Her opinion is also just plain batshit insane, rambling nonsense about how masks don't SANITIZE, and the CDC only has the power to enforce SANITATION.
Which is just... What the fuck.
These are the people McConnell and the Federalist Society got onto the bench.
In fact they've been so successful that they're running out of seasoned people on the list, hence unqualified hacks like Mizzelle and Rao getting called up.
McConnell was Senate majority so, nope, he had the votes for it. Definitionally. I don't give Collins, Murkowsky or Romney any credit for voting for Jackson for the same reason. She was getting confirmed either way. The rest of the votes are a bunch of bullshit.
McConnell was Senate majority so, nope, he had the votes for it. Definitionally. I don't give Collins, Murkowsky or Romney any credit for voting for Jackson for the same reason. She was getting confirmed either way. The rest of the votes are a bunch of bullshit.
Now you're moving goalposts. It's pretty explicit that rather than fight the confirmations and force McConnell to waste time, the Democratic Party capitulated entirely on at least two occasions so they could go on recess.
McConnell was Senate majority so, nope, he had the votes for it. Definitionally. I don't give Collins, Murkowsky or Romney any credit for voting for Jackson for the same reason. She was getting confirmed either way. The rest of the votes are a bunch of bullshit.
Now you're moving goalposts. It's pretty explicit that rather than fight the confirmations and force McConnell to waste time, the Democratic Party capitulated entirely on at least two occasions so they could go on recess.
They got the judges on the bench a few days (weeks?) earlier with the help of some Democrats. There's a difference, and it does matter, and it doesn't mean that you're wrong to criticize them here, just that the judges did not get on the bench because of Democrats.
McConnell was Senate majority so, nope, he had the votes for it. Definitionally. I don't give Collins, Murkowsky or Romney any credit for voting for Jackson for the same reason. She was getting confirmed either way. The rest of the votes are a bunch of bullshit.
Now you're moving goalposts. It's pretty explicit that rather than fight the confirmations and force McConnell to waste time, the Democratic Party capitulated entirely on at least two occasions so they could go on recess.
They got the judges on the bench a few days (weeks?) earlier with the help of some Democrats. There's a difference, and it does matter, and it doesn't mean that you're wrong to criticize them here, just that the judges did not get on the bench because of Democrats.
I never said they got onto the bench because of the Democrats, that was shryke putting words in mouth as per usual. I said the Democrats helped McConnell by making deals, which they very clearly did twice.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
The ABA literally rated her unqualified for the bench.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
The ABA literally rated her unqualified for the bench.
Again, very illustrative of how performative the GOP is wrt unwritten rules.
The ABA's rating and evaluation used to be touted by the GOP as the gold standard on if someone should be a judicial nominee or not. Made huge deals about it in committee meetings and during confirmation hearings.
Now that the ratings show just how poor their picks are?
GOP is all "Fuck them".
Yup. Totally normal behavior for a fascist party.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
It's not the Republican base that needs to see their leaders willing to fight with everything they have because they are the only ones who are in a position to directly lead the charge, even if the battle cannot be won.
Every judge dragged out would be less time given for other legislation, every process invoked is another obstacle the Republicans would have had to deal with on a step by step basis, every instance of such could have been a rallying point to the base to say we are willing to fight for what is right and with your help we can win.
Instead they wanted to campaign and so two slates of Federalist Society toadies gained lifetime power unopposed. Which then leads to situations like the one unfolding now, where an unqualified judge spits in the face of the country daring anyone to do anything about it. And while the attempt will be appealed, possibly overturned, they themselves will be untouched and free to do it again elsewhere.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
The ABA literally rated her unqualified for the bench.
And this judge was not part of the deal mentioned so...
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
It's not the Republican base that needs to see their leaders willing to fight with everything they have because they are the only ones who are in a position to directly lead the charge, even if the battle cannot be won.
Every judge dragged out would be less time given for other legislation, every process invoked is another obstacle the Republicans would have had to deal with on a step by step basis, every instance of such could have been a rallying point to the base to say we are willing to fight for what is right and with your help we can win.
