3 ms·

It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics http

by 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
    You're doing the typical thing where you're attacking my specific example rather than the spirit of what I am saying - that I do not think it's a good thing that politically appointed judges can overrule federal agencies, particularly in a political environment where politicians are (legally) bought and sold to the highest bidder, typically large corporate interests. I can come up with plenty of other hypotheticals for you to nitpick, but I find this discussion pointless and you obnoxious and clearly arguing in bad faith, so I won't.

by abduhl 2y ago

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
  You're doing the typical thing where you're attacking my specific example rather than the spirit of what I am saying - that I do not think it's a good thing that politically appointed judges can overrule federal agencies, particularly in a political environment where politicians are (legally) bought and sold to the highest bidder, typically large corporate interests. I can come up with plenty of other hypotheticals for you to nitpick, but I find this discussion pointless and you obnoxious and clearly arguing in bad faith, so I won't.