With the exception of the US, all other developed countries rely exclusively on them, and, for the most part, have a better justice system.
Comparison between US data show that elected judges will decide cases differently based on distance to the elections (I.e. they will more heavy handed closer to elections). That’s not justice, it’s bringing mob mentality to the courts.
It also becomes a larger issue in the USA because 49 states have a common law system where previous rulings affect future rulings. Elected judges are more likely to go against previous rulings, affecting how the law is applied.
Allowing politicians to select judges leads us to ruin at this point in time. Maybe not in canada, yet, ya hoser, but in the US for sure. It is laughable to think that allowing the system to appoint judges would work better.
Look at the UK right now! Look at it! How is that working by the way? Or do you not even know they are cancelling the magna carta as we speak?
You guys just cancelled jury trials for up to three years for starters. Started a masterbaitorbase, for national security we have to know every webpage you considered whacking off to, you know, for the kids.
In the process Id’ing every user on every computer for palantir types to make secret social scrores to be used against you in ways you can’t challenge. And you are oblivious.
Your courts were integral, are integral in that, along with your fake politicians. England was the birthplace of modern liberty and you gave it away, apparently without knowing it in your case.
The pornid thing is stupid. VPN use us widespread now. Our gov often gets lobbied by US big tech companies working on behalf of US gov unfortunately.
IDing every user on every computer? What? Source?
Social scores? Source?
I’m oblivious as to what you watched on Telegram that twisted certain things into extremes.
The courts thing is idiocy from Lammy. Not guaranteed. Starmer is toast and doesn’t have widespread support in his own gov. House of Lords can block anything not in a manifesto. Some shit has gone sideways, accepted, but your outlook is a little extreme. These battles are happening all over the world. There is mass techbro fascism at war with every country right now. Singling out UK is missing the overall picture.
Plus our jury is quite separated from politicians. UK gov lost to Kneecap. UK gov having trouble with the Palestinian Action decision in courts. Rwanda deportation got blocked by courts also. Please do some research to understand how our courts actually function before you dismiss quite a reasonable system that does have independence from politicians.
We have problems, but rn our jury system isn’t one of them. It’s the fuckheads in Westminster.
The guy claimed the UK is “canceling the magna carta.” I asked if he really meant to claim they’re dissolving parliament, because that’s what “canceling the magna carta,” which established parliament, would mean.
Hm. A while back, I suggested that attorneys who represent in court switch roles after every case: Prosecution -> Defense - Prosecution, and so on. That would make attorneys more inclined to want a fair trial, because they know a court that purely favors prosecution will work against them when it is their turn.
In that vein, perhaps the attorneys can give a judge an upvote/downvote after a case is finished, alongside their reasoning for it. This is added to the judge’s dossier. When lawyers for the defense and prosecution are going to court, they could make one of two choices: mutually agreeing on a judge to oversee the case, or just one side preferring a randomly selected judge.
There would be issues with this, but I think it would also make it harder for bad justices to become a fixture. If lawyers consistently agree a justice is shit, that justice would eventually get fired for wasting time and money.
Levearging an onion article doesn’t make your argument here. I mean I could accuse the homosexual industrial complex that eisenhower warned us about, what with their pernicious influence, in referencing another onion article, but it doesn’t quite fit does it? That’s a satire article, a joke, so don’t pretend to get offended under false pretense.
Electing our judges and politicians gives us a chance to take them back, giving that power to politicians and their appointees is surrendering it. We are so far passed where we can trust the system. So far.
The fact it’s satire doesn’t make it untrue, and we have plenty of statistics to back it up, but it seems the only thing Americans like more than complaining about their broken system is insisting that any change at all would make it worse.
Are you arguing that surrendering the appointment of judges and prosecutors to politicians and their appointees would lead to better outcomes in the United States?
i can’t tell if you’re arguing against chevron or regulatory capture. regulatory capture = bad, right? chevron (short bad summary: appointed agencies have expert opinions because they’re staffed by experts, so treat them as expert) = good, if the agency isn’t captured by the industry it’s trying to regulate, right? are we at the same starting point and assumptions or are you coming from somewhere else?
I was under the impression we are arguing about the wisdom of changing the system in America where we elect judges and prosecutors, which was instituted in the mid 19th century, to one where politicians and their appointees simply appoint them as is done in most of the world. I am virulently arguing that allowing our politicians and establishment to appoint judges and prosecutors would lead vastly worse outcomes.
That the rot in our institutions has spread throughout, and even if you think it works in another country well, it won’t here.
Really it is laughable to think it would be better, despite your hundreds of supporters on here. Ha, hahaha. People are fucking stupid. No offense.
Electing judges is dumb as fuck.
What would you suggest instead?
Career judges with a strong oversight board.
With the exception of the US, all other developed countries rely exclusively on them, and, for the most part, have a better justice system.
Comparison between US data show that elected judges will decide cases differently based on distance to the elections (I.e. they will more heavy handed closer to elections). That’s not justice, it’s bringing mob mentality to the courts.
It also becomes a larger issue in the USA because 49 states have a common law system where previous rulings affect future rulings. Elected judges are more likely to go against previous rulings, affecting how the law is applied.
