Republicans: continued

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's considerably more complicated that just 'Democratic' or 'Republican' judges though.

It's true that in New York at the county level the judges gain office via a partisan election. Same for the justices on the New York Supreme Court (Engeron, who just presided over Trump's criminal trial for instance). However, there are a wide variety of routes to a judicial position in the US.

Federal judges in the US are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They may be called 'Democratic' or 'Republican' depending on the party of the president who nominated them. Similar to how federal judges in Australia get their office, unless I'm mistaken. That is, the governor-general nominates the judge, but in fact it is the prime minister/cabinet who are responsible for the choice. Am I to understand that Australian party politics don't enter into that?

On the other hand, US state and county level judges can get into office by varying means, depending on the jurisdiction. These means include straightforward partisan elections, non-partisan elections, legislative appointment, gubernatorial appointment, and more complicated systems that I wager nobody on this site is interested in (Missouri Plan, Michigan method).

I'd say that often the party of the judge in the US isn't particularly important except for cases with a clear political element or those involving 'culture war' issues.

[JimC]

It's considerably more complicated that just 'Democratic' or 'Republican' judges though.

It's true that in New York at the county level the judges gain office via a partisan election. Same for the justices on the New York Supreme Court (Engeron, who just presided over Trump's criminal trial for instance). However, there are a wide variety of routes to a judicial position in the US.

Federal judges in the US are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They may be called 'Democratic' or 'Republican' depending on the party of the president who nominated them. Similar to how federal judges in Australia get their office, unless I'm mistaken. That is, the governor-general nominates the judge, but in fact it is the prime minister/cabinet who are responsible for the choice. Am I to understand that Australian party politics don't enter into that?

On the other hand, US state and county level judges can get into office by varying means, depending on the jurisdiction. These means include straightforward partisan elections, non-partisan elections, legislative appointment, gubernatorial appointment, and more complicated systems that I wager nobody on this site is interested in (Missouri Plan, Michigan method).

I'd say that often the party of the judge in the US isn't particularly important except for cases with a clear political element or those involving 'culture war' issues.

I'm sure that's right in general, but in the case of the Trump trial, it certainly has a "clear political element", and so allows Trumpists an easier way to allege a rigged trial than if the legal personal were not clearly elected Democrats. I'm not saying that legal appointments in other countries have zero political elements, but it remains true that the NY example gives the appearance (if not the reality) of party political bias that would not be the case in other jurisdictions.

[L'Emmerdeur]

In the current political climate of the US, any judge who presides over a Trump trial is going to be accused of political motives (even if impeccably impartial) regardless of how they got their office. As far as the Trumpists are concerned, Dear Leader is being falsely persecuted by the Democrats (specifically Biden) for trying to Make America Great Again. Therefore anybody involved in the trial who isn't defending Trump is by default a 'Democrat' stooge.

In at least one instance an accusation of political motivation is correct. Judge Cannon in the purloined documents case in Florida is blatantly putting her thumb on the scale to benefit Trump.

Mistake above-- Should be Merchan rather than Engeron (who presided over the recent Trump civil fraud case).

[L'Emmerdeur]

Every sperm is sacred ...

'Senate GOP blocks bill to protect birth control access'

Senate Republicans blocked a bill that protects access to contraception from moving forward on Wednesday afternoon.

The vote is part of a reproductive rights blitz planned by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Democrats around the 2-year anniversary of the end of Roe v. Wade — intended to put pressure on the GOP on one of their most vulnerable election issues.

• The vote failed 51 to 39, as senators headed out of town for the week — several to Normandy, France for the 80-year anniversary of D-Day.

• Just two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.) — voted with Democrats to move forward on the bill, but not enough to reach the 60-vote threshold to overcome the filibuster.

This isn't just a political stunt. Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court has written in a Supreme Court decision that the case in which a right to use contraceptives was upheld should be 'reconsidered.' If that right is not protected by statute it's more vulnerable to the court striking it down.

[Brian Peacock]

It's considerably more complicated that just 'Democratic' or 'Republican' judges though.

It's true that in New York at the county level the judges gain office via a partisan election. Same for the justices on the New York Supreme Court (Engeron, who just presided over Trump's criminal trial for instance). However, there are a wide variety of routes to a judicial position in the US.

Federal judges in the US are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They may be called 'Democratic' or 'Republican' depending on the party of the president who nominated them. Similar to how federal judges in Australia get their office, unless I'm mistaken. That is, the governor-general nominates the judge, but in fact it is the prime minister/cabinet who are responsible for the choice. Am I to understand that Australian party politics don't enter into that?

On the other hand, US state and county level judges can get into office by varying means, depending on the jurisdiction. These means include straightforward partisan elections, non-partisan elections, legislative appointment, gubernatorial appointment, and more complicated systems that I wager nobody on this site is interested in (Missouri Plan, Michigan method).

I'd say that often the party of the judge in the US isn't particularly important except for cases with a clear political element or those involving 'culture war' issues.

I'm sure that's right in general, but in the case of the Trump trial, it certainly has a "clear political element", and so allows Trumpists an easier way to allege a rigged trial than if the legal personal were not clearly elected Democrats. I'm not saying that legal appointments in other countries have zero political elements, but it remains true that the NY example gives the appearance (if not the reality) of party political bias that would not be the case in other jurisdictions.

The US media have a tradition of classing people by, erm, class, race, political alignment/association. It's a lot easier to say 'Republican Judge X' than say, 'Judge X, who was appointed under a Republican administration, but is not and never has been a member of the party.' But when even Supreme Court Justices fly the national flag upside-down in support of an attempted insurrection which family members had a part in organising and promoting, then "partisan" doesn't quite seem strong enough does it(?) - and it brings disrepute upon the judicial system and the judiciary as a whole imo.

