World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
There seems to be something contradictory about the idea that letting people elect judges endangers democracy. If you don't trust the people to elect judges, how can you trust them to elect the people who appoint judges?
US Supreme Court Justices are not elected. They make a lot of political decisions beyond just upholding the status quo. There are a lot of US states that have judicial elections and they don’t have major crises because of it.
Don't kid yourself, the US Supreme Court is balls deep in politics. The situation where political parties can essentially buy a Supreme Court result for life is a disgraceful situation. That's why the US is in such a terrible mess. Justice is not served, politics is.
My point is precisely that the US Supreme Court is embroiled in politics. The notion that being appointed somehow insulates the justices from politics is absurd.
Elections at least create some semblance of accountability to the voters.
I've made this point elsewhere. In Australia the Chief justices are appointed by the government based on a shortlist presented by the legal establishment. They are preeminently qualified and are above politics. Both sides of the political spectrum are fine with this system and it is not gamed.
It is utterly non-controversial and the Australian people respect the institution. Tell me again how it is absurd to remove politics from a judicial system?
The same was said about the SCOTUS until recently, where it's become very obvious it is political and has a ton of power to enact their political goals.
I'm afraid that how the US chooses SCOTUS is vastly different from ike countries, and that's how you end up with the US having 'unique' judicial situations.
https://theconversation.com/unlike-us-europe-picks-top-judges-with-bipartisan-approval-to-create-ideologically-balanced-high-courts-146550
That's just because your conservatives haven't discovered not confirming justices. We used to have bipartisan consensus on judicial picks as well. Give it time as the other capitalist countries continue to decay and get more fascist. Relying on these moral codes and gentleman's agreements doesn't work once a party learns to disrupt the system.
Obama literally picked a judge the opposition said was the only one they would pick and then they still didn't. You can't remove politics from these systems.
Your reply assumes that the rest of the world must follow the US example. That's not necessarily true, although there is a bit of flirtation going on here and there with fascist populism, Western countries with Western values have managed to put a choke hold on the worst.
Also, loading the SCOTUS benches with partisan picks is not exactly a new thing. FDR was doing it for the Dems in the 1930s.
If you believe anyone is above politics I have a bridge to sell you.
Well, there are degrees, aren't there? Some judicial systems ban individual reproductive rights, allow corporations to be people and give criminal immunity to presidents, and some don't.
Not doing that is also political
Sure, then breathing is political. So is farting.
However, certain things are actively political and dangerous to people.
If making a given ruling is political, it stands to reason that a contrary ruling would also be political. It's not like slavery is political and abolition is apolitical, it's just that one has a positive character and one has a negative character (in the mathematical sense).
Some things are dangerous to the people and political, some things are beneficial to the people and political. We should support a system that encourages judges to do promote the latter.
That's hard to argue against, and I'm not going to try. It is the nature of human discourse to navigate social constructs in order to do the least damage.
It is also self-evident that the US justice system is a burning dumpster fire. It is suffering from a set of horrific issues that it largely created by the simple fact that it allows political parties to select SCOTUS judges who then directly deliver political decisions.
The only other option that keeps regularly coming up is electing judges, which is equally problematic in that popular contests soon get co-opted by politicians and dark money. Once again, how does this serve justice?
A third option that actually and demonstratively works around the world is to have a bipartisan system where a professional judicial panel creates a short list of suitable and qualified candidates from which the government makes a selection. Dark money nor naked political favouritism gets a look in and no decisions can be bought.
Now, some Americans will come at me saying that such a selection will only work in theory. But that is wrong. It works in practise right around the world in democratic countries. It is utterly non-controversial. That it is very possible to pick judges in a bipartisan way for the benefit of justice and the people.
Or, just keep doing it your own way and everything is sweet and dandy. I'm a foreigner, so what do I know?
It seems to me like all it's accomplishing is another layer of abstraction rather than a real mechanistic distinction, but I've seen what "bipartisan" action looks like in the US, and the billions in arms given to Israel are a decent start. Republicans and Democrats absolutely have the capacity to collaborate and, when they do, it's monstrous.
Voting at least gives the people a chance to resist the machinations of the bipartisan consensus and get progressives installed.
Voting also brings people like Trump into play. How do you think that will play out with Palestine should he get in again?
Look, it does actually work in Western Europe, the UK, Australia and NZ. All this talk that it can't work is plainly wrong.
What is impossible to get around is American exceptionalism. People just can't conceive that other systems might be better. Fine. I apologise for suggesting otherwise. Enjoy.
Liberals keeps saying that Trump will do genocide x 2, but they have no evidence, nor any indication of how.
Your courts are mostly more professional than America's but I don't find that to be a compelling argument when every country you listed is a reactionary shithole, Australia especially. NZ is the only one that I'd give kind of a pass to there.
You must have missed the bit where Trump constantly says that he's the best friend Israel ever had. I mean constantly.
I'm sure that won't translate to arms supply. Possibly fruit baskets?
