this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
73 points (96.2% liked)

politics

22730 readers
3538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The millions in campaign funding poured into the Wisconsin Supreme Court election spotlights the increasing partisanship around these supposedly neutral court roles. It also feeds a growing concern nationally about the independence of state high courts.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Electing judges in the first place undermines trust in neutrality of the courts. Since it undermines neutrality of the courts. It makes judges make campaign promises they have to keep to not anger people and makes them indebted to their campaign financiers.

Like how is this supposed shocking new news just because someone spent finally even more money on a judicial election race. Word combination which shouldn't exist in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

I agree, but what is the alternative? I mean, is there a neutral way to get new supreme court justices?

(Honestly askibg)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

In some ways, electing judges makes sense. The judicial system should carry out the will of the people after all.

But I agree with you in general that the election system is highly flawed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

That is what juries are for. Judges are supposed to be the specialist technocrats of legal system. Juries are then for "feelings of the society" matters. Most importantly nobody has to campaign or owe anyone large sums of money to get into jury.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Carrying out the will of the people is not a judges role, especially the supreme court.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A primary role of judges is to deny the will of the people in favor of what some slavers wanted hundreds of years ago.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Citizen's United flew in the face of 'original intent.'

The Founding Fathers never conceived of anonymous backers coming in and influencing elections; they lived in a time when all transactions were face-to-face or through mail from a known correspondent.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The ~~Founding Fathers~~ founding slavers

How old are you? Who're your daddies? smh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

How old are you?

'Founding fathers' has been an accepted shorthand for decades.

Ignoring the actual content of a message to quibble about wording doesn't impress people.

Grow up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Trust???

lol.