5 ms·

>> What's stopping a sitting president from directing his party's governors across the states to appoint judges favorable to their politics (already happening t

by abduhl 2y ago

>> What's stopping a sitting president from directing his party's governors across the states to appoint judges favorable to their politics (already happening the last 4-8 years). Nothing has ever stopped this except for the ability to vote these people out. In fact, voting for people that hold the same political values as you do and expecting them to advance those political values is literally the point of representative democracy. There is a lot of fearmongering related to the Supreme Court's decisions recently, but a lot of it seems to take an issue with our political system generally rather than the specifics of the decisions. (And the entire discussion is hampered by everyone's inability to actually read and understand what the Supreme Court decisions actually say, leading to people just repeating their favorite news agency's talking points like you have here with the "supreme court ruled this isnt a bribe" insert.)

JohnMakin 2y ago
This kind of hand waving is extraordinarily counter productive. Yes, corruption has always existed in our political system. Now it's a legitimate political strategy and has been accelerating in demonstrable ways in the last 10 years, and these decisions add fuel to that fire. Hard to really argue otherwise. With extensive rollbacks to the voting rights act, and the inherent power of money in political campaigns, it's very difficult to swallow the "just vote" argument as well. It clearly isn't working. Also, you cannot vote out appointed judges, including the ones sitting on the SC that are making decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people and sit for life.
- abduhl 2y ago
  It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#In_the_history_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#In_the_histo... I'd be interested in your basis for the statement that it's "accelerating." I'd go further and bet that your basis is more of a vibe rooted in recency bias. Edit: And to your point about voting out judges - well, some would say that's a good thing, but more importantly most judges at the state level are usually voted in or have term limits along with recall procedures (so it's not even clear how your original hypothetical of a governor appointing sympathetic judges would work in practice since governors don't appoint judges usually, but whatever). We are talking about state judges, right? I guess one of my points here is what I said before about fearmongering. You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.).
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics In Chicago. Now it's everywhere.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    > since governors don't appoint judges usually, https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_appointment_of_judges https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_appointment_of_judges Hope this is informative. > You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.). Besides the fact that this word salad makes zero sense, it seems you are not the one that understands how the judicial system works. There has been a party-wide effort of packing the courts for years now (aware this happens on both sides) - Bannon wrote and spoke extensively on this topic. Information is free!
    - abduhl 2y ago
      >> As of April 2024, five states—California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey—used this method at the state supreme court level and four states used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level. So we're only concerned about this for a few blue states' courts (and even in those cases there might be an electoral backstop permitting removal). Got it. I guess the correct answer here is for those states to change their laws to be more democratic by subjecting their judiciaries to elections and by passing state laws that criminalize bribery by state and local officials? I'm glad we both agree that the legitimate political strategy of corruption and sympathetic political appointments has been going on for years, and been used by both parties. But you still haven't shown that it's accelerated in the past decade. Next thing you're going to tell me is that gerrymandering has only been a problem since the Democratic-Republicans started doing it!
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
skhunted 2y ago
There were political norms that were followed. What stopped it from happening was an unwritten agreement to follow these rules. Those norms have been upended. New norms will form.

by abduhl 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

This kind of hand waving is extraordinarily counter productive. Yes, corruption has always existed in our political system. Now it's a legitimate political strategy and has been accelerating in demonstrable ways in the last 10 years, and these decisions add fuel to that fire. Hard to really argue otherwise. With extensive rollbacks to the voting rights act, and the inherent power of money in political campaigns, it's very difficult to swallow the "just vote" argument as well. It clearly isn't working. Also, you cannot vote out appointed judges, including the ones sitting on the SC that are making decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people and sit for life.

abduhl 2y ago
It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#In_the_history_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#In_the_histo... I'd be interested in your basis for the statement that it's "accelerating." I'd go further and bet that your basis is more of a vibe rooted in recency bias. Edit: And to your point about voting out judges - well, some would say that's a good thing, but more importantly most judges at the state level are usually voted in or have term limits along with recall procedures (so it's not even clear how your original hypothetical of a governor appointing sympathetic judges would work in practice since governors don't appoint judges usually, but whatever). We are talking about state judges, right? I guess one of my points here is what I said before about fearmongering. You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.).
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics In Chicago. Now it's everywhere.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > since governors don't appoint judges usually, https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_appointment_of_judges https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_appointment_of_judges Hope this is informative. > You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.). Besides the fact that this word salad makes zero sense, it seems you are not the one that understands how the judicial system works. There has been a party-wide effort of packing the courts for years now (aware this happens on both sides) - Bannon wrote and spoke extensively on this topic. Information is free!
  - abduhl 2y ago
    >> As of April 2024, five states—California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey—used this method at the state supreme court level and four states used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level. So we're only concerned about this for a few blue states' courts (and even in those cases there might be an electoral backstop permitting removal). Got it. I guess the correct answer here is for those states to change their laws to be more democratic by subjecting their judiciaries to elections and by passing state laws that criminalize bribery by state and local officials? I'm glad we both agree that the legitimate political strategy of corruption and sympathetic political appointments has been going on for years, and been used by both parties. But you still haven't shown that it's accelerated in the past decade. Next thing you're going to tell me is that gerrymandering has only been a problem since the Democratic-Republicans started doing it!
    - JohnMakin 2y ago

skhunted 2y ago

There were political norms that were followed. What stopped it from happening was an unwritten agreement to follow these rules. Those norms have been upended. New norms will form.