Instead they wanted to campaign and so two slates of Federalist Society toadies gained lifetime power unopposed. Which then leads to situations like the one unfolding now, where an unqualified judge spits in the face of the country daring anyone to do anything about it. And while the attempt will be appealed, possibly overturned, they themselves will be untouched and free to do it again elsewhere.
On the other hand, the Democrats had an incredibly tough job in managing outrage fatigue during the last administration, both in handling and managing their constituents' ire and keeping the broader caucus unified against the fascist tyranny being implemented in every single little policy and action by that administration. The left political base is so much more fractured than the right that it takes picking and choosing what to unify against.
Your post is a perfect example. You're very disappointed and angry that the entire Democratic senate didn't mobilize every effort to merely delay the appointments two of the lowest federal court judge appointees. Others on the left are disappointed that many other issues weren't fully mobilized against. It's just the unfortunate world that we political world that we live in right now that we have to pick and choose, and the other side marches in lockstep.
The "if they'd just dragged things out, some of these judges wouldn't have been confirmed," really doesn't work. If the GOP has a majority and the democrats use a procedural trick to delay the GOP into not being able to fill things, then the GOP would just remove it, like they've done in the past. If the idea, is "but then the public will push against the confirmation because look at how the GOP covered for Kavanagh and Barrett!" Again, this is a flaw perspective and I suggest anyone thinking this ask how many people pay attention to non-SCOTUS confirmations, the answer is not enough voters to matter. So if the republican really want to confirm a hack to the circuit courts, they will and no amount of airing how batshit the judge is, is going to matter because not enough people care. Kavanagh's stuff got sped up and the background quashed because that is something most of the public pays attention to and if it had dragged out, yeah the fucker might not have been seated. Barrett's shit was all about getting her seated before the term ended.
Hell, I do recall the democrats making some trades. I might not have agreed with all of them but to be fair when your choices are. Make a trade to speed up a nomination or if you refuse, we remove the trick for delay and thus the need for needing to offer a trade. You kind of don't have much choice because the trade is something and your still slowing the process down some. Where entrenching means they remove the ability to use the tactic and now not only do you no longer have a means to delay things, there also isn't a means to extract concessions with the threat of delaying.
I mean, don't get me wrong, our system is pretty shitty, but it's getting annoying how democrats are the only ones treated with having agency, on top of people forgetting that dynamic of democratic government at its core, whether it's done well or not, comes down to making compromises.
The "if they'd just dragged things out, some of these judges wouldn't have been confirmed," really doesn't work.
Good thing no one has actually said that. Imagine writing a whole big post based on a reading made up out of whole cloth to fit what you want to attack rather than what was actually said. Would sure look extremely silly.
The "if they'd just dragged things out, some of these judges wouldn't have been confirmed," really doesn't work.
Good thing no one has actually said that. Imagine writing a whole big post based on a reading made up out of whole cloth to fit what you want to attack rather than what was actually said. Would sure look extremely silly.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
The "if they'd just dragged things out, some of these judges wouldn't have been confirmed," really doesn't work.
Good thing no one has actually said that. Imagine writing a whole big post based on a reading made up out of whole cloth to fit what you want to attack rather than what was actually said. Would sure look extremely silly.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
same page even.
Saying some of them wouldn't have been confirmed and saying its not a foregone conclusion are different.
The "if they'd just dragged things out, some of these judges wouldn't have been confirmed," really doesn't work.
Good thing no one has actually said that. Imagine writing a whole big post based on a reading made up out of whole cloth to fit what you want to attack rather than what was actually said. Would sure look extremely silly.
Also, it's not a foregone conclusion they'd have gotten on the bench if the Dems hadn't capitulated. Those few days let you call out how horrifically unqualified they are.
same page even.
Saying some of them wouldn't have been confirmed and saying its not a foregone conclusion are different.
Not far enough apart to justify that amount of aggro.
+4
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
This thread isn't for generic complaints about democrats and the judicial system. Keep things focused.
Look. There's a reason McConnell made judgeships his entire focus like some turtle eye of sauron; he knew no one could stop him and he knew how important seats were for republican rule to continue. He made it his life's work. And unless voters and/or donors put a stop to it, nothing was going to stop this mission. Democrats in Congress could only throw some stones in his path. And his mission has succeeded to such an insane degree that I imagine even he wonders how he pulled it off.
