409
Portland judge says she’s too busy running for reelection to oversee trials
(www.oregonlive.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
409 points (99.8% liked)
Not The Onion
21168 readers
2184 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?
I'm in the UK. WTF are you on about?
You guys just cancelled jury trials for up to three years for starters. Started a masterbaitorbase, for national security we have to know every webpage you considered whacking off to, you know, for the kids.
In the process Id'ing every user on every computer for palantir types to make secret social scrores to be used against you in ways you can't challenge. And you are oblivious.
Your courts were integral, are integral in that, along with your fake politicians. England was the birthplace of modern liberty and you gave it away, apparently without knowing it in your case.
The pornid thing is stupid. VPN use us widespread now. Our gov often gets lobbied by US big tech companies working on behalf of US gov unfortunately.
IDing every user on every computer? What? Source?
Social scores? Source?
I'm oblivious as to what you watched on Telegram that twisted certain things into extremes.
The courts thing is idiocy from Lammy. Not guaranteed. Starmer is toast and doesn't have widespread support in his own gov. House of Lords can block anything not in a manifesto. Some shit has gone sideways, accepted, but your outlook is a little extreme. These battles are happening all over the world. There is mass techbro fascism at war with every country right now. Singling out UK is missing the overall picture.
Plus our jury is quite separated from politicians. UK gov lost to Kneecap. UK gov having trouble with the Palestinian Action decision in courts. Rwanda deportation got blocked by courts also. Please do some research to understand how our courts actually function before you dismiss quite a reasonable system that does have independence from politicians.
We have problems, but rn our jury system isn't one of them. It's the fuckheads in Westminster.
You believe that? Wow. Maybe you should read a newspaper. You are too far gone to reason with I fear, living in an alternate reality that doesn't exist.
What bit did I say that was factually inaccurate? Did you look at any of what I wrote? Looks like you need to read some news. I'm suggesting more BBC, Guardian, Independent than Daily Mail rage bait though.
You dismissed age controls and the masterbaitorbase as nothing to worry about, when it's an existential threat, even if there are holes in it now. The jury trial cancellation already happened, at least for up to 1 year in prison decided by appointed magistrates in 2020. Which they just expanded to 3 years. Just this year.
They sabotaged the functioning of the courts, then used their failure to work well as an excuse to cancel freedom.
They allow their politicians to declare protesters terrorists now too, I didn't even mention that one. Charged a woman with murder or something for taking an abortion pill she got from her doctor too, that was a fun one, under some 19th century law. Not guilty verdict, because JURY TRIALS.
Really, mods? You call this a "slap fight"?
The guy claimed the UK is "canceling the magna carta." I asked if he really meant to claim they're dissolving parliament, because that's what "canceling the magna carta," which established parliament, would mean.
How is that a slap fight?
I suggest a judge lottery.
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.
Hm. A while back, I suggested that attorneys who represent in court switch roles after every case: Prosecution -> Defense - Prosecution, and so on. That would make attorneys more inclined to want a fair trial, because they know a court that purely favors prosecution will work against them when it is their turn.
In that vein, perhaps the attorneys can give a judge an upvote/downvote after a case is finished, alongside their reasoning for it. This is added to the judge's dossier. When lawyers for the defense and prosecution are going to court, they could make one of two choices: mutually agreeing on a judge to oversee the case, or just one side preferring a randomly selected judge.
There would be issues with this, but I think it would also make it harder for bad justices to become a fixture. If lawyers consistently agree a justice is shit, that justice would eventually get fired for wasting time and money.
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.
please take me to the gay factory
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.
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.