The judiciary are supposed to operate the judicial system impartially within The Law, but laws are not enacted purely on the grounds of utility, reducing risk/harm, public protection and security, or administered even-handedly when they might be. They're also enacted for political reasons, or for no other reason than the polity has the constitutional and/or economic and/or military or paramilitary power to see their will be done. This renders the judicial system and the judiciary political actors whether they, or we, like it or not - and the closer the judiciary come to addressing the power and will of the state the more political they become.

In a way it's quite open and honest of the US to note the political alignment, affiliation, or patronage of members of the judiciary.

[JimC]

In a way it's quite open and honest of the US to note the political alignment, affiliation, or patronage of members of the judiciary.

I suppose it is in a way, but that still misses my very simple point, that, in the instance of the Trump trial, the clearly partisan position of the prosecutor and judge makes it so much easier for allegations of political rigging of the trial (though I emphasise that, looked at cooly, the facts support the jury decision). L'emmy has suggested that Trump supporters would cry foul in any case, but this particular trial with its Democrat legal figures gives them a head start...

[rasetsu]

I think the meaning of political may be getting confused here. Judges may indeed be political in that they have a general philosophy about how society and government should operate and what the goals should be. That's different from being politically partisan in that one rules according to the political identity of the parties involved. Many U.S. judges are political in the first sense. That doesn't mean that they are political in the second sense.

[Tero]

In a way it's quite open and honest of the US to note the political alignment, affiliation, or patronage of members of the judiciary.

I suppose it is in a way, but that still misses my very simple point, that, in the instance of the Trump trial, the clearly partisan position of the prosecutor and judge makes it so much easier for allegations of political rigging of the trial (though I emphasise that, looked at cooly, the facts support the jury decision). L'emmy has suggested that Trump supporters would cry foul in any case, but this particular trial with its Democrat legal figures gives them a head start...

The laws exist in NY state to prevent the Trump category of business fraud. He would have got a fine if he were not involved with Stormy AND running for president. But reverse the sitation. Say they charge Biden for something. He is not wealthy enough to have dome much of anything. There is no Ukraine money. The cases would end up with a jury of one or two saying guilty and 10 saying "there is no proof." Even in a Trumpian state.

[rasetsu]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ump-crime/

[Brian Peacock]

In a way it's quite open and honest of the US to note the political alignment, affiliation, or patronage of members of the judiciary.

I suppose it is in a way, but that still misses my very simple point, that, in the instance of the Trump trial, the clearly partisan position of the prosecutor and judge makes it so much easier for allegations of political rigging of the trial (though I emphasise that, looked at cooly, the facts support the jury decision). L'emmy has suggested that Trump supporters would cry foul in any case, but this particular trial with its Democrat legal figures gives them a head start...

I think you're just buying into the Repugs framing of the case, and that's been the framing the media have mostly picked up on because repeating it creates drama, and clicks and views, and because saying the prosecution brought the case because there was evidence to suggest culpability in wrongdoing, and the judge was just rostered to sit the case and preside over it according to the established precepts and practises of the US judicial system, is a nothing-burger-non-story - it's just what prosecutors and judges are for. It plays to Trump's hand, and to his base, to politicise the proceedings, and they've done that by painting the judicial system as somehow politically toxic and fundamentally unfair in operation. The irony is that if elected Trump and the Republicans will no doubt try and use that same judicial system to seek political retribution and vengeance by legal or paralegal means - i.e. doing exactly what they've accused others of doing to Trump/them.

I mean, one of the oft-repeated politicisations is that if 'they' can do this to Trump 'they' can do it to little people like you - meaning, 'they' can prosecute you for wholly malign and malicious reasons; or just because 'they' don't like the cut of your jib. But I wonder how many of those little people will be falsifying and fabricating business paperwork to hide illicit hush-money payments to a porn actress they had sex with after their third wife had just given birth to their fifth child because they were running for public office? The case has been about a very specific set of circumstances and actions, yet Trump and his votaries have made it a story about corruption that deliberately undermines an institution that little people rely on to get a fair shake, seek redress, and protect themselves.

Sure, the system is rigged, but its rigged in favour of people like Trump, who have the money and the reach to abjectify and discredit a nation's entire judicial framework when they get caught out by a system they're deliberately trying to game.

[JimC]

I think the meaning of political may be getting confused here. Judges may indeed be political in that they have a general philosophy about how society and government should operate and what the goals should be. That's different from being politically partisan in that one rules according to the political identity of the parties involved. Many U.S. judges are political in the first sense. That doesn't mean that they are political in the second sense.

Wasn't the prosecutor (and the judge) elected as a Democrat? That is different to having some sort of background political position, which of course most (if not all) people have. Remember, I'm not saying that it did affect the verdict, simply that it gives a head-start to MAGA cries of trial rigging, which would be harder to assert if the judge and prosecutor had no party political connections.

[JimC]

I think you're just buying into the Repugs framing of the case...

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the party political connections of the judge and prosecutor make that framing easier - I'm certainly not saying that such framing is a correct narrative...

[Tero]

Trump's own problem. Why did he do his criming where the jury was going to be 12 rational people? Do your crime at least in New Jersey. Business fraud? Huh, that's jus standard casino business.

[Tero]

https://www.threads.net/@debpixcom/post/C77RIssp3c4
evangenitals

[pErvinalia]