We're now going to see just how teflon the robe is, because Mizzelle's batshit opinion in the mask mandate case is just the beginning. There's a bunch of articles out there about the X worst judges Trump put on the bench, and every one of those list a rogue's gallery of awful party faithful that will keep you up at night wondering how badly they're going to rule on cases.
Dark_Side on
+6
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Look. There's a reason McConnell made judgeships his entire focus like some turtle eye of sauron; he knew no one could stop him and he knew how important seats were for republican rule to continue. He made it his life's work. And unless voters and/or donors put a stop to it, nothing was going to stop this mission. Democrats in Congress could only throw some stones in his path. And his mission has succeeded to such an insane degree that I imagine even he wonders how he pulled it off.
We're now going to see just how teflon the robe is, because Mizzelle's batshit opinion in the mask mandate case is just the beginning. There's a bunch of articles out there about the X worst judges Trump put on the bench, and every one of those list a rogue's gallery of awful party faithful that will keep you up at night wondering how badly they're going to rule on cases.
Look. There's a reason McConnell made judgeships his entire focus like some turtle eye of sauron; he knew no one could stop him and he knew how important seats were for republican rule to continue. He made it his life's work. And unless voters and/or donors put a stop to it, nothing was going to stop this mission. Democrats in Congress could only throw some stones in his path. And his mission has succeeded to such an insane degree that I imagine even he wonders how he pulled it off.
We're now going to see just how teflon the robe is, because Mizzelle's batshit opinion in the mask mandate case is just the beginning. There's a bunch of articles out there about the X worst judges Trump put on the bench, and every one of those list a rogue's gallery of awful party faithful that will keep you up at night wondering how badly they're going to rule on cases.
And the entire point of the strategy is what we are seeing right now: to negate the ability of Democratic party elected officials to actually pass and enforce laws or executive actions or anything else. You don't even need to win elections if the courts can just be an unelected supreme authority on everything.
And it works because too many people get the vapours if you try and talk about removing federal judges from the bench.
Hey so when are Dems going to start calling on Clarence Thomas to resign?
Welcome to the problems of institutionalism and judicial inviolability. We've created a culture around our legal system being "non-partisan" and "above the fray" (it's worth noting that law professor and former Scalia clerk (yes, really) Larry Lessig is on record as saying that he rejects the reality of the partisan Supreme Court because accepting it would shatter his faith in the law) and that has created societal barriers around going after judges for their conduct, because there is a sense that is Something That Would Signal The End Of Society. As a result, judges are pretty much allowed to operate as little tyrants, as the people tasked with their oversight are either their peers (other judges) or the very people who could wind up before them in court. Now, that is eroding (and pretty damn fast, actually!), but it's still there.
Hey so when are Dems going to start calling on Clarence Thomas to resign?
Welcome to the problems of institutionalism and judicial inviolability. We've created a culture around our legal system being "non-partisan" and "above the fray" (it's worth noting that law professor and former Scalia clerk (yes, really) Larry Lessig is on record as saying that he rejects the reality of the partisan Supreme Court because accepting it would shatter his faith in the law) and that has created societal barriers around going after judges for their conduct, because there is a sense that is Something That Would Signal The End Of Society. As a result, judges are pretty much allowed to operate as little tyrants, as the people tasked with their oversight are either their peers (other judges) or the very people who could wind up before them in court. Now, that is eroding (and pretty damn fast, actually!), but it's still there.
Agreed 100%. I co-founded a nonprofit focusing on this and related issues. Some weird stuff is true about judges, like how federal judges are exempt from Title VII discrimination and harassment rules. But state and local judges have their own issues that get overlooked by the public.
Not sure if I can directly log-roll here, but anyone interested in this kind of stuff can DM me. We're working on projects to address these issues and will be going coast to coast this fall, doing events at law schools everywhere.
Hey so when are Dems going to start calling on Clarence Thomas to resign?
Welcome to the problems of institutionalism and judicial inviolability. We've created a culture around our legal system being "non-partisan" and "above the fray" (it's worth noting that law professor and former Scalia clerk (yes, really) Larry Lessig is on record as saying that he rejects the reality of the partisan Supreme Court because accepting it would shatter his faith in the law) and that has created societal barriers around going after judges for their conduct, because there is a sense that is Something That Would Signal The End Of Society. As a result, judges are pretty much allowed to operate as little tyrants, as the people tasked with their oversight are either their peers (other judges) or the very people who could wind up before them in court. Now, that is eroding (and pretty damn fast, actually!), but it's still there.
