Seeing that from outside the USA it's completely baffling that judges need to declare the party they root for (what if they vote for an independent candidate? 🤔) and that it's expected of them to show personal bias in their ruling instead of... You know... Acting like judges that are there to impartially apply the rule of law?
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
420 points (96.7% liked)
politics
18852 readers
4259 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You have to have elected judges, judges appointed by a politician, or judges appointed by a non-politician (like a board of other judges). There are pros and cons to each, this is not one of the problems that the US has which are solved in the rest of the Western world.
You'll never completely eliminate all possible bias from human beings serving on a nation's highest court, but out of the things that could be done, the United States is doing exactly nothing.
less than that, actually.
After first trying every other option, we always do the right thing!
Since when?
We’re still on that first bit
Haha this got me good, and with a mouthful of coffee to boot
Well, looking at how partisan the supreme Court is it clearly is a problem in the USA that doesn't seem to affect its northern neighbor...
Judges on the Canadian Supreme Court are similarly appointed by the executive (they just have a Prime Minister instead of a President) so that isn't the problem.
You're missing the point, Canadian judges don't have to tell which party they support so there's no expectation from them and it's much harder to make a call before the case begins what the judges' opinion will be even if they've been put in place by a specific party.
American Supreme Court justices don't have to tell which party they support either.
yes because they bend to the whim of the executive/legislature
Not really, it happens pretty often that the supreme court rules against what would be the wish of the government and it's pretty sad that a Canadian would believe otherwise.
supreme court rules against what would be the wish of the government
Can you site an example of that? I mean where the supreme court rules that the legislature can't do something that it tried to do. Not just the executive excercising power it doesn't have. From my understanding, in the Canadian system the legislature effectively has absolute power as it is the directly elected body and meant to represent the will of the people.
How about one from just a month and a half ago?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-scoc-ruling-1.6995962
And their multiple rulings on minimum sentences and sentences adding up (like in the USA) and so on...
It's because judges are appointed by the executive branch. So, if they don't tell the president or governor which party they're with they might not get appointed. It's a fucked up system and could potentially lead to authoritarianism.
They should make a law that it is illegal to require a judge to state their political affiliation. If a judge is considered for a higer court their record should be used to determine their suitability.
Judges simply shouldn't be nominated by one single person, particularly if that person is the de facto leader of his political party. And confirmation of judges simply shouldn't be possible purely based on how many seats that same party holds in the Senate and, in a worst case scenario, without any kind of bipartisanship purely along party lines.
Because that essentially means that Supreme Court judges are nominated and confirmed by the political parties.
Apart from maybe a president being able to single-handed determining Supreme Court judges, almost any other system would be better. Including - as shitty as that would be - direct election of Supreme Court judges by the entire electorate.
It couldn’t happen to a shittier person.
He's repeatedly shown that he's willing to throw even close allies under the bus, not even for cause, but just to distract or get himself back in the news. Even if he put you in office and/or you've supported him in the past, he's made it increasingly clear to judges and everyone else that it's not worth tying their career and livelihood to protecting him. His well poisoning is not just ridiculously public; his toxic behavior has become impossible to ignore even to the most self serving and delusional of would be allies.
Except that Florida judge, she's all in on the documents case and stalling it.
She's probably one of those 'true believers.' Making it more obvious she should recuse herself.
Bailiffs should write her tickets for obstruction. How is this allowed to be legal?
I agree with you, but I just wish you threw in a few notable examples for people that might stumble on this comment and not believe it or just not be aware of it. I'll throw in two pieces of shit he famously fucked: Gulliani and Cohen.
Also Kevin McCarthy. And Chris Christie. And Rex Tillerson. And Omarosa. And Steve Bannon. And Scramucci. And Reince Priebus. And Mike Pence. And Michael Flynn. And John Kelly. And Sebastian Gorka. And John Bolton.
There are literally hundreds of people who swore allegiance to Trump, only to be thrown under the bus.
Think of it this way; he had a lottery where the winner got to have dinner with the President and First Lady at the White House. In more than four years there was never a single MAGoo invited to the White House.
His people don't care. He's their man, and they'll follow him to the gates of Hell
They've been ruling against him from the beginning. I'm always puzzled that people seem to think the judges are his allies or owe him anything. Once they're on the bench he has zero power over them.
For many he is (seen as) their path to promotion — and that is substantial power.
It’s only the Supreme Court where he doesn’t have any power. And there we have seen ample proof that corruption and greed for money or social standing can drive their decisions.
It's really about the power Trump has over the oligarchs that adopt judges to sway their opinions with lavish gifts.
Yet somehow (according to him) it’s always Biden and Dem appointed judges that are doing hit jobs and unfair rulings.
That's because every single person who slights him even the tiniest bit was obviously always his enemy, and he obviously always knew this. Probably a RINO, a secret Democrat, a stealthy undercover deep state fake Republican. Very bad person, could not be trusted, in fact Trump barely knew them, they begged him for the job, but they simply weren't up to it.
Even if he praised that same person to high heaven just the day before.
Evidence: the 263 people he hired and fired in the last administration (with the firing usually done via Twitter, when they were far away from wherever he was tweeting from).
He worked really hard to behave so egregiously and unjustifiably that even his appointed cronies won't tie themselves to his sinking ship.
They were never “his” Judges, at least not in the way that hysterical online media wanted people to believe.
*cough*Aileen Cannon*cough*
Trump just thinks he knows everything. He figured if he appointed his own picks, he'll never be held accountable. The problem is that since he loves indulging in second bowls of his own shit and sniffing the farts that come with them. He didn't think that the people he appointed, are functioning on their own while playing up to allying with him.
And so judge after judge and associate work against him and he has the biggest pikachu shocked face of them all.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected Trump's efforts to claim presidential immunity from civil lawsuits against him for his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, at least for now.
"The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints," the three-judge panel wrote in a 3-0 ruling.
In July, Trump lost the $475 million defamation lawsuit he brought against CNN after Judge Raag Singhal, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Trump in 2019, ruled that the use of the phrase "the Big Lie" was opinion and not factual, thus failing to meet the standard for defamation.
Trump was also shut down by some of his own appointees in December 2022, when a federal appeals court in Florida overturned a decision that blocked the Justice Department from using the documents discovered during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
"In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal."
"The immunity question thus turns on whether President Trump made the January 6 speech in an official or private capacity," Katsas wrote.
The original article contains 521 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!