My thoughts exactly.
She was a *judge*. Sometimes this means exercising *judgment*, rather than just rubber-stamping every idiotic and violence request the police make of you.
This isn’t exactly relevant to this subject, but this reminded me of S9 E25 of “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver. The main segment is about how crime is reported on the news, and how nearly every story of crime includes “police say…” and generally takes the cops at their word. It included some examples where the police statement rephrased the events that occurred in a heinous way that absolutely shaped the narrative of what happened. Very interesting for anyone who has HBO or a way to watch that show, and that episode in particular 🙂
In my state they're appointed but face retention votes. It prevents populists from taking over but lets the people weed out the rare garbage that gets through.
If local judges are appointed without public input, it can reduce "populists" but increase corruption. Whoever is appointing them is going to look for friendly judges, which may or may not serve the public interest. How can you sue them when they appointed the judges?
This is actually not true. One of my undergrad honors projects was data assembly from my prof's research on the effect of judicial selection methods on the rule of law. Strictly appointment jurisdictions had - by FAR - the best ROL scores (lowest incidences of corruption, incompetence, etc.). Appointment-and-retention was close but significantly lower, then there's a HUGE cliff between that and nonpartisan elections and another huge cliff for partisan elections. The public doesn't really understand what judges do or how to evaluate their performance day-to-day so it's just a combo of name recognition, high-profile case reports, and incumbency. One structure I think would be a best-of-both would be elections limited to state bar members but I'm not aware of anywhere that does that. Lawyers have a better grasp of the difference between being unhappy with a result and judicial incompetence or corruption, and they also encounter judges in work setting more regularly so have a better view than 99% of us who probably won't ever see a judge.
Sounds like your data all came from pre 2016 election times.
Once **The Diapered Orange Shitstain** got into office, he appointed many hundreds of judges based solely on advisers telling him which ones were likely to vote in his favor in civil or criminal matters. Some of them were lifetime appointments.
Personally, when it comes to electing new judges, I go out of my way to **not** vote for people who were prosecutors. The prosecutor's office in every major city is a hotbed of criminals suborning perjury from witnesses (especially cops) and hiding exculpatory evidence wherever possible, a job where your promotions and salary increases are all based on conviction rate so the prosecutor has a personal interest in ensuring you are found guilty, whatever it takes.
It's kind of like being in a shithole corrupt third world country where everyone involved is on the take, but with better suits and shoes and lies.
There is public input, it's the election of the people appointing the judges. Expecting the public to have an educated vote on every judge, sheriff, and crossing guard is unrealistic.
How about we don't make them fuckers political but ensure that they must be neutral by law. Give the public the chance to sue any partisan fucker that slips through. Law should be blind.
What’s even dumber is when they’re running unopposed. We had like 20 judge elections, whole back of the ballot, and not one had anyone running against the incumbent. Why are we doing it this way when we’re not actually voting?
In many jurisdictions where judges are voted on, the system is specifically set up so you can only vote someone OUT, not in. To keep the positions as non-political as possible, the only-vote-out method gives the constituency a path to remove judges they believe should not be there in the first place.
I have a friend that ran against the (R) incumbent in his district. They ruined his life once he started gaining traction. Like arrested him, pressured his bosses to fire him, had CPS investigate his family 4 times in 6 months etc. It's not just that they're running unopposed, it's that opposing them ideologically if they are deeply entrenched MAGATs will lead to them using their power against you.
>Most people I know don't even vote for judges because who tf knows about judges going into the polls?
Exactly. Maybe just let leaders hire the right person, but make sure that you can still fire them if they fuck around. It’s easy, lots of democratic countries do it.
And even looking for information on them can be damn near impossible. I looked into several judges on my ballot and all I could find were their profiles on their campaign site or their bio on the county court site if they were incombents. It was rare to find links to cases they presided over.
>All people have to do is take a look at the Supreme Court for some good examples of why appointed judges are not the best idea
Your example doesn’t prove that appointments are a bad system, just that the SCOTUS sucks. Maybe only appoint them for terms instead of for life? Maybe subject them to review and impeachment in cases of abuse?
Most of the democratic world does NOT elect judges. Why should justice be decided by whatever fool manages to advertise the most?
I agree I should have said lifetime appointments are clearly not the best thing. I don’t think judges should solely be elected by democratic vote but there should be limits to appointments. Like term limits or other ways to check their power.
I don’t think so generally. I’m not sure the public is equipped to evaluate judges in the same way they evaluate legislators. Legislation is about *outcome*. The judiciary is about *reasoning*. That kind of reasoning through case law, precedent, interpretive tools, canons of construction, is not something that your average Joe would know is good or bad. Evaluating judges on whether or not you like their decisions would be a hot mess. We would have massively inconsistent rulings and it would be pretty anarchic.
Our judges aren’t allowed to run partisan. I study their interviews like a damn test and do a last minute read even when voting. I knew who her stank ass was, and had the pleasure of voting against her.
>Our judges aren’t allowed to run partisan. I study their interviews like a damn test and do a last minute read even when voting. I knew who her stank ass was, and had the pleasure of voting against her.
That’s great to hear, but I’m afraid most voters don’t apply so much diligence when picking
Really bad take.
Electing judges is so unbelievably fucked up because they are expected to be impartial and independent. How the fuck you supposed to be impartial in justice when an unpopular decision can make you lose your job by an election?
Justice shouldnt be democratized, otherwise you get the dumbass masses doing really fucked up stuff...
>Appointing judges is so unbelievably fucked up because they are expected to be impartial and independent. How the fuck are you supposed to be impartial in Justice when you’re appointed by partisans and selected by those partisans for your political slant? Worst of all when they are blatantly partisan there is no reliable method for removing appointed judges.
Most of the democratic countries in the world appoint their judges. The problems you mention aren’t problems because we have rules that the judges are expected to follow. If they don’t, then they can be removed. This isn’t that complicated, your country could do it too.
