A first amendment case out of Alabama

Maybe on this board we all agree, but I have only seen one of the three parties facing possible legal Jeopardy for their actions. Maybe I missed some possible accountability for the judge and or the police officer.

In the eyes of society, it appears that the judge and the police officer did nothing wrong and are the aggrieved victims.

And that's the biggest problem

 

The unintentional truth here is there surely are plenty of corrupt police and judges doing far worse than these two yokels. Costing people years of their lives instead of potentially 30 days. Doing things like planting evidence or siding with the state on denying appeals despite clear and overwhelming exculpatory evidence. Only a small % of those cases make the news, and truly this one only did because of the ludicrous expectation of an apology AND the fact there is video.

The tragic part of your post is you aren’t thinking of real bonafide victims of police corruption, you are 100% thinking of your corrupt orange god. Sad.

 

I disagree with this assessment. I think what you are trying to say is that you don't think the judge will be held accountable for his decision. That may be true, but how do you gather that "the eyes of society" are ok with this? Maybe we just disagree on how you define "the eyes of society." I would imagine most of society feel completely disconnected from the ability to hold the judge accountable or even know what the process would/should entail.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I'm not entirely in disagreement, but what do you propose to be a superior way of appointing judges? By way of state Senate confirmation? or what?

 

Non-partisan elections, even if the reality is some will be partisan actors in disguise it’s probably as good as can be done.

This guy is a state judge, in Alabama, elected in a partisan election. So basically he’s a Republican politician. Think “Judge” Roy Moore.

 

In theory this sounds good, but in practice this is a terrible idea. I can tell you locally that this results in a bunch of Dem/blue voters unknowingly voting for Moms for Liberty school board candidates / Federalist Society judges. It doesnt stop weirdos from running, and it gives voters less information. The partisan label gives me more information about where a candidate stands than an NP election where the most information you get is deliberately vague.

 

This judge ran as a Republican? To my knowledge, most judicial races are already non-partisan. (ie candidates do not declare a party). Perhaps it's different in Alabama, but as you alluded to, do they really need to declare a party? Dog whistles are pretty effective. I'm not sure this would change much about the situation in the OP.

 

Alabama does partisan elections.

 

I dont think Roy Moore is going to do anything different. But most judicial races dont feature guys like Moore who are attention whores and demagogues that invite media attention, usually there isn't much campaigning beyond yard signs and maybe a few softball interviews and press releases with the local paper/news. Leaves people to do detective work on candidates, like who's endorsed them or various other useful information.

 

I don’t totally disagree, but in partisan elections you need to play to the crazies that much more. At least if there are primaries (which I assume to be the case in partisan judicial elections, maybe judicial elections are different). In Alabama that would generally mean the craziest R partisan running pretty much unopposed in a general election.

At least with non-partisan elections they have to “sneak” them in there. I know there was a conscious effort to push “mom’s for Liberty” types onto school boards a few years back, but didn’t a bunch of them get voted out in the very next election cycle once people got frustrated with them?

 

Yes, once you become known, the word gets out. I was talking to a first time voter the other day that unknowingly voted for MFL person based on seeing signs. They found out later and wont do it again, but the damage is done. The problem is the MFL and FedSoc candidates usually have the most cash, so they get their name out much easier than candidates who dont have money behind them. Those people have their supporters even in blueish suburbs, so uninformed voters plus their base can usually tip an election in their favor. All I can tell you that in practice, the non partisan elections usually favor the Republicans. I'm not sure if the reverse is true in deeply red places too, assuming non-conservatives are even bothering to run in those elections. There's really no bankrolling of stealth judicial candidates on the Dem side, because there isnt the equivalent of a FedSoc.

 

Bipartisan committee that selects judges based on a series of objective, merit-based criteria without consideration of any political proclivities or propensities.

 

So, in other words, totalitarianism? No thanks.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure that's not the best way to do it. Out their political biases from the start. Judges hiding behind "non-partisanship" is a joke. Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is non-partisan? Do I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is non-partisan?

 

No, the opposite of totalitarianism. Apolitically appointing judges based on their merit serves as an apolitical, independent check on the other two branches of government. Political appointees, conversely, are merely an extension of the executive branch, which arguably enables totalitarianism.

 

This thread is discussing a state judge.

Federal judges are appointed by the current President and confirmed by the Senate. Used to be a pretty bi-partisan process really. Now it’s extremely partisan. We know Kavenaugh is not merely “partisan”, he was bought and paid for as are several of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Not sure we can say that about Jackson at least.

I don’t think “appointing” a judge is a horrible way to do it, but in that case there should be a bipartisan check to ensure they aren’t nominating nutbars to lifetime appointment. The ideal would be to have 100% of judges be middle of the road. If the votes are always partisan, then this “check” loses credibility.

 

To be an "independent check", the judiciary would have to be divorced from the legislature and executive. In this case, the state Senate and the Governor. Otherwise, they're not really "independent". Elections, much like what is held for the state Senate and governorship allow for such independence. Ultimately, the will of the people matters and there's no getting around that. Having the legislature pick and choose whom serves on the bench is not a separation of powers. Frankly, if you allowed that to happen in Alabama, yikes.

 

Yep, you hit on the fundamental disconnect with hiring judges. The federal courts have appointed judges (which I still think is better than elected judges, but we need a more apolitical means to appoint them). Many states, including Florida’s trial judges, do it your way. I think choosing judges based on popularity or popularism is dangerous. Florida recognizes the danger and effectively bars judges from campaigning on policy points, but still, I think we want judges who will uphold the law,not who will adjudicate based on policy.

 

The cop was obviously a dick. I'm sure in their safety training they are told to stand out of the way of traffic. Which is why they pull off the side of the road on an angle facing the flow of traffic and don't approach on the drivers side unless it's not in a parking lot or off the road.
I'm betting he was hoping the guy would slightly brush by him so he could charge attempted murder of a peace officer.
As to the judges, whenever the ballot says should we retain so and so for circuit judge? I always vote no.