President Trump promised to fill the appeals courts with “my judges.” They have formed a nearly united phalanx to defend his agenda from legal challenges.
When you see a breakdown like this it makes it clear that judges are just a different form of politician and the law is nearly entirely corrupted.
ehhh, some classic jokes:
what do you call an elephant crossed with a rhino?
elifino
what do you call a lawyer crossed with a politician?
Your honor.
I think by now we ran the test of people being impartial, and it didn’t fucking work. Time to make all judges elected only.
When the problem is that your jusges are too political, making it more political seems like the wrong move.
I mean it’s the same result, just more removed from accountability and decision making directly. Same amount of political, more direct decision making. And we’ve got to get rid of the whole lifetime appointments bullshit. How that ever seemed like a good idea is beyond me
yeah elections have been proven to be tremendously successful in getting great politicians into office! /s
Just skip the repeated failures to reform these doomed institutions and abolish all of this shit
Lol I wish we could have one centralized authority that would unilaterally make all of the decisions for us. I think the executive branch would be the best place to start, and instead of voting, we can just let the current guy decide what he feels best.
here’s a crazy idea but what if nobody is in charge and we all just collectively decide what we want through a system of consensus?
That’s what voting is.
It’s the closest we can have to a fair shot at it.
nah it’s not, we can do better, don’t settle for abusive relationships!
I mean, there’s plenty I’d change with our voting system and even who we vote on and the power they can hold, but voting is non-negotiable. Are you saying there’s a different form of consensus than voting?
-
it’s “their agenda” not just trumps. This will outlast him.
-
this is also why martial law will have no troubles.
-
But you can’t expect me to vote for a Dem candidate if they aren’t perfect!
/s
Should just say “11 to 1”, or “over 11 to 1”. That mess of a ratio isn’t worth the fraction of accuracy it represents.
The president’s appointees voted to allow his policies to take effect 133 times and voted against them only 12 times.
They’re using the actual numbers, why would they reduce?
Ratios (eg ‘x to y’) are used to simplify data. If they’re just going to use the numbers as they are, then just say 133 out of 145. As is, it’s just a mess that most people won’t bother trying to figure out or internalize.
it’s not a ratio, though, it’s like when they say a supreme court decision passed “5 to 4”, it means five in favor, four against