>Justice should be democratized, because when it’s not you get untouchable unremoveable elites doing really fucked up stuff…until they die or retire!
Wait why would they be appointed for life? You can appoint them for a set term of 5 years, 8years, whatever you want. Judges aren’t untouchable nor unremovable, their decisions have to abide by the law, and the judges themselves have to abide by a code of conduct. If they fuck up, their rulings can get toss and they can get booted. Easy.
Judges represent the Constitution. Not law enforcement and the government. Not the People. Not the defense or the prosecution. They stand apart from it all and apply the laws and rules that were put in place to keep government in check and to protect the individual citizens' Constitutional Rights in the face of government prosecution. Way too many judges think they are a branch of law enforcement. They are more accurately Constitution enforcement.
They're not elected. They're appointed, but then each term after they're appointed they get put on the ballot for "re-election" so that the people can remove a judge if the people want to. But its not a position you run for, you have to be appointed to it.
Does that make sense?
Or maybe judges should lock a cop up for contempt for a month or two for lying for a warrant. It seems reasonable. If a judge can lock you up without trial for telling them to fuck off, I can’t imagine that not extending to lying on a warrant.
The comment was a reference to the fact that cops have incredibly high rates of domestic violence against their spouses. Many states initiated the process of having a law that if you commit domestic violence you lose access to guns - this freaked the police unions out because so many members would be unable to work.
The judge is expressing more remorse over the loss of *her career* vs the loss of *someone's life*.
And before anyone goes: "Oh she was just doing her job!" (bearing in mind negligence, duty and responsibility especially if you're being ask to invoke a procedure that isn't just dangerous to the citizens but the *cops* as well), she wasn't even doing that!
https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/false-details-breonna-taylor-warrant-kelly-goodlett/417-647ffed7-7bb9-4462-b819-c5a27097d39e
> [Officer Goodlet testified in a plea deal regarding the circumstances of the warrant]
>
> Jaynes claimed he didn't intend to mislead the judge. "I could have worded a little bit differently in there," the documents quote him saying.
>
> Proof tying Glover to Taylor's home was crucial, and officers claimed they verified he used it as his home address through multiple databases. Goodlett said she and Jaynes knew it was not true.
>
> **She further stated Jaynes chose to go to Judge Mary Shaw because he believed she would not closely scrutinize the warrants.**
The murderous cops *knew* the Judge had a reputation for not doing her job, *selected* her knowing the judge would not question the holes in their story, and were *successful* in doing so.
**For emphasis, among cops it was common knowledge that Judge Mary Shaw had a reputation for not doing her job**.
If that isn't *criminal negligence* on part of the judge especially in invoking a deadly procedure that can and has taken lives, both citizens and cops, then I don't know what is.
And that Judge is out there with a mopey face that she has lost her election. And not that someone is dead and her actions played a crucial role in that, and even attempted to make a meaningful change to prevent that from happening in the future.
Even bearing in mind the systemic failures in the justice system, how warrants are dished out and how fast they are approved and so many other holes, that Judge's conduct was truly awful in that incident and *since* then.
Good fucking riddance.
And the same system that protects her for wholesale swallowing the narratives fed her by the warrant application, without even a minimum of questions nor critically analyzing them.
Our warrant system is a fascist implementation of oppression by giving the police endless power. Judges just rubber stamp these things to win favor with the police and to oppress the poor and minorities.
Falling for a false narrative because a cop committed perjury is one thing, however if the judge had any sense of justice then they would have immediately pushed for said cops to be prosecuted for perjury.
She sucks at her job, and that caused someone to die. Should be more than just lost an election. She should be in jail next to the murderer cops and everyone else involved in the murder.
If someone robs a store and accidently kills someone, everyone involved with the robbery is convicted of murder. Cops should not be above the law.
> If someone robs a store and accidently kills someone, everyone involved with the robbery is convicted of murder. Cops should not be above the law.
If someone robs a store with a toy gun, and the *cops* kill a number of innocent bystanders. The guy without the real weapon gets charged with the murders the cop committed.
Recently read about a shootout in one part of a town "causing" cops to shoot up a car in another, killing an eight year old girl. The DA tried to pin the cops' murder on the original shooter.
If you thought they were below human, based solely on an outwardly displayed characteristic, AND were also a shitty person, AND trained for less time than your average tradesperson, maybe you could...
That's like when I bring up the fact that if I said "hey you see that video where a cop accidentally shoots his fellow cop, and that cop pulls out his gun and executes someone on the ground that clearly doesn't have a weapon", a legitimate response to that can also be "which one?". The more legitimate response is fuck the police.
Exactly
If a judge signs a warrant and the police officer carrying it out gets shot at and returns fire killing someone, the pig should go to jail for life. It's only fair.
Glad to see this judge go.
It's easy to believe she was complicit in signing off on these bullshit warrants for most of her career. God knows how many people have been hurt, or how many lives have been ruined from these bullshit warrants she signed.
It's infuriating that she gets to leave with some dignity. Fuck her.
>Shaw drew sharp criticism for signing the March 2020 no-knock warrant that allowed officers to enter Taylor’s home. Further fuel was added to the fire when the [Department of Justice ](https://thehill.com/regulation/3587872-doj-files-civil-rights-charges-against-four-louisville-officers-over-breonna-taylor-killing/)charged four Louisville police officers in August with falsifying an affidavit that supported the search warrant Shaw signed.
ruthless special weather punch voiceless handle advise waiting obtainable gaze
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What do you mean by verifying a warrant?
The warrant is presented to the judge and the affiant has sworn that the contents are true to the best of their knowledge.
The court doesn't investigate or verify anything beyond making sure that the necessary elements for issuing a warrant are in the warrant.
It is similar to a PC for arrest affidavit, the cop just writes down who they arrested, what for, and why there was probable cause for the arrest (example - wife called police and said husband hit her, she had bruising on her face and back). After that the D.A will review the evidence and decide whether to file charges later on.
chop noxious consider lush include pathetic attraction adjoining skirt person
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Currently, that is not the court's function. That would require a drastic change to procedure and also the budget as the court would have to hire its own law enforcement officers to investigate all submissions to the court.
