Democratic-backed Susan Crawford wins Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, cementing liberal majority
Democratic-backed Susan Crawford wins Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, cementing liberal majority
The Democratic-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court has won, defeating President Donald Trump’s endorsed challenger.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm glad, but I'm still pretty damn irritated that we're all seemingly "ok" with the fact that we just have "liberal" and "conservative" judges.
They're supposed to be impartial. We shouldn't be able to tell how they're going to rule based on their political leaning, it should be purely about the law. :(
I’m glad, but I’m still pretty damn irritated that we’re all seemingly “ok” with the fact that we just have “liberal” and “conservative” judges.
The thing I've realized as I've gotten older is that the difference between liberal and conservative in the US is almost more a question of how we think rather than what we think. When I was younger I thought it was simply that conservative people had one set of values and liberals another, but that's flat out wrong.
The way information is presented to a conservative in their media is much different from how information is presented to a liberal is their media. This leads to a difference in how people think (or maybe the difference was there to begin with and they self selected their media of choice). Try having a conversation with a person of the opposite political persuasion, it's really hard because you both try to convert the argument to your own structure. Both people end up arguing over the structure more than the issue because once the structure has been agreed upon, the topic almost answers itself.
Once you realize that "liberal" and "conservative" is the way someone thinks and not just if they root for team R or team D, it's much easier to come to terms that judges are "liberal" or "conservative" at a more intrinsic level.
The fact that you even vote for them is super weird.
It's all fucked. We barely trust the people we vote for so letting them pick the judges also leaves a sour taste in our mouths. We end up with a supreme court stacked with judges chosen by a right wing organization like the heritage foundation or the federalist society which have been stacking the courts with their people for decades. :(
What would you like to call it if one stands for womens rights and the other wants to actively take them away?
If the judges have those personal beliefs and a case related to that comes before them I'd want them to consider the law not their personal beliefs, so we shouldn't have to be identifying them in this way.
We've come to identify them by their political leaning because it has come to the point that we get rulings based on their political leaning as opposed to what the law says. Hell it's why muskrat was pushing for "his" judge to win. He knew that the judge he backed would rule in his favor and we know he would have ruled in favor of Republicans plans for gerrymandering when that absofucukinglutly should not be the case. :(
They are referring to "liberal" being at the center, and that being the most "left" option.
Biden vs Bernie basically (and respectively to the above).
While that also sucks, it's not really what I meant. I just hate that it's come to the point that we need to identify the judges by their political leanings because that's how they rule on cases as opposed to a straight interpretation of what the law says which is what they're supposed to do.
The fact is that the brainrot that has driven the republiQans over the edge has been growing in jusrisprudence as well. Courts regularly override their own precedents when it no longer serves their immediate political purpose. Which is really, really not how that's supposed to work.
Observe how Alito refers to some ancient religious writing as precedent to deny women the right to their own bodies. That shit ain't canon.
They nuked glorious American law. I don’t even practice but I appreciate what it once was, especially in its aftermath.
Appreciate the clarification, and have to agree that noting their affiliation being necessary does suck. Its been necessary for a few decades now though, the extremes may be more extreme but the pattern itself I don't think has changed.
I would call them "unfit for their position" as a judge's personal beliefs have zero influence on the written law and a judge's job is to interpret the law as it is written. If you're bringing your personal politics into the courthouse as a judge you have failed your job requirements.
I am happy to see a liberal judge in our current situation, because conservative judges have been flagrantly abusing their positions for many years now, but the parent comment is correct. Having a liberal vs a conservative judge should be nonsensical. Unfortunately the nonsensical is commonplace in America now.
These tankie communist have their heads so far up their asses.
You're seriously misunderstanding my comment if you think I'm a tankie. Hell I even posted a comment in another thread mentioning my distaste for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept.
My comment was about the fact that we openly refer to a judges political beliefs to inform us of how we should feel about them because the judiciary has gotten so broken that we can essentially tell how a judge will rule based on their political leanings as opposed to simply following the law. I didn't mean to say "we only have liberal and conservative judges" as some lamentation of the lack of leftist judges.
The rights need to be defined by the legislature. And the court needs to impartially rule as per law. There is of course, always room for interpretation.
I agree with your idea, but I also appreciate that they've dropped the facade.
For the people - not for profit!
It’s a mask off session; hopefully we can remind people how the law is suppose to work and get unbiased professionals back in there.
Trump and Co. are trying to make it impossible, but it has to be our end goal. Restore the judiciary order.
Yea that always icked me, never made sense how people with power to rule the law on a case by case basis, have any right to use their political beliefs instead of what the laws and constitution says.
Lawful neutral should be how it works, yes.
Unfortunately if your constitutional interpretation is forged in the meetings of the heritage foundation, that is impossible. I’m not sure how we get back to unpolitical judges, there’s so much money and power floating around the seats.