The judiciary suffers the same problems as a lot of institutions: once they become the focus of partisan political action, they begin to fall apart and can't self-correct. It's not even clear if we know how to correct them at all imo. Because political actors generally won't agree to just ... stop.
Hey so when are Dems going to start calling on Clarence Thomas to resign?
Welcome to the problems of institutionalism and judicial inviolability. We've created a culture around our legal system being "non-partisan" and "above the fray" (it's worth noting that law professor and former Scalia clerk (yes, really) Larry Lessig is on record as saying that he rejects the reality of the partisan Supreme Court because accepting it would shatter his faith in the law) and that has created societal barriers around going after judges for their conduct, because there is a sense that is Something That Would Signal The End Of Society. As a result, judges are pretty much allowed to operate as little tyrants, as the people tasked with their oversight are either their peers (other judges) or the very people who could wind up before them in court. Now, that is eroding (and pretty damn fast, actually!), but it's still there.
If anyone wants to see a great example of these little tyrants at work, read up on Michael Gableman. This is an ex Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice hired by the Wisconsin republicans to investigate election fraud (the big lie). He's released two terrible interim reports so far, and this week managed to get himself a referral for sanctions due to atrocious behavior in court on a case where a third party, American Oversight, is suing for his records. He not only refused, on the stand, to provide testimony over a refusal to produce records as ordered by the judge, but he then was caught on a hot mic making sexist comments about the opposing attorney. The judge presiding was livid.
This dipshit sat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court for 10 years.
“Gableman’s conduct was an affront to the judicial process and an insult to Atty. Westerberg, by their very suggestion that she is not capable of litigating without the help of the judge,” Remington wrote. “The sophomoric innuendo about Atty. Westerberg coming back to chambers is a sad reminder that in 2022, woman lawyers still have to do more than be excellent at their job.”
The Federal Circuit threw out a $1.9 billion patent infringement verdict against Cisco Systems Inc., finding the judge who levied the penalty should’ve recused himself after learning that his wife had stock in the company.
The Federal Circuit threw out a $1.9 billion patent infringement verdict against Cisco Systems Inc., finding the judge who levied the penalty should’ve recused himself after learning that his wife had stock in the company.
Hey look! Ethics! Eventually!
Unlike the rest of the judiciary, the Supreme Court is unbound by anything so petty as a code of ethics.
Matthew Leveridge, commonwealth’s attorney of Russell and Wayne counties, was never disciplined for having sex with with Latisha Sartain in 2014. After Sartain told Leveridge’s wife about the affair, Leveridge moved to rescind Sartain’s pretrial diversion agreement.
Eight years on, he wants to be elected to higher office.
Ken Upchurch, a Republican for the 52nd District in Kentucky’s House of Representatives, told the Louisville Courier Journal he was shocked to hear Leveridge was running to be a judge. “It’s like the church head deacon having an affair with the choir director, then wanting to be the preacher,” Upchurch said.
Although concerns were raised that Leveridge’s actions may have constituted a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, he has never been sanctioned by the Kentucky Supreme Court or charged with a criminal offense. Leveridge was the subject of a criminal investigation for allegedly having sex with jurors, however, court documents show.
“A few years ago I made a mistake in my life,” Leveridge told the Courier Journal. “I acknowledged the mistake, sought forgiveness, took responsibility and accepted the consequences. I learned from the mistake and have since moved on to a better life, both personally and professionally.”
Matthew Leveridge, commonwealth’s attorney of Russell and Wayne counties, was never disciplined for having sex with with Latisha Sartain in 2014. After Sartain told Leveridge’s wife about the affair, Leveridge moved to rescind Sartain’s pretrial diversion agreement.
Eight years on, he wants to be elected to higher office.
Ken Upchurch, a Republican for the 52nd District in Kentucky’s House of Representatives, told the Louisville Courier Journal he was shocked to hear Leveridge was running to be a judge. “It’s like the church head deacon having an affair with the choir director, then wanting to be the preacher,” Upchurch said.