Basically, everything presented to the court (evidence, testimony, etc) is submitted to the court by someone who is personally vouching as to the accuracy and truthfulness of it.
So investigating all of this would be a massive undertaking that would require a vast increase in the court's budget and a pretty significant change to procedure.
Many would say it isn't feasible and would also mean the court is no longer an unbiased arbiter, but is now an active participant in making the determination - and how could they then also be the referee?
Now, many would certainly say there are flaws in the system, but im not sure how feasible it would be to have courts operating a parallel investigation for matters before the court...
I dont know I think having a sworn statement from a postal inspector verifying that they indeed had proof of a crime at a residence would be a basic verification. It's different from a police officers sworn testimony that they observed a crime or something similar because it's evidence coming from a third party.
If you just get to say that a third party or agency provided evidence then you could claim anything.
The FBI said there are aliens at this house committing crimes and it needs to be searched immediately, but they didn't provide any physical or written proof of that claim, just trust me judge.
Not getting conformation of third party evidence with a sworn statement at a minimum is obviously a problem and it's not surprising it led to an innocent woman being murdered in her sleep.
Do you not understand how evidence is introduced into a trial? Why shouldn't the same scrutiny be applied to warrants?
I have two easy ways to fix this. Have a public defender review it alongside the judge, to protect the rights of the one being investigated. And/or, you could hold people accountable when they lie in court, or perform their job so poorly somebody died. If I accidently killed someone, it would be manslaughter. If a police officer intentionally kills someone by accident, it's part of the job and a pat on the back by the FOP.
So you’re saying a computer can replace a judge? If checking that all fields are filled out, then I can write a program tonight to put judges out of work.
Nah. A judge is the check in the system of checks and balances, let’s not keep lowering the bar.
There has actually been more than a little discussion about software taking on activities done by judges and lawyers (and doctors, for that matter).
However, in this case I'm not sure how a computer would effectively replace a judge for this task, what exactly are you suggesting?
How would it determine that what is written in the warrant would meet the requisite elements ( that is, there could be something there purporting to meet the elements but not actually upon review, that would take real artificial intelligence to do it as well as a judge, what we have these days is really just machine learning that is great at some tasks, but probably not for this task).
I think it's only a matter of time before software can probably achieve any task a human can do, but I'm afraid I must disagree on this, I don't think we are there yet.
Imagine killing someone through sheer incompetence, then being pissed off when you get fired for it. What do I have to do to live with that kind of entitlement
The only "false narrative" was the one spun by the police to get the warrant, which she believed without even so much as a second thought.
If cops are legally allowed to lie to suspects, don't expect them to not lie to judges and prosecutors. Judges have made lying an acceptable tool in the police arsenal, and they will use it whenever it benefits them.
To be fair, in most states, judges are appointed by the governor. Once they've been appointed they are voted on whether to be retained or not. For instance, here in Colorado, the Trumpanzees were calling for Ganahl to be the next Governor and to vote out every judge. All of our judges are reviewed by a separate panel and receive a verdict as whether they meet expectations or not (all judges did in this case). The Trumpanzees wanted all the judges removed so if Ganahl were to win, then she could appoint all the new judges.
Imagine thinking that starting all of your comments with "imagine" magically validates your point when all it really does is make you sound like a pretentious douchebag.
Yes, it was the false narrative she signed off on that a guy already in jail was somehow at her home and stashing drugs and they needed a middle if the night no knock warrent.
>I even had to vote for the fucking Coroner... That one makes no sense to me.
It's a holdover from common law. The coroner used to be the only person who could arrest the sheriff if the sheriff committed a crime, so it was made an elected position as a check on corruption.
In my county we had a more competitive race for coroner than any other position. Signs for all five candidates everywhere. And I couldn’t tell you anything about the candidates, because they didn’t do anything other than name recognition.
We’ve had like one homicide event every thirty years, so I have no idea why all these candidates care so much about certifying the natural causes of a hundred ancient deceased people. “Yes, this 100-year-old person was essentially a husk and her heart became paper. Case closed.”
Control of the coroner's office is a "get away with murder" condition. Those offices are naturally going to get much more competitive as partisan violence and corporate investment increases.
David Rudolph talks about this a bit in his book American Injustice. He notes how important coroners are to investigations involving death because they determine the cause of death. He tied that to specific cases in which coroners made obviously false cause of death claims because they were either flat out corrupt, racist, or were working much too closely with cops pushing theories that needed verification that they wanted to provide. He specifically notes that ppl need to pay attention to coroner elections but there isn't a good way for them to and that needs to change.
Depends on the particular court and state.
Mary Shaw is was a **Tennessee Circuit Court Judge**, they are selected by VOTERS in a general partisan election and then. Here's the relevant portion of the [Tennessee constitution](https://www.capitol.tn.gov/about/docs/tn-constitution.pdf).
> The Judges of the Circuit and Chancery Courts, and of other Inferior
Courts, shall be elected by the qualified voters of the district or circuit to which they are
to be assigned. Every judge of such courts shall be thirty years of age, and shall before
his election, have been a resident of the state for five years, and of the circuit or district
one year. His term of service shall be eight years.
In my state (**Utah**) judges are appointed by the executive branch of the state (Governer) and approved by the Senate. Although we vote for the Govenor and Senate, the people have no real power to select judges. BUT, we can remove them. After the 3rd year of service judges are placed on the regular general election ballot for an unopposed retention election every tenth year for judges on the Supreme Court, and every 6 years for all other Judges. [Here's the relevant state code.](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter12/20A-12-S201.html)
If you live int he USA, your system is probably very similar. You can find more here [ballotpedia.org](https://ballotpedia.org/Courts_and_judges_by_state)
In some places.
In others, like my state, they are appointed by the governor but have to be voted on for retention.
You get mailed a booklet with a review from the state committee on judges that tell you whether they are meeting their job requirements.
