politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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. :(
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.
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.