• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because Voter Suppression usually comes in the form of laws and judgements, and legislators can’t be arrested for passing unjust laws, and judges can’t be arrested for passing unjust rulings, partly because…well who the fuck could even prosecute such a case without risking biased prosecution?

    The supreme court is ordinarily supposed to be the check for when the law itself is unjust, but that ship has sailed and it ain’t coming back until, IMO, we institute a sortitionate bench, IE the judges for any given case before the supreme court are selected at random from the pool of all federal judges who don’t have a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, on the case.

    • Seraph@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Really like the thought of the Supreme Court being pulled from a random pool of Federal judges for each case. Fuck this appointed for life shit!

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.

        • Seraph@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Would it not leave the door open for more cases to be revisited with such randomness?