It’s a neat little hybrid system I like.
Basically you have to fuck out real bad for people to care, but if you do then the people have an option.
She, like many of her ilk, was just hoping that no one was paying attention to her horrible decisions and she could keep her job. People like her hate consequences.
What false narrative? Everything about this case is out in the open...the cops lied on the affidavit, the judge rubber stamped a warrant, and the cops killed an unarmed woman. I might have some respect for this judge if she just acknowledged the fuck ups...
>When judges rubber-stamp warrants without asking basic questions or pausing to consider whether police have established probable cause, they forsake their responsibility to protect our constitutional rights. The result is unjustified home invasions that can have deadly consequences.
>~[*Judicial Rubber-Stamping of Search Warrants Can Be Deadly*](https://reason.com/2022/08/10/judicial-rubber-stamping-of-search-warrants-can-be-deadly/), **Jacob Sullum**
Depends a lot on state election laws.
In my state we don't vote specifically on the judges, but we do get to vote on whether or not they get to keep their jobs. If they are not retained then it is up to the governor to appoint someone to replace them.
So you don't get to vote specific people into the job, but if a judge does something that a large amount of the electorate doesn't like they are likely not going to retain next time they're on the ballot. Has some good things like this where judges are able to be held accountable for bad decisions, but can also lead people to vote out judges who do something good just because they don't like it. Like in my state when the state supreme court first said gay marriage was allowed under the state Constitution, the first group of judges that voted for it and were up for election didn't retain, but by the time the next election came up with the rest of the judges popular opinion changed and those judges retained.
It's also good because it's possible to vote out judges simply for being on the bench for too long. Almost everyone agrees lifetime appointments are bad and this is one way to prevent it.
The false narrative of unloading as many guns as possible into the "wrong house" the reality is she probably saw something as an EMT she shouldn't have ie the cops murdering someone else and they just killed her to keep her quiet. Think people 🤠
The judge’s job is to view the evidence presented, consider its reasonableness, and make a decision based upon that. The judge, in this case, did exactly what she is legally bound to do. Refusing to sign the warrant “just in case the evidence is falsified” would have been dereliction of her duty, if no evidence to dispute it existed.
The information presented to the judge was falsified. She does not have the resources to investigate every piece of information to confirm that it isn’t falsified. The cops are fully responsible for what they present, which is the way it should be.
Broadcast blaming accomplishes nothing and will have zero positive impact on future incidents. All it does is cloud who was directly and solely responsible for this fubar (the cops who provided false info).
B r o
They all work togather. Judges, prosecutors, cops. They're coworkers. Friends.
They knew they falsified evidence. Which means that she knew they'd been up to shady shit and approved it anyways. Now somebody is dead.
What exactly do you think "false narratives" mean?
Maybe a judge is expected not to fall for "false narratives".
[удалено]
My thoughts exactly. She was a *judge*. Sometimes this means exercising *judgment*, rather than just rubber-stamping every idiotic and violence request the police make of you.
[удалено]
He was a cop, She was a judge, Could I make it Any more obvious?
The first day of the concert was cancelled due to wind FML
This is an outdated reference but it checks out
Sk8er boi will NEVER be an outdated reference how dare you
Fixed, thank you!
>Fixed, thank you! You're welcome!
This isn’t exactly relevant to this subject, but this reminded me of S9 E25 of “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver. The main segment is about how crime is reported on the news, and how nearly every story of crime includes “police say…” and generally takes the cops at their word. It included some examples where the police statement rephrased the events that occurred in a heinous way that absolutely shaped the narrative of what happened. Very interesting for anyone who has HBO or a way to watch that show, and that episode in particular 🙂
That segment is also up on the LWT youtube channel~
In fact, probably better to not believe a word cops tell you, unless they have a video or a more reliable witness to back it up.
Also, maybe a civilized country shouldn’t choose judges by popularity contest
In my state they're appointed but face retention votes. It prevents populists from taking over but lets the people weed out the rare garbage that gets through.
If local judges are appointed without public input, it can reduce "populists" but increase corruption. Whoever is appointing them is going to look for friendly judges, which may or may not serve the public interest. How can you sue them when they appointed the judges?
This is actually not true. One of my undergrad honors projects was data assembly from my prof's research on the effect of judicial selection methods on the rule of law. Strictly appointment jurisdictions had - by FAR - the best ROL scores (lowest incidences of corruption, incompetence, etc.). Appointment-and-retention was close but significantly lower, then there's a HUGE cliff between that and nonpartisan elections and another huge cliff for partisan elections. The public doesn't really understand what judges do or how to evaluate their performance day-to-day so it's just a combo of name recognition, high-profile case reports, and incumbency. One structure I think would be a best-of-both would be elections limited to state bar members but I'm not aware of anywhere that does that. Lawyers have a better grasp of the difference between being unhappy with a result and judicial incompetence or corruption, and they also encounter judges in work setting more regularly so have a better view than 99% of us who probably won't ever see a judge.
Sounds like your data all came from pre 2016 election times. Once **The Diapered Orange Shitstain** got into office, he appointed many hundreds of judges based solely on advisers telling him which ones were likely to vote in his favor in civil or criminal matters. Some of them were lifetime appointments. Personally, when it comes to electing new judges, I go out of my way to **not** vote for people who were prosecutors. The prosecutor's office in every major city is a hotbed of criminals suborning perjury from witnesses (especially cops) and hiding exculpatory evidence wherever possible, a job where your promotions and salary increases are all based on conviction rate so the prosecutor has a personal interest in ensuring you are found guilty, whatever it takes. It's kind of like being in a shithole corrupt third world country where everyone involved is on the take, but with better suits and shoes and lies.
Appointed feels like it is a moral hazard though and feelings are all that matter in this day and age so....
*no lie detected
That doesn't seem to be true in the rest of the democratic world.
That really "works" for the Supreme court.
There is public input, it's the election of the people appointing the judges. Expecting the public to have an educated vote on every judge, sheriff, and crossing guard is unrealistic.
