Comment on [deleted]

6nk06@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.

  What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.

  source

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    SCOTUS being appointed isn’t exactly the issue. It’s the fact that only the senate can give input, and since the senate favors the right wing, its composition is biased. House has no say in this, and that’s not very balanced.

    source

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Technically, you can give your senator some input and tell them how to vote. They can also call in witnesses and get commentary.

      The point about scotus being appointed is that it’s still a political process, they’re still doing politics.

      source
• cabbage@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Of course, studying the performance of individual judges is criminalized in France, so we have very limited ability to know about their individual performance. :)

  It's a huge lie that judges are neutral, but some argue it's a necessary lie.

  source

  • torch_and_blanket@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What the hell? That is very strange legislation.

    source

    • cabbage@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      European legal systems are largely built around the idea that courts are apolitical, and that judges make their decisions neutrally based on the word of the law and the facts of the case.

      This is of course impossible, but some people—especially judges themselves—are afraid that the system would collapse if the public learned how political the work of courts really is. So when France started publishing all the judgments of their courts to the public, they also forbade the public from studying individual judges.

      It's pretty funky.

      source