The public expresses significant concern regarding judicial appointments and independence, particularly criticizing the current collegium system for perceived nepotism and lack of meritocracy. Many call for reforms to enhance transparency and fairness in the judiciary, fearing that the government's selective approach jeopardizes judicial independence. There is a pervasive sentiment of frustration over ongoing delays in cases, which further amplifies anxiety about the integrity of the judicial system.

Judiciary

Government

Legal Associations

Please read our [wiki guide on 1948/ATQ cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/juresanguinis/wiki/start_here/judicial/) if you haven't already.

Disregard this comment if you are asking for clarification on the guide or asking about something not covered in the guide.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/juresanguinis) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

We filed just two weeks ago at Campobasso - awaiting judge assignment. We have a GGGM 1948 case, and have been working for 4 years. I am sick to my stomach that it might all be for nothing.

FaithlessnessOk6926

I have a 1948 case in Rome. No minor issue. 
Filed March 2023… Oct 24 was first date… then the improbable Dec 31 (ha!), then March 10, 2025, and on March 3rd was moved to the UNBELIEVABLE May 2nd at 00:01 o’clock…

Wishing there was some document I could prepare to add to say that I intend to relocate and contribute to society… but I used there’s nothing I can do…

croquet_player

We had our hearing last Thursday 27th March at Napoli, a AtQ case as we have been trying for years at the London Consulate. We are awaiting a decision. I am so nervous!

Emotional-Falcon-642

I'm hoping that they never add any sort of retroactive application of new rules to cases already submitted. I assume that would be highly unlikely if even Tajani's strict decree had an exception for cases already submitted. Since updates in Giustizia Civile are quite infrequent between judge assignment and hearing date, I haven't gotten any update since January 2024, and that last one was "Deposito Atto Non Codificato" (miscellaneous upload of documents). My first (and hopefully only!) hearing is on April 15th, so very soon. I'm hoping things go the same way they would have before the decree. Theoretically, there is no reason why that shouldn't be the case, as our submissions are exempt and are under the old rules.

What we might see, unfortunately, are judges suspending or postponing hearings to see how things pan out with this new decree and the subsequent legislation and legal battles, even if our cases theoretically would not be subject to said new developments.

Thanks for posting this. I am also curious to see how other people's cases are proceeding and what their attorneys are saying.

IncompetentDude

I am also interested, files filed on November 11, 2024 with a RG and a judge assigned on November 15. Annotation on March 14, 2025, since then, RAS

Empire_de_Bourgogne

I submitted my case in November of 2022. I still have not had my hearing.

It was originally scheduled to September of 2023, then moved to September 2024. Then moved to November 2024. Then the day of the hearing in November of 2024, it was moved to December 2025.

💀

BrazilianTinaFey

I have one of the top attorneys and he wrote me said don’t worry if you filed prior to the date. All good folks.

The-McDuck

My wifes judgement is 4th of june. After in 2024 being transferred of district. Due too the changed laws back then it had to be the tribunal of the ancestors hometown smth smth... filed since 2023 😅

NokiBE

I filed in Veneto February 2024, have a 1948 case, haven't heard anything from my lawyers yet about this new law.  I have been assigned a judge but they haven't assigned me a court date yet due to the judge going on an extended leave of absence. Does anyone know if I qualify for it being already filed or is my case dead in the water?

MuskyJim

I filed October 2023, court date of November 2026 in Brescia 😭

GroundbreakingFee988

I have a 1948 case; the judge and court date were assigned last year. My court date is in October of this year. I don't know if the 1948 cases are better off. I have not yet heard back from ICA on my questions, but they are probably in a state of crisis.

Particular_Ant_507

My ATQ case