Democrats just pardoned a judge selling kids to jails for cash. I understand he was old, but he should have died in jail from covid, those kids had their lives sold like slaves, we fought a war over people owning slaves for just cash - prison is a form of slavery, but theoretically it should only be used as punishment for guilty, so innocents going to prison is literally an unregulated slave trade. This isn't a "Republican" issue. This is Democrats too. When was the last time you heard about a rich kid getting the same treatment as a poor kid? Or when was the last time you heard about any judge selling warrants to innocent peoples homes, lives, and existences, in order to have the police/feds go searching for illegal material they HOPE is maybe there. If you haven't yet, you will. Pay real close attention to the ethics of judges over the next 5yrs, they are poised to anchor themselves as an unelected ruling class, not just stuffy bastards that don't have touch with the real world, let alone can get their heads far enough out of their ass their nose might get cold. If AI is good for one thing, its replacing judges. End of story. Then, if AI is programmed with hundreds of years of precedent, and each law is coded in to be applied equally, then and only then can we hope the rich bastard drunk driving gets the same as Jo Bob. An that the courts aren't just a playground for the 1% to pay a fee for their crime, while we face cold hard reality. You want us in prison? You rich fucks will be standing right next to us, wearing the same pink jumper, and we hungry. If all the feds can do is investigate you hoping harrasment will get you to commit a crime, they already lost, they just haven't had their asses kicked on the side of the highway to prove it yet. Their 1% masters will be next.
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
That seems high
Listen, citizens united was really bad. And cops engage in highway robbery
Luigi Mangione has a higher favorability than the US justice system.
That's where we're fucking at.
Number of executives held accountable in 2024: 1
Do better in '25
Why would I trust a branch of government who, amoung other things, said; president's rule like kings; money is speech; rulings from the 1600s supercede any modern day interpretation of law.
I wouldn't invite a person like this into my house non the less let them rule a branch of government.
Blatant corruption, even in the highest court, will do that. Get Thomas out of there. Make Trump pay for his crimes. Otherwise, I guess it's plumbing time.
It’s not just Thomas, it’s Kavanaugh. Men who behave like rabid dogs around women are not emotionally, mentally, and societally stable enough to hold that position. Or shouldn’t be considered as such, but here we are.
Replace them with republicans if you must, either way, treating half the population as less should disqualify you. But it doesn’t, the fact that Trump ran and won on it proves as much.
It’s difficult to avoid states of learned helplessness, I think, when this is our system. I think that’s another piece of the Luigi effect. Breaking that mentality on a large scale. (That’s not an endorsement, it’s a recognition of the psychological impact of that day.)
There's at least 2 others worse than kavanaugh...
Dylan Roof kills 9 black people to start a race war. Luigi popped a CEO who was in charge or a system that killed thousands. Which one gets the terrorism charge and why? To send a message, so the serfs don't get uppity. Why would we trust the system? We all know the resources exist, but we still suffer and starve. Fuck the system and fuck the elites.
Dylan didn't have to be charged with terrorism to get the death penalty in SC. NY State law requires the terrorism charge to be able to sentence Luigi to the death penalty. It's precisely because Luigi didn't kill a bunch of people that they have to tack on the terrorism charge, but them being so bloodthirsty is very likely to backfire. They could have gotten the 2nd degree murder charge and life in prison, but it's gonna be damn near impossible to find 12 people that will convict beyond a reasonable doubt on terrorism.
Sure it highlights how bloodthirsty these ghouls at the top are, but it may not work for them the way they want it to.
Dylan is currently on death row. Waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. Life in prison with no chance of parole is cheaper by multiple factors.
The terrorism charge also brings his motivation front and center. If it was a 2nd degree murder only, they might have been able to suppress a lot of discussion about UnitedHealth for being irrelevant and prejudicial. But now they not only have to discuss it, but they have to allow the defense to respond to it. If they aren't careful, this could easily open the door to a jury nullification strategy.
Jury nullification isn't an official path to be taken. Many judges will slam on the brakes the moment anyone, anyone at all, even hints at it.
Officially, juries are finders of fact. Did he do the actions needed for each charge? If so, then the verdict must be guilty. They are not finders of law; that's for the judges or legislators.
That said, much like determining which degree of a murder charge, whether "he had it coming/he started it" could play a big part in evidence and testimony.
It's not an official strategy, and the defense can't do anything to overtly encourage it. But they are going to try to make the defendant sympathetic, and given the chance, they will try to get the jury thinking about just how unsympathetic the victim is.
Maybe catastrophic for democratic norms. But it's perrrrrrfect for fascists and their schemes.
That sounds bad indeed.
Comparison: over here in Estonia, out of the general population, 71% trust the courts (an increase from 55% as measured back in 2013). Out of lawyers, 88% trust the courts here. A bit north of here, in Finland, 83% of the population "think that the courts are independent or very independent" (I failed to find a direct question about trust).
I mean y'all also generally dont need to worry so much since if the courts do fuck up, you dont have to worry about being tortured, raped, and murdered in your prisons.
Thanks for the perspective!
The US justice system has gone out of its way to make itself not trustworthy. It's surprising it's that high.
Well 3 of 9 judges supported putting in codified ethics I believe. So that means I'd think 33% of them were trustworthy. Throw in 2% for the people who answered, yes I trust them.. because they trust them to act in their own best interests, and we got to 35% haha
This guy cried about liking beer and he's in charge of the law of the land.
Well, it’s kinda like they’ve given us every reason not to…
Trust in law enforcement has been plummeting for a long time too. Prosecutors are going to have a much harder time convincing a jury of much of anything.
Hence the popularity (on the corporate side, at least) of binding arbitration.
Won't trust it until Trump is in a cell.
There's two justice systems. There's two classes. Until this bullshit ends, it's the same as it ever was.
When you have judges accepting cash for kids 35% seems outrageously high.
And Biden pardoning said “kids for cash” folks when they are actually held to account.
Pardons this dude, but refuses to pardon people like Snowden who broke laws for the public good.
yo what the fuck, that is bullshit
From what I read Biden didn't seek that judge to pardon, he was just one person affected by some big mass pardons. In this case I think he was one of like 1500 people who were moved to house arrest for non-violent crimes during Covid, who Biden pardoned all at once.
Still not great, the administration should've reviewed the details of those cases first, but it's not like he deliberately sought the guy out.
I get that non-violent crime has a specific meaning in law, but calling the selling of children, causing massive psychological damage non-violent really rubs me the wrong way. Not a criticism of you but of the system that conciders it non-violent just because it was done with the stroke of a pen instead of the wave of a gun.
Catastrophic? I see nothing to indicate they care if they're trusted or that there are ramifications for not being so.
Well, the ramifications is more vigilantism. Trust in the justice system is a requirement for people to assume justice will be done through that system. When people no longer trust it then they seek alternative methods.
30% lost faith when we prosecuted Trump.
35% lost faith when Trump walked.
Seems to track to me!
The Supreme Court is corrupted, so every court in the country is corrupted
Supreme Court.
Trump.