Removed by mod
Your argument boils down to: we can’t fix our broken system because our system is broken.
You’re either a right wing troll trying to convince people that nothing can be done, or you’ve internalized the nihilism they try to implant.
Allowing politicians to select judges leads us to ruin at this point in time. Maybe not in canada, yet, ya hoser, but in the US for sure. It is laughable to think that allowing the system to appoint judges would work better.
Look at the UK right now! Look at it! How is that working by the way? Or do you not even know they are cancelling the magna carta as we speak?
I’m in the UK. WTF are you on about?
You guys just cancelled jury trials for up to three years for starters. Started a masterbaitorbase, for national security we have to know every webpage you considered whacking off to, you know, for the kids.
In the process Id’ing every user on every computer for palantir types to make secret social scrores to be used against you in ways you can’t challenge. And you are oblivious.
Your courts were integral, are integral in that, along with your fake politicians. England was the birthplace of modern liberty and you gave it away, apparently without knowing it in your case.
The pornid thing is stupid. VPN use us widespread now. Our gov often gets lobbied by US big tech companies working on behalf of US gov unfortunately.
IDing every user on every computer? What? Source?
Social scores? Source?
I’m oblivious as to what you watched on Telegram that twisted certain things into extremes.
The courts thing is idiocy from Lammy. Not guaranteed. Starmer is toast and doesn’t have widespread support in his own gov. House of Lords can block anything not in a manifesto. Some shit has gone sideways, accepted, but your outlook is a little extreme. These battles are happening all over the world. There is mass techbro fascism at war with every country right now. Singling out UK is missing the overall picture.
Plus our jury is quite separated from politicians. UK gov lost to Kneecap. UK gov having trouble with the Palestinian Action decision in courts. Rwanda deportation got blocked by courts also. Please do some research to understand how our courts actually function before you dismiss quite a reasonable system that does have independence from politicians.
We have problems, but rn our jury system isn’t one of them. It’s the fuckheads in Westminster.
Removed by mod
Really, mods? You call this a “slap fight”?
The guy claimed the UK is “canceling the magna carta.” I asked if he really meant to claim they’re dissolving parliament, because that’s what “canceling the magna carta,” which established parliament, would mean.
How is that a slap fight?
Removed by mod
I suggest a judge lottery.
We/They, or at least somebody, elects the person(s) who hires/chooses/manage the judges. I’d settle for a “rate your judge” jury system, even.
Obligatory “End FPTP” when I mention voting, because it’s foundational to all voting issues.
Hm. A while back, I suggested that attorneys who represent in court switch roles after every case: Prosecution -> Defense - Prosecution, and so on. That would make attorneys more inclined to want a fair trial, because they know a court that purely favors prosecution will work against them when it is their turn.
In that vein, perhaps the attorneys can give a judge an upvote/downvote after a case is finished, alongside their reasoning for it. This is added to the judge’s dossier. When lawyers for the defense and prosecution are going to court, they could make one of two choices: mutually agreeing on a judge to oversee the case, or just one side preferring a randomly selected judge.
There would be issues with this, but I think it would also make it harder for bad justices to become a fixture. If lawyers consistently agree a justice is shit, that justice would eventually get fired for wasting time and money.
You would rather trust our politicians to appoint them? Ha ha ha.
“Nothing can be done to solve this, says only nation where this regularly happens”
Levearging an onion article doesn’t make your argument here. I mean I could accuse the homosexual industrial complex that eisenhower warned us about, what with their pernicious influence, in referencing another onion article, but it doesn’t quite fit does it? That’s a satire article, a joke, so don’t pretend to get offended under false pretense.
Electing our judges and politicians gives us a chance to take them back, giving that power to politicians and their appointees is surrendering it. We are so far passed where we can trust the system. So far.
please take me to the gay factory
The fact it’s satire doesn’t make it untrue, and we have plenty of statistics to back it up, but it seems the only thing Americans like more than complaining about their broken system is insisting that any change at all would make it worse.
Are you arguing that surrendering the appointment of judges and prosecutors to politicians and their appointees would lead to better outcomes in the United States?
i can’t tell if you’re arguing against chevron or regulatory capture. regulatory capture = bad, right? chevron (short bad summary: appointed agencies have expert opinions because they’re staffed by experts, so treat them as expert) = good, if the agency isn’t captured by the industry it’s trying to regulate, right? are we at the same starting point and assumptions or are you coming from somewhere else?
I was under the impression we are arguing about the wisdom of changing the system in America where we elect judges and prosecutors, which was instituted in the mid 19th century, to one where politicians and their appointees simply appoint them as is done in most of the world. I am virulently arguing that allowing our politicians and establishment to appoint judges and prosecutors would lead vastly worse outcomes.
That the rot in our institutions has spread throughout, and even if you think it works in another country well, it won’t here.
Really it is laughable to think it would be better, despite your hundreds of supporters on here. Ha, hahaha. People are fucking stupid. No offense.
my what
“Nothing can be done to change this, says only nation where this regularly happens”
This is “nottheonion,” dumbass. It means it’s not the onion.
This isn’t a satire comm. The articles shared here are true stories.