https://x.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1865227506858557688?t=cJX0Z7T2vU5nUGAkp7bWpg&s=19
Prison officials were quoted as saying, “LOL law” as they chucked the opinion in the garbage.
1 Like
Highest court in the land. Any consequences incoming after all the evidence…?
Noone’s above the law, right? …[insert Anakin/Padme gif]
Sidebar: still boggles my mind that judges and sherrifs are elected in the US!
I assume you know this, but Clarence wasn’t elected.
That’s why it’s a sidebar.
Edit: Maybe I should have used aside not sidebar.
It’s just kind of struck me as weird point to make in a post about Thomas, because I don’t think we would have have ended up with something worse than Thomas with elected SC justices.
I guess my base point is that judicial spots in the US are decided on political grounds, not on merit of the candidates ability to evenly apply the law.
Isn’t that kind of the case everywhere, tho?
If they’re elected, the political grounds involved are those of the voters.
If they’re appointed, the political grounds involved are those of the people doing the appointing (and, in the case of the US, the confirming).
They both suck.
Third way: Committees of other actual legal experts decide who might be good. Better than having all the congresscritters do it in a partisan way.
Bunch of legal experts choose who might be good at doing legal stuff, or partisan politicians or idiot voters choose?… 
To be clear, the answer to this is no.
And how do we decide which legal experts get to choose? Say what you will about Clarence, but he qualifies as legal expert by any reasonable definition. Who do we end up with if he is one of the choosers?
I am sure this is a goal, but I am doubtful whether it can actually be successfully achieved.
The very best way would be to have qualified people apply and select them via a lottery. Probably the best way to select our politicians too. We certainly couldn’t do worse
Ah hell, just randomly choose like jury duty. You get called and you’re on the bench for a year.
2 Likes
Long and I didn’t bother reding it all
Contains verning the UK:
“…the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 brought about a sea change. The Judicial Appointments Commission, an independent statutory body, was established. For the first time, judges were selected on the basis of open competition and had to apply for their jobs.
The principle that judges should be selected on merit was enshrined in statute. The commission consists of a mix of judicial members, lawyer members and lay members. So it is not completely controlled by the existing judiciary but they play a major role in it.“
Every time I read anything about lolUSALAW it appears more and more stupid.
The feds are charging Mangione under the “theory” it’s federal because he engaged in interstate commerce by taking a bus across a state border and using interstate infrastructure in his cell phone and internet. Just lol. How does this not make every crime federal! The US legal system is 100% political and devoid of the basic tenants of justice seen in other global systems.
The fact that millions of American lawyers can still convince themselves they are operating within a legit (and even honourable) system is a true testament to the power of self-delusion. It has to be odd to have been forced into this corrupt system from what was once a legitimate one.
As I said this does change things, but it has the effect of people like Clarence Thomas selecting Judges. And it’s not like the “lawyer members and lay members” are going to be apolitical. The notion that humans can completely set aside their political preferences when selecting judges is some real sweet summer child stuff.
I’m not saying this isn’t better. It is. However, I’m sure political grounds still come into consideration as there are people making decisions.
Clarence Thomas probably does not get into such a position under a more balanced legally meritorious system.
-
Why not? At the time of his appointment his legal credentials were more than adequate. There was the sexual harassment allegation, but you could have people like Scalia or Alito who have the same mindset without that baggage.
-
Unfortunately such a system would not spring up from the void. As the article you linked explains, prior to the changes, the judges that were already in place were appointed by means that were influenced by politics to various extents. They were already in place. Then the law changed and those people were the ones doing the choosing.
Even if you suggested some hopelessly unrealistic fix like “we fire all existing Judges and just start from scratch”, then whatever lawyers and lay people who are choosing the first batch are undoubtedly going to have politics in their minds to some extent. It’s something that is impossible to avoid as long as people are making choices. Is it better than what we have? Yes. Does it remove the politics from the process? Not really.
I don’t agree with this take, he’s an alleged murderer who still has his manufactured gun crossing state lines and more. Crossing state lines can put federal charges in play. That part isn’t new or unique to the case.
fwiw think the biggest reason is they don’t want him to get potentially easily pardoned later.
From what I read they don’t cite the gun. Just the bus and using his cell. A gun makes more sense if that part of it. The bus and cell is lol idiotic.
What justice service does making a crime federal because someone drove across the bridge from New Jersey to New York? I don’t believe any such concept exists in Canada.