Biden is already supplying arms and Harris has vowed to do the same and gone on endlessly about Israel's "right to defend itself" and how anti-genocide protesters are pro terrorism and so on. I'm not saying Trump won't fully support Israel, I'm saying there is no light between that and the Biden-Harris position.
You are free to vote for Trump then. I'm told many are.
When did I ever say I would do that? I am plainly not advocating for such a thing.
Well, I think those is your options? Or not vote at all.
Vote third party, put actual pressure on the Dems to make concessions. If they have your vote no matter what, they have no reason to listen to you.
You might as well vote for Trump and do it clean, because that's all you are helping.
Look, I'm on your side. I've been against US shitty dealings forever. Iraq, Palestine, favoured treatment towards Israel, meddling in elections, overturned democratic governments, proxy wars... All of it. But Trump is an existential threat. If the house is burning down you don't worry about weeds in the fricken garden. If Trump gets in again Palestine is going to turn into a Walmart carpark. It will probably become Israeli territory, officially, and Arab blood will flow accordingly.
It's a shitty choice, but the real world is not like the movies. Voting for a third candidate and making Trump president won't help anyone.
There's no evidence Trump will be worse on Palestine than the Dems. The idea that Trump is worse than any future frontrunner is myopic alarmism, you'll be whipped into a new frenzy just the same with most or perhaps all future candidates (some of whom will be substantially worse). Furthermore, most people live in states where their vote doesn't have any impact on the winner of the election, sothem voting blue only serves to legitimate the popular mandate of the genocidal dems. I don't know, this is all very obvious but it's like my 50th time saying it in this stupid thread.
You say we're on the same side, but your ideology is one of supporting perpetrators into perpetuity because the tautology you've been talked into has no off-ramp, no point in the future where you stop taking "emergency" "temporary" "provisional" "compromises" to "reduce harm" and instead make actual positive progress. There will always be a new election, there will always be a new Republican platform that declares an interest in doing heinous shit, and very frequently there will be more sincere fascists than Trump, like if Tom Cotton ever runs, and there will never be some demon democrat you won't vote for because they are running against someone who is 1% more reactionary, and that thereby necessitates everyone giving them unconditional support.
It's an unserious strategy based on the panicked mindset of people who are stuck in an abusive relationship with liberal media.
Jesus, man, where have you been hiding the last nine years?
This does not read to me as a response
Sorry Feller, you lost me. Enjoy your vote.
Almost a lot? So a big few?
Typo fixed. Pedantry is fun isn’t it.?
It's my favorite.
Just look at the US Supreme Court's recent rulings and tell me that's a healthy judicial system. I'd rather have the ability to vote for a judge, but more importantly, we need to have a system in place that can more easily impeach them should their actions not reflect the will of the people.
No matter what your system is it all comes down to the real key of democracy. That is society having a respect for democracy and the rule of law. If your Society doesn't have an innate desire for a just system you're not going to have a justice system no matter what system you use. It's not a tangible thing it's something that has to be created over time. Elected judges or appointed judges, there's deep flaws to both concepts.
What many democracies around the world are missing is greater recallability in offices. Citizens need to be able to easily oust people nonviolently.
Short terms of office should have the same effect. If you want to stay in power you should have fight for it.
Elected Judges still get their jobs done. They have clerks who do a lot of their drafting and grunt work in the office.
For large elections, there are staffers and volunteers who do a lot of the electioneering. For small elections, campaign events only occur on weekends and at other times when court is not in session.
Terrible idea
Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.
Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).
Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.
Sortition is one way, if you don't want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.
When has the court ever ruled in opposition to political power?
It isn't as though you can't corrupt a candidate after they take office. Look at Clarence Thomas.
Russian Supreme Court in 1993 when ruling that Yeltsin and the parliament should both resign and have new presidential and parliament elections. Yeltsin's opposition agreed, Yeltsin said he's the president and it's democratic and legal that he decides everything and sent tanks.
Since the US was friendly with Yeltsin, this was considered business as usual.
In fairness, that was just a coup and regime change effectively at gunpoint.
Ye-es, but nobody in the West said so. Maybe if in that one moment things went differently, Russia would be at least a very flawed democracy today.
I disagree. All that does is turn judges into politicians. The US Supreme court isn't elected, but selected by politicians. Keep politics as far as you possibly can from people with an interest in gaming the system.
And look what has happened to the US supreme court in the last few years... That seems to completely disagree with your point. It has been stacked with very partisan judges by politicians looking to game the system
The key word is "stacked". Who stacked them? Political parties did.
My point is intact. Have professional judicial bodies create curated shortlist of suitability qualified candidates.
I think the difficulties that people have in appreciating this system is that they have been captured by the experience of their own failed system. To say that it wouldn't work means that you have to fundamentally ignore all the places where is is used successfully.
The thing is that the candidates for judges will be chosen by commitees from "the 3 powers" which are, basically, under controll of MORENA.
You could say the same of any public service role.
The voting public doesn't have the requisite experience and knowledge to make good decisions about candidates for executive or judicial roles.
Government is a different case. You're selecting a representative. Someone to represent you in parliament. The skills required to do so are in theory less significant. It's just a responsible person who will raise their hand at the right time.