a long period of time, with non-impartial politicians controlling judicial appointments? Any sentiment to be impartial would gradually disappear. 
      After all, if the UK followed a political process in judicial appointments, why would its results be any different from countries with similar systems? 

So Jenrik's idea, that a non-impartial Justice Secretary would bring back impartiality to judges, is nonsense.