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
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.