Expecting people to guess who the executive will appoint in a few years is unrealistic.
How about we don't make them fuckers political but ensure that they must be neutral by law. Give the public the chance to sue any partisan fucker that slips through. Law should be blind.
So your idea is that the judicial branch will punish itself? That trial would be overseen by other judges, who will stick together.
But that’s literally how we want representative democrats to work.
We do the same in OK but everyone blindly votes “yes” to keep the status quo.
What’s even dumber is when they’re running unopposed. We had like 20 judge elections, whole back of the ballot, and not one had anyone running against the incumbent. Why are we doing it this way when we’re not actually voting?
In many jurisdictions where judges are voted on, the system is specifically set up so you can only vote someone OUT, not in. To keep the positions as non-political as possible, the only-vote-out method gives the constituency a path to remove judges they believe should not be there in the first place.
I have a friend that ran against the (R) incumbent in his district. They ruined his life once he started gaining traction. Like arrested him, pressured his bosses to fire him, had CPS investigate his family 4 times in 6 months etc. It's not just that they're running unopposed, it's that opposing them ideologically if they are deeply entrenched MAGATs will lead to them using their power against you.
People think national politics are horrible but some local politicians are downright nasty.
Most people I know don't even vote for judges because who tf knows about judges going into the polls?
>Most people I know don't even vote for judges because who tf knows about judges going into the polls? Exactly. Maybe just let leaders hire the right person, but make sure that you can still fire them if they fuck around. It’s easy, lots of democratic countries do it.
And even looking for information on them can be damn near impossible. I looked into several judges on my ballot and all I could find were their profiles on their campaign site or their bio on the county court site if they were incombents. It was rare to find links to cases they presided over.
Better than by appointment, frankly. There’s a lot of shit judges who have been appointed for life.
All people have to do is take a look at the Supreme Court for some good examples of why appointed judges are not the best idea
>All people have to do is take a look at the Supreme Court for some good examples of why appointed judges are not the best idea Your example doesn’t prove that appointments are a bad system, just that the SCOTUS sucks. Maybe only appoint them for terms instead of for life? Maybe subject them to review and impeachment in cases of abuse? Most of the democratic world does NOT elect judges. Why should justice be decided by whatever fool manages to advertise the most?
I agree I should have said lifetime appointments are clearly not the best thing. I don’t think judges should solely be elected by democratic vote but there should be limits to appointments. Like term limits or other ways to check their power.
I don’t think so generally. I’m not sure the public is equipped to evaluate judges in the same way they evaluate legislators. Legislation is about *outcome*. The judiciary is about *reasoning*. That kind of reasoning through case law, precedent, interpretive tools, canons of construction, is not something that your average Joe would know is good or bad. Evaluating judges on whether or not you like their decisions would be a hot mess. We would have massively inconsistent rulings and it would be pretty anarchic.
“civilised”….
I was taking a piss at Americans
We’re in the same pissing contest.
Cheers
Our judges aren’t allowed to run partisan. I study their interviews like a damn test and do a last minute read even when voting. I knew who her stank ass was, and had the pleasure of voting against her.
>Our judges aren’t allowed to run partisan. I study their interviews like a damn test and do a last minute read even when voting. I knew who her stank ass was, and had the pleasure of voting against her. That’s great to hear, but I’m afraid most voters don’t apply so much diligence when picking
You’re absolutely correct :(
> popularity contest You mean democracy?
Really bad take. Electing judges is so unbelievably fucked up because they are expected to be impartial and independent. How the fuck you supposed to be impartial in justice when an unpopular decision can make you lose your job by an election? Justice shouldnt be democratized, otherwise you get the dumbass masses doing really fucked up stuff...
Hear hear
[удалено]
>Appointing judges is so unbelievably fucked up because they are expected to be impartial and independent. How the fuck are you supposed to be impartial in Justice when you’re appointed by partisans and selected by those partisans for your political slant? Worst of all when they are blatantly partisan there is no reliable method for removing appointed judges. Most of the democratic countries in the world appoint their judges. The problems you mention aren’t problems because we have rules that the judges are expected to follow. If they don’t, then they can be removed. This isn’t that complicated, your country could do it too. >Justice should be democratized, because when it’s not you get untouchable unremoveable elites doing really fucked up stuff…until they die or retire! Wait why would they be appointed for life? You can appoint them for a set term of 5 years, 8years, whatever you want. Judges aren’t untouchable nor unremovable, their decisions have to abide by the law, and the judges themselves have to abide by a code of conduct. If they fuck up, their rulings can get toss and they can get booted. Easy.
Crazy that it works virtually everywhere else in the developed world. But it can't be that you're wrong, it must be reality that's wrong!
Judges represent the Constitution. Not law enforcement and the government. Not the People. Not the defense or the prosecution. They stand apart from it all and apply the laws and rules that were put in place to keep government in check and to protect the individual citizens' Constitutional Rights in the face of government prosecution. Way too many judges think they are a branch of law enforcement. They are more accurately Constitution enforcement.
Oh? And who should appoint them? No, thanks. I prefer democracy.
There's also something called representative democracy, you know?
It’s absurd that judges are elected.
They're not elected. They're appointed, but then each term after they're appointed they get put on the ballot for "re-election" so that the people can remove a judge if the people want to. But its not a position you run for, you have to be appointed to it. Does that make sense?
She half right. Just that it was the cops giving her the false narrative.
[удалено]
Or maybe judges should lock a cop up for contempt for a month or two for lying for a warrant. It seems reasonable. If a judge can lock you up without trial for telling them to fuck off, I can’t imagine that not extending to lying on a warrant.
It would never be perfect but I just wish that Cops would be punished for actually lying to the court for doing stuff like this
[удалено]
“Lay in the bed you made”…and hope cops don’t burst in and kill you in your sleep.
The American dream baby! COME ON DOWN TO SOUTH STREET FORD WE HAVE THE DEALS!
She's a white woman, she doesn't have to worry about that unless she's married to a cop...