Although concerns were raised that Leveridge’s actions may have constituted a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, he has never been sanctioned by the Kentucky Supreme Court or charged with a criminal offense. Leveridge was the subject of a criminal investigation for allegedly having sex with jurors, however, court documents show.
“A few years ago I made a mistake in my life,” Leveridge told the Courier Journal. “I acknowledged the mistake, sought forgiveness, took responsibility and accepted the consequences. I learned from the mistake and have since moved on to a better life, both personally and professionally.”
...what the everloving fuck?
Is anything in that quote in the last paragraph true? In theory I'm big on forgiveness when people have actively made amends and changed and whatnot. But you know, I'm kind of skeptical here...
You can't accept consequences when there weren't any.
Those are the magic "stop criticizing me" words this asshole picked up from a lifetime of watching similar assholes get away with unconscionable behavior due to their status and privilege.
Posts
Which is just... What the fuck.
These are the people McConnell and the Federalist Society got onto the bench.
In fact they've been so successful that they're running out of seasoned people on the list, hence unqualified hacks like Mizzelle and Rao getting called up.
Oftentimes with the help of the Democrats as part of some deal or another, like the time they wanted to get going on their vacation.
Yeah, I haven't forgotten any of it.
Sine when did McConnell need anyone's help to get these judges on the bench? Having a majority is all the votes you need.
I dunno when did he
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/11/senate-democrats-judges-895168
Oh that's when
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/mcconnell-democrats-judges-deal/index.html
And then here too
McConnell was Senate majority so, nope, he had the votes for it. Definitionally. I don't give Collins, Murkowsky or Romney any credit for voting for Jackson for the same reason. She was getting confirmed either way. The rest of the votes are a bunch of bullshit.
Now you're moving goalposts. It's pretty explicit that rather than fight the confirmations and force McConnell to waste time, the Democratic Party capitulated entirely on at least two occasions so they could go on recess.
They got the judges on the bench a few days (weeks?) earlier with the help of some Democrats. There's a difference, and it does matter, and it doesn't mean that you're wrong to criticize them here, just that the judges did not get on the bench because of Democrats.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I never said they got onto the bench because of the Democrats, that was shryke putting words in mouth as per usual. I said the Democrats helped McConnell by making deals, which they very clearly did twice.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Oh yeah, because that's really mattered with the Republicans recently.
The ABA literally rated her unqualified for the bench.
Again, very illustrative of how performative the GOP is wrt unwritten rules.
The ABA's rating and evaluation used to be touted by the GOP as the gold standard on if someone should be a judicial nominee or not. Made huge deals about it in committee meetings and during confirmation hearings.
Now that the ratings show just how poor their picks are?
GOP is all "Fuck them".
Yup. Totally normal behavior for a fascist party.
It's not the Republican base that needs to see their leaders willing to fight with everything they have because they are the only ones who are in a position to directly lead the charge, even if the battle cannot be won.
Every judge dragged out would be less time given for other legislation, every process invoked is another obstacle the Republicans would have had to deal with on a step by step basis, every instance of such could have been a rallying point to the base to say we are willing to fight for what is right and with your help we can win.
Instead they wanted to campaign and so two slates of Federalist Society toadies gained lifetime power unopposed. Which then leads to situations like the one unfolding now, where an unqualified judge spits in the face of the country daring anyone to do anything about it. And while the attempt will be appealed, possibly overturned, they themselves will be untouched and free to do it again elsewhere.
And this judge was not part of the deal mentioned so...
On the other hand, the Democrats had an incredibly tough job in managing outrage fatigue during the last administration, both in handling and managing their constituents' ire and keeping the broader caucus unified against the fascist tyranny being implemented in every single little policy and action by that administration. The left political base is so much more fractured than the right that it takes picking and choosing what to unify against.
Your post is a perfect example. You're very disappointed and angry that the entire Democratic senate didn't mobilize every effort to merely delay the appointments two of the lowest federal court judge appointees. Others on the left are disappointed that many other issues weren't fully mobilized against. It's just the unfortunate world that we political world that we live in right now that we have to pick and choose, and the other side marches in lockstep.
