5 ms·

Is there any legal mechanism the public can use to try to kick pro-corporate judges out of power?

by cwkoss 5y ago

spaetzleesser 5y ago
It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In addition a lot of DOJ leaders don’t want to harm their chances at getting a cushy job at one of these corporations.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously. I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecutions/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-... I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
    - ambicapter 5y ago
      How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > How the hell do you outspend the federal government? Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
      - spaetzleesser 5y ago
        Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008 I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.
gruez 5y ago
Doesn't that run counter to the idea of an independent judiciary?
- philipov 5y ago
  Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election. The incentives associated with having your career tied to elections can end up being suboptimal, so we could debate what the most effective method would be, but it's an example of how a judge can be removed from power by the public.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. This seems to be confirmed by the first sentence of the wikipedia article on "Judicial independence", but the second sentence also mentions not being subject to influence from "private or partisan interests". >Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election. this is mostly a US thing, and only in certain states. Federal judges are appointed AFAIK.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Private means only for one person or group. It doesn't apply. And public rebuke doesn't imply partisanship.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Is the idea of an independent judiciary just a myth to manufacture consent? It seems obvious to me that judges apply their own ideologies in their rulings. But IANAL, maybe I'm just too cynical.
WealthVsSurvive 5y ago
Nullify the jury of the people with the pitchforks.
pesfandiar 5y ago
In modern democracies it should be via legislation, and enabled by elected officials. In practice, it should be difficult to elect parties that promote corporate-hostile policies.
bluejekyll 5y ago
Judges can be impeached by your elected officials, so you can demand that of your representatives.
- kuraudo 5y ago
  Demanding anything of a representative that goes contra to their donors, who grace both sides with their money, is a quick exercise in failure.
jstrH 5y ago
Very few of us are legally required to show up for or login into our work laptops. There’s a perfectly legal mechanism for exerting pressure. We’re too cowardly to do it, while we watch every other tribe cross all the uncrossable lines. The reason the rich win is because they stick together. The public is taught to be atomic agents. These people are gifted their wealth through public deference by preying on traditional fears. The reality is it’s a bunch of typical humans. We can just … not work for them.
kuraudo 5y ago
Even if it exists, it's not something the public has true access to. These laws are not made for the benefit of the masses.

Is there any legal mechanism the public can use to try to kick pro-corporate judges out of power?

by cwkoss 5y ago

Is there any legal mechanism the public can use to try to kick pro-corporate judges out of power?

It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In addition a lot of DOJ leaders don’t want to harm their chances at getting a cushy job at one of these corporations.

dillondoyle 5y ago
DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously. I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecutions/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-... I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
  - ambicapter 5y ago
    How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > How the hell do you outspend the federal government? Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008 I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.

gruez 5y ago

Doesn't that run counter to the idea of an independent judiciary?

philipov 5y ago
Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election. The incentives associated with having your career tied to elections can end up being suboptimal, so we could debate what the most effective method would be, but it's an example of how a judge can be removed from power by the public.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. This seems to be confirmed by the first sentence of the wikipedia article on "Judicial independence", but the second sentence also mentions not being subject to influence from "private or partisan interests". >Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election. this is mostly a US thing, and only in certain states. Federal judges are appointed AFAIK.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Private means only for one person or group. It doesn't apply. And public rebuke doesn't imply partisanship.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cwkoss 5y ago
Is the idea of an independent judiciary just a myth to manufacture consent? It seems obvious to me that judges apply their own ideologies in their rulings. But IANAL, maybe I'm just too cynical.

WealthVsSurvive 5y ago

Nullify the jury of the people with the pitchforks.

pesfandiar 5y ago

In modern democracies it should be via legislation, and enabled by elected officials. In practice, it should be difficult to elect parties that promote corporate-hostile policies.

bluejekyll 5y ago

Judges can be impeached by your elected officials, so you can demand that of your representatives.

kuraudo 5y ago
Demanding anything of a representative that goes contra to their donors, who grace both sides with their money, is a quick exercise in failure.

jstrH 5y ago

Very few of us are legally required to show up for or login into our work laptops. There’s a perfectly legal mechanism for exerting pressure. We’re too cowardly to do it, while we watch every other tribe cross all the uncrossable lines. The reason the rich win is because they stick together. The public is taught to be atomic agents. These people are gifted their wealth through public deference by preying on traditional fears. The reality is it’s a bunch of typical humans. We can just … not work for them.

kuraudo 5y ago

Even if it exists, it's not something the public has true access to. These laws are not made for the benefit of the masses.