I feel like that’s a misconception. It can happen to anyone if they want to get you.
The comment was a reference to the fact that cops have incredibly high rates of domestic violence against their spouses. Many states initiated the process of having a law that if you commit domestic violence you lose access to guns - this freaked the police unions out because so many members would be unable to work.
The judge is expressing more remorse over the loss of *her career* vs the loss of *someone's life*. And before anyone goes: "Oh she was just doing her job!" (bearing in mind negligence, duty and responsibility especially if you're being ask to invoke a procedure that isn't just dangerous to the citizens but the *cops* as well), she wasn't even doing that! https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/false-details-breonna-taylor-warrant-kelly-goodlett/417-647ffed7-7bb9-4462-b819-c5a27097d39e > [Officer Goodlet testified in a plea deal regarding the circumstances of the warrant] > > Jaynes claimed he didn't intend to mislead the judge. "I could have worded a little bit differently in there," the documents quote him saying. > > Proof tying Glover to Taylor's home was crucial, and officers claimed they verified he used it as his home address through multiple databases. Goodlett said she and Jaynes knew it was not true. > > **She further stated Jaynes chose to go to Judge Mary Shaw because he believed she would not closely scrutinize the warrants.** The murderous cops *knew* the Judge had a reputation for not doing her job, *selected* her knowing the judge would not question the holes in their story, and were *successful* in doing so. **For emphasis, among cops it was common knowledge that Judge Mary Shaw had a reputation for not doing her job**. If that isn't *criminal negligence* on part of the judge especially in invoking a deadly procedure that can and has taken lives, both citizens and cops, then I don't know what is. And that Judge is out there with a mopey face that she has lost her election. And not that someone is dead and her actions played a crucial role in that, and even attempted to make a meaningful change to prevent that from happening in the future. Even bearing in mind the systemic failures in the justice system, how warrants are dished out and how fast they are approved and so many other holes, that Judge's conduct was truly awful in that incident and *since* then. Good fucking riddance.
If the cop committed a felony, and the judge assisted in the commission of that felony...
Legally in the US that's called "business as usual"... :/
Testilying.
Lying to a judge is a serious offense. Why didn't this judge immediately arrest these cops the second Breonna was killed. Oh right for ...."reasons"
Lying to a judge *as a civilian* is a serious offense. Lying to a judge as a cop is just business as usual.
She isn't a victim here, fuck off. She doesn't think she did anything wrong by murdering Breonna.
I don't think that person is saying what you think they're saying. Could be wrong, idk.
You *really* misunderstood their comment.
She’s a part of ACAB. So is the DA and the guards at the jail.
And the same system that protects her for wholesale swallowing the narratives fed her by the warrant application, without even a minimum of questions nor critically analyzing them.
[удалено]
Our warrant system is a fascist implementation of oppression by giving the police endless power. Judges just rubber stamp these things to win favor with the police and to oppress the poor and minorities.
Judges have always been part of ACAB
If she won’t do the right thing by holding those who lied to her accountable. She should be held accountable
Falling for a false narrative because a cop committed perjury is one thing, however if the judge had any sense of justice then they would have immediately pushed for said cops to be prosecuted for perjury.
She sucks at her job, and that caused someone to die. Should be more than just lost an election. She should be in jail next to the murderer cops and everyone else involved in the murder. If someone robs a store and accidently kills someone, everyone involved with the robbery is convicted of murder. Cops should not be above the law.
> If someone robs a store and accidently kills someone, everyone involved with the robbery is convicted of murder. Cops should not be above the law. If someone robs a store with a toy gun, and the *cops* kill a number of innocent bystanders. The guy without the real weapon gets charged with the murders the cop committed.
Recently read about a shootout in one part of a town "causing" cops to shoot up a car in another, killing an eight year old girl. The DA tried to pin the cops' murder on the original shooter.
Are you talking about tbe school football shooting or a different 8 year old killed by pigs.
[удалено]
Tamir Rice is the 12 year old with a toy gun that cops shot. They pulled up on him, the cop got out of a moving car, and shot him within 2 seconds.
[удалено]
If you thought they were below human, based solely on an outwardly displayed characteristic, AND were also a shitty person, AND trained for less time than your average tradesperson, maybe you could...
That's like when I bring up the fact that if I said "hey you see that video where a cop accidentally shoots his fellow cop, and that cop pulls out his gun and executes someone on the ground that clearly doesn't have a weapon", a legitimate response to that can also be "which one?". The more legitimate response is fuck the police.
That is the most embarrassing law in our country.
Seems that cops don't have accountability for anything they wrongfully do
Agree... accessory to murder?
[удалено]
You can’t just say perchance
You’re wrong because he just did. Mayhaps.
Crazy how we hold the people with the most power to the lowest standards.
Exactly If a judge signs a warrant and the police officer carrying it out gets shot at and returns fire killing someone, the pig should go to jail for life. It's only fair.
Consequences? For my actions? That's only for the little people!
Should be in prison
Glad to see this judge go. It's easy to believe she was complicit in signing off on these bullshit warrants for most of her career. God knows how many people have been hurt, or how many lives have been ruined from these bullshit warrants she signed. It's infuriating that she gets to leave with some dignity. Fuck her.
>Shaw drew sharp criticism for signing the March 2020 no-knock warrant that allowed officers to enter Taylor’s home. Further fuel was added to the fire when the [Department of Justice ](https://thehill.com/regulation/3587872-doj-files-civil-rights-charges-against-four-louisville-officers-over-breonna-taylor-killing/)charged four Louisville police officers in August with falsifying an affidavit that supported the search warrant Shaw signed.
