346
Portland judge says she’s too busy running for reelection to oversee trials
(www.oregonlive.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
346 points (99.7% liked)
Not The Onion
21141 readers
1762 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Electing judges is dumb as fuck.
What would you suggest instead?
Career judges with a strong oversight board.
With the exception of the US, all other developed countries rely exclusively on them, and, for the most part, have a better justice system.
Comparison between US data show that elected judges will decide cases differently based on distance to the elections (I.e. they will more heavy handed closer to elections). That's not justice, it's bringing mob mentality to the courts.
It also becomes a larger issue in the USA because 49 states have a common law system where previous rulings affect future rulings. Elected judges are more likely to go against previous rulings, affecting how the law is applied.
Your argument boils down to: we can't fix our broken system because our system is broken.
You're either a right wing troll trying to convince people that nothing can be done, or you've internalized the nihilism they try to implant.
Allowing politicians to select judges leads us to ruin at this point in time. Maybe not in canada, yet, ya hoser, but in the US for sure. It is laughable to think that allowing the system to appoint judges would work better.
Look at the UK right now! Look at it! How is that working by the way? Or do you not even know they are cancelling the magna carta as we speak?
The magna carta which established parliament? Are they dissolving parliament and returning absolute power to the monarchy? Or are you as delusional as you sound?
Too dumb to reply to.
We/They, or at least somebody, elects the person(s) who hires/chooses/manage the judges. I'd settle for a "rate your judge" jury system, even.
Obligatory "End FPTP" when I mention voting, because it's foundational to all voting issues.
You would rather trust our politicians to appoint them? Ha ha ha.
"Nothing can be done to solve this, says only nation where this regularly happens"
Levearging an onion article doesn't make your argument here. I mean I could accuse the homosexual industrial complex that eisenhower warned us about, what with their pernicious influence, in referencing another onion article, but it doesn't quite fit does it? That's a satire article, a joke, so don't pretend to get offended under false pretense.
Electing our judges and politicians gives us a chance to take them back, giving that power to politicians and their appointees is surrendering it. We are so far passed where we can trust the system. So far.
The fact it's satire doesn't make it untrue, and we have plenty of statistics to back it up, but it seems the only thing Americans like more than complaining about their broken system is insisting that any change at all would make it worse.
Are you arguing that surrendering the appointment of judges and prosecutors to politicians and their appointees would lead to better outcomes in the United States?
i can't tell if you're arguing against chevron or regulatory capture. regulatory capture = bad, right? chevron (short bad summary: appointed agencies have expert opinions because they're staffed by experts, so treat them as expert) = good, if the agency isn't captured by the industry it's trying to regulate, right? are we at the same starting point and assumptions or are you coming from somewhere else?
I was under the impression we are arguing about the wisdom of changing the system in America where we elect judges and prosecutors, which was instituted in the mid 19th century, to one where politicians and their appointees simply appoint them as is done in most of the world. I am virulently arguing that allowing our politicians and establishment to appoint judges and prosecutors would lead vastly worse outcomes.
That the rot in our institutions has spread throughout, and even if you think it works in another country well, it won't here.
Really it is laughable to think it would be better, despite your hundreds of supporters on here. Ha, hahaha. People are fucking stupid. No offense.
my what
In reference to the totality of votes and support of not electing judges and prosecutors clearly.
i haven't even taken a position dude, i was just trying to see where you were.
one side of my family, they practice law. my opinion is nuanced. there are definite positives from citizen review of judges but most judicial decisions are opaque, most citizens know so little about law as to not understand what judges do, honestly if we could properly address the issue of regulatory capture first (which would solve a hell of a lot of problems in government, but that's another can of worms and it's one i'm legitimately not sure how to solve) i would have very little problem leaving it to appropriate government appointees. because if regulatory capture is addressed, (and that's a huge, glaring red flag assumption) then nonpartisan legal experts would be doing the judicial appointments and review.
judge elections are where the citizens get to step in and say, as a random example out of nowhere "hey, judge who gave rapist brock allen turner no sentence? you don't get to be a judge anymore" so like, that's their only legal recourse. Remember, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order." We absolutely do not want to be shooting judges (that's a complete failure of society), and we really don't want to be putting them on trial for making stupid decisions (they have what is called sovereign immunity for their decisions made legally from the bench, specifically judicial immunity if the AI summary on the search i just ran didn't lie to me. sounds right and i think that's what my lawyer siblings taught me i don't know years ago) so what we have left are soap box and ballot box. Soap box isn't great, because turning the populace against the justice/criminal-punishment/whatever-euphemism-you-want-to-use/legal system such that they lose faith in the ability to obtain justice is not good for society altogether. So the ballot box theoretically remains as a viable outlet/pressure valve for the public to be able to get a small measure of justice it is unable to get in the jury box. Even when actual justice remains out of reach, allowing the public to vote against the judges who presided over the courts that denied them justice lets the public feel they have recourse.
Do you see the theory?
I don't agree with any of that. First of all, lawyers are a cancer on society. Parasites.
My point is unanswered here, I claim electing them is better, because we could take it back, even if the system is corrupted now, you are saying/not saying to give that power to politicians and their appointees.
It's a simple argument. You trust them, I don't.
Okay, so you didn't bother reading anything I wrote did you.
I did read it, and your wishy washy support non support of giving away our voting rights to politicians.
then you didn't understand it. It's not worth the effort dumbing it down anymore for you, sorry.
You didn't take a position, typical coming from a family of lawyers honestly.
I made a simple point, and you haven't addressed it. Speaking of dumbing down, I don't think I can simplify that point any more, you are declining from answering that point.
Kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Elected, you get this judge.
Unelected, you get the current US Supreme Court...
With elections we can take back control, without them we cannot. The process is corrupted now, but in the hands of politicians we are powerless with the way things are going.
Judges and prosecutors run unopposed more often than not, there is next to no information about them, and both parties' candidates being the same is never more true than with them. But it doesn't have to be that way, and we've gotten a few reform DA's elected, and they've gotten viciously attacked by their State's old boys their entire terms.
"Nothing can be done to change this, says only nation where this regularly happens"
How does that relate to the subject at hand? Are you a real person? I made a real argument, respond to the point, or maybe you wouldn't feel more comfortable on fucking twitter.
By using the same onion quote I used several comments earlier, I am both pointing out the circular nature the discussion has taken on, and strengthening my point, since your current phrasing sounds even more similar to the idea that Americans uniquely insist that they are unable to change anything, even though other countries have changed in exactly those ways and started addressing their problems.
You insist that you're special snowflakes different from everyone else, and come up with reasons for why you can't possibly change, rather than just picking issues and starting to address them in some way, even if imperfect.
Republicans have deluded Americans into thinking that nothing can change. That is the rot at the heart of America.
Drivel.
This is "nottheonion," dumbass. It means it's not the onion.
This isn't a satire comm. The articles shared here are true stories.