Hell, I do recall the democrats making some trades. I might not have agreed with all of them but to be fair when your choices are. Make a trade to speed up a nomination or if you refuse, we remove the trick for delay and thus the need for needing to offer a trade. You kind of don't have much choice because the trade is something and your still slowing the process down some. Where entrenching means they remove the ability to use the tactic and now not only do you no longer have a means to delay things, there also isn't a means to extract concessions with the threat of delaying.
I mean, don't get me wrong, our system is pretty shitty, but it's getting annoying how democrats are the only ones treated with having agency, on top of people forgetting that dynamic of democratic government at its core, whether it's done well or not, comes down to making compromises.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Good thing no one has actually said that. Imagine writing a whole big post based on a reading made up out of whole cloth to fit what you want to attack rather than what was actually said. Would sure look extremely silly.
same page even.
Saying some of them wouldn't have been confirmed and saying its not a foregone conclusion are different.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Not far enough apart to justify that amount of aggro.
We're now going to see just how teflon the robe is, because Mizzelle's batshit opinion in the mask mandate case is just the beginning. There's a bunch of articles out there about the X worst judges Trump put on the bench, and every one of those list a rogue's gallery of awful party faithful that will keep you up at night wondering how badly they're going to rule on cases.
And they aren't all the same names.
And the entire point of the strategy is what we are seeing right now: to negate the ability of Democratic party elected officials to actually pass and enforce laws or executive actions or anything else. You don't even need to win elections if the courts can just be an unelected supreme authority on everything.
And it works because too many people get the vapours if you try and talk about removing federal judges from the bench.
Welcome to the problems of institutionalism and judicial inviolability. We've created a culture around our legal system being "non-partisan" and "above the fray" (it's worth noting that law professor and former Scalia clerk (yes, really) Larry Lessig is on record as saying that he rejects the reality of the partisan Supreme Court because accepting it would shatter his faith in the law) and that has created societal barriers around going after judges for their conduct, because there is a sense that is Something That Would Signal The End Of Society. As a result, judges are pretty much allowed to operate as little tyrants, as the people tasked with their oversight are either their peers (other judges) or the very people who could wind up before them in court. Now, that is eroding (and pretty damn fast, actually!), but it's still there.
Agreed 100%. I co-founded a nonprofit focusing on this and related issues. Some weird stuff is true about judges, like how federal judges are exempt from Title VII discrimination and harassment rules. But state and local judges have their own issues that get overlooked by the public.
Not sure if I can directly log-roll here, but anyone interested in this kind of stuff can DM me. We're working on projects to address these issues and will be going coast to coast this fall, doing events at law schools everywhere.
The judiciary suffers the same problems as a lot of institutions: once they become the focus of partisan political action, they begin to fall apart and can't self-correct. It's not even clear if we know how to correct them at all imo. Because political actors generally won't agree to just ... stop.
If anyone wants to see a great example of these little tyrants at work, read up on Michael Gableman. This is an ex Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice hired by the Wisconsin republicans to investigate election fraud (the big lie). He's released two terrible interim reports so far, and this week managed to get himself a referral for sanctions due to atrocious behavior in court on a case where a third party, American Oversight, is suing for his records. He not only refused, on the stand, to provide testimony over a refusal to produce records as ordered by the judge, but he then was caught on a hot mic making sexist comments about the opposing attorney. The judge presiding was livid.
This dipshit sat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court for 10 years.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ciscos-2-billion-patent-trial-loss-vacated-by-federal-circuit?utm_source=twitter&campaign=3575F8F8-F327-11EC-89D1-A61050017A06&utm_medium=lawdesk
Hey look! Ethics! Eventually!
Unlike the rest of the judiciary, the Supreme Court is unbound by anything so petty as a code of ethics.
Yet more evidence against lifetime appointment.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any opposition from anyone here.
Though that group of dipshits is dwarfed by the larger group of congress people that will just ignore this
...what the everloving fuck?
Is anything in that quote in the last paragraph true? In theory I'm big on forgiveness when people have actively made amends and changed and whatnot. But you know, I'm kind of skeptical here...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Those are the magic "stop criticizing me" words this asshole picked up from a lifetime of watching similar assholes get away with unconscionable behavior due to their status and privilege.