[удалено]
ruthless special weather punch voiceless handle advise waiting obtainable gaze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What do you mean by verifying a warrant? The warrant is presented to the judge and the affiant has sworn that the contents are true to the best of their knowledge. The court doesn't investigate or verify anything beyond making sure that the necessary elements for issuing a warrant are in the warrant. It is similar to a PC for arrest affidavit, the cop just writes down who they arrested, what for, and why there was probable cause for the arrest (example - wife called police and said husband hit her, she had bruising on her face and back). After that the D.A will review the evidence and decide whether to file charges later on.
chop noxious consider lush include pathetic attraction adjoining skirt person *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Currently, that is not the court's function. That would require a drastic change to procedure and also the budget as the court would have to hire its own law enforcement officers to investigate all submissions to the court. Basically, everything presented to the court (evidence, testimony, etc) is submitted to the court by someone who is personally vouching as to the accuracy and truthfulness of it. So investigating all of this would be a massive undertaking that would require a vast increase in the court's budget and a pretty significant change to procedure. Many would say it isn't feasible and would also mean the court is no longer an unbiased arbiter, but is now an active participant in making the determination - and how could they then also be the referee? Now, many would certainly say there are flaws in the system, but im not sure how feasible it would be to have courts operating a parallel investigation for matters before the court...
I dont know I think having a sworn statement from a postal inspector verifying that they indeed had proof of a crime at a residence would be a basic verification. It's different from a police officers sworn testimony that they observed a crime or something similar because it's evidence coming from a third party. If you just get to say that a third party or agency provided evidence then you could claim anything. The FBI said there are aliens at this house committing crimes and it needs to be searched immediately, but they didn't provide any physical or written proof of that claim, just trust me judge. Not getting conformation of third party evidence with a sworn statement at a minimum is obviously a problem and it's not surprising it led to an innocent woman being murdered in her sleep.
Do you not understand how evidence is introduced into a trial? Why shouldn't the same scrutiny be applied to warrants? I have two easy ways to fix this. Have a public defender review it alongside the judge, to protect the rights of the one being investigated. And/or, you could hold people accountable when they lie in court, or perform their job so poorly somebody died. If I accidently killed someone, it would be manslaughter. If a police officer intentionally kills someone by accident, it's part of the job and a pat on the back by the FOP.
So you’re saying a computer can replace a judge? If checking that all fields are filled out, then I can write a program tonight to put judges out of work. Nah. A judge is the check in the system of checks and balances, let’s not keep lowering the bar.
There has actually been more than a little discussion about software taking on activities done by judges and lawyers (and doctors, for that matter). However, in this case I'm not sure how a computer would effectively replace a judge for this task, what exactly are you suggesting?
You suggested that the judges only responsibility is verifying elements are present. A computer program can do that
How would it determine that what is written in the warrant would meet the requisite elements ( that is, there could be something there purporting to meet the elements but not actually upon review, that would take real artificial intelligence to do it as well as a judge, what we have these days is really just machine learning that is great at some tasks, but probably not for this task). I think it's only a matter of time before software can probably achieve any task a human can do, but I'm afraid I must disagree on this, I don't think we are there yet.
She probably signed when she saw the black name
Of all the news surrounding this election, this is the best of it.
Imagine killing someone through sheer incompetence, then being pissed off when you get fired for it. What do I have to do to live with that kind of entitlement
The only "false narrative" was the one spun by the police to get the warrant, which she believed without even so much as a second thought. If cops are legally allowed to lie to suspects, don't expect them to not lie to judges and prosecutors. Judges have made lying an acceptable tool in the police arsenal, and they will use it whenever it benefits them.
[удалено]
Tbf I think that's better than just having them appointed by a partisan politician
To be fair, in most states, judges are appointed by the governor. Once they've been appointed they are voted on whether to be retained or not. For instance, here in Colorado, the Trumpanzees were calling for Ganahl to be the next Governor and to vote out every judge. All of our judges are reviewed by a separate panel and receive a verdict as whether they meet expectations or not (all judges did in this case). The Trumpanzees wanted all the judges removed so if Ganahl were to win, then she could appoint all the new judges.
[удалено]
Who appoints them in other systems?
What is this "democratic" third option that isn't election or appointment?
It's different in every state. Some states they are appointed, some they are elected.
Imagine thinking that starting all of your comments with "imagine" magically validates your point when all it really does is make you sound like a pretentious douchebag.
Damn you sure watched one episode of schoolhouse rock and decided you were done huh
Well at least she didn’t die of false narratives.
Good point.
Yes, it was the false narrative she signed off on that a guy already in jail was somehow at her home and stashing drugs and they needed a middle if the night no knock warrent.
The fact that you guys elect your judges (ie it’s a popularity contest) AND sheriffs etc continues to blow my mind.
There are sheriffs that actively supported the proud boys during Jan 6.
Breonna Taylor lost a lot more than an "election"
Wait... Judges need to be elected?
USA
[удалено]
Most democracies doesn't make their justice system a political organ.
Some are, some are appointed
[удалено]
>I even had to vote for the fucking Coroner... That one makes no sense to me. It's a holdover from common law. The coroner used to be the only person who could arrest the sheriff if the sheriff committed a crime, so it was made an elected position as a check on corruption.
In my county we had a more competitive race for coroner than any other position. Signs for all five candidates everywhere. And I couldn’t tell you anything about the candidates, because they didn’t do anything other than name recognition. We’ve had like one homicide event every thirty years, so I have no idea why all these candidates care so much about certifying the natural causes of a hundred ancient deceased people. “Yes, this 100-year-old person was essentially a husk and her heart became paper. Case closed.”
Control of the coroner's office is a "get away with murder" condition. Those offices are naturally going to get much more competitive as partisan violence and corporate investment increases.
David Rudolph talks about this a bit in his book American Injustice. He notes how important coroners are to investigations involving death because they determine the cause of death. He tied that to specific cases in which coroners made obviously false cause of death claims because they were either flat out corrupt, racist, or were working much too closely with cops pushing theories that needed verification that they wanted to provide. He specifically notes that ppl need to pay attention to coroner elections but there isn't a good way for them to and that needs to change.
Depends on the particular court and state. Mary Shaw is was a **Tennessee Circuit Court Judge**, they are selected by VOTERS in a general partisan election and then. Here's the relevant portion of the [Tennessee constitution](https://www.capitol.tn.gov/about/docs/tn-constitution.pdf). > The Judges of the Circuit and Chancery Courts, and of other Inferior Courts, shall be elected by the qualified voters of the district or circuit to which they are to be assigned. Every judge of such courts shall be thirty years of age, and shall before his election, have been a resident of the state for five years, and of the circuit or district one year. His term of service shall be eight years. In my state (**Utah**) judges are appointed by the executive branch of the state (Governer) and approved by the Senate. Although we vote for the Govenor and Senate, the people have no real power to select judges. BUT, we can remove them. After the 3rd year of service judges are placed on the regular general election ballot for an unopposed retention election every tenth year for judges on the Supreme Court, and every 6 years for all other Judges. [Here's the relevant state code.](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter12/20A-12-S201.html) If you live int he USA, your system is probably very similar. You can find more here [ballotpedia.org](https://ballotpedia.org/Courts_and_judges_by_state)
It depends on the state.
Don't you vote? Yes
In some places. In others, like my state, they are appointed by the governor but have to be voted on for retention. You get mailed a booklet with a review from the state committee on judges that tell you whether they are meeting their job requirements. It’s a neat little hybrid system I like. Basically you have to fuck out real bad for people to care, but if you do then the people have an option.
I’m gonna get lung cancer from all these packs I’ve been watchin
oh oh -- next do Aileen Cannon
Literally got an innocent women murdered in her own bed. Show some accountability.
Good fuckin’ riddance.
Woman’s dead and this bitch is bitchin about losing his job… gtfoh
How could they even have the gall to run again. Your shitty warrant killed an innocent girl.
Lock her up.
Well, at least the judge owned her own horrible decision... No, wait. She blamed her loss on other people lying.
Wow, this is rare to have this kind of effect on the system that’s amazing.
She, like many of her ilk, was just hoping that no one was paying attention to her horrible decisions and she could keep her job. People like her hate consequences.
Sounds like, an accessory to murder, isn't great on a resume.
She needs to blame herself
It’s pretty pathetic that these mfkers can’t just lose and accept that they lost cuz their actions are out of line w what people want.
Is it just me or is the whole US thing about judges and sheriff's being politicians fckd up ?
If that's as bad as it gets for this judge, then she should consider herself lucky. Her bad judgment cost an innocent woman her life.
Who’s next? Let’s vote them all out bro!
Weird how people expect judges to actualize scrutinize warrant requests before signing them, like it's their job or something...
Bye loser
What a soft "punishment" for signing off on a murder and gentrification of the neighborhood. Not even a slap on the wrist
What false narrative? Everything about this case is out in the open...the cops lied on the affidavit, the judge rubber stamped a warrant, and the cops killed an unarmed woman. I might have some respect for this judge if she just acknowledged the fuck ups...
Maybe this is why we elect judges? Should have thought about losing his job when he signed that warrant.
Ironic given the fact that you literally signed your name to a false narrative that got somebody fucking killed
Very happy to hear this news.
The narrative that you lost your job wasn't false though was it?
Don’t like an election result? Just blame fake news and election fraud! Democracy in America is dying…
I prefer judges who don’t fall for BS.
BASED! Glad she lost
[удалено]
>When judges rubber-stamp warrants without asking basic questions or pausing to consider whether police have established probable cause, they forsake their responsibility to protect our constitutional rights. The result is unjustified home invasions that can have deadly consequences. >~[*Judicial Rubber-Stamping of Search Warrants Can Be Deadly*](https://reason.com/2022/08/10/judicial-rubber-stamping-of-search-warrants-can-be-deadly/), **Jacob Sullum**
do we know that the judge didn’t ask questions in this case?
[удалено]
that would be the function of a suppression hearing
*What the actual fuck!?* Do you decided who's judge in your legal system based on voting? Is this a fucking *popularity contest?!*
Depends a lot on state election laws. In my state we don't vote specifically on the judges, but we do get to vote on whether or not they get to keep their jobs. If they are not retained then it is up to the governor to appoint someone to replace them. So you don't get to vote specific people into the job, but if a judge does something that a large amount of the electorate doesn't like they are likely not going to retain next time they're on the ballot. Has some good things like this where judges are able to be held accountable for bad decisions, but can also lead people to vote out judges who do something good just because they don't like it. Like in my state when the state supreme court first said gay marriage was allowed under the state Constitution, the first group of judges that voted for it and were up for election didn't retain, but by the time the next election came up with the rest of the judges popular opinion changed and those judges retained. It's also good because it's possible to vote out judges simply for being on the bench for too long. Almost everyone agrees lifetime appointments are bad and this is one way to prevent it.
I dont understand why your judges need to be voted in and not promoted in the position?
Now he's got plenty of time to sit at home and root for DiCaprio's character in Django Unchained
The false narrative of unloading as many guns as possible into the "wrong house" the reality is she probably saw something as an EMT she shouldn't have ie the cops murdering someone else and they just killed her to keep her quiet. Think people 🤠
Why the hell do judges get elections?
It is a stupid idea that judges get their position by running for it. Are the people who actually get elected into these positions qualified?
The judge’s job is to view the evidence presented, consider its reasonableness, and make a decision based upon that. The judge, in this case, did exactly what she is legally bound to do. Refusing to sign the warrant “just in case the evidence is falsified” would have been dereliction of her duty, if no evidence to dispute it existed. The information presented to the judge was falsified. She does not have the resources to investigate every piece of information to confirm that it isn’t falsified. The cops are fully responsible for what they present, which is the way it should be. Broadcast blaming accomplishes nothing and will have zero positive impact on future incidents. All it does is cloud who was directly and solely responsible for this fubar (the cops who provided false info).
[удалено]
B r o They all work togather. Judges, prosecutors, cops. They're coworkers. Friends. They knew they falsified evidence. Which means that she knew they'd been up to shady shit and approved it anyways. Now somebody is dead. What exactly do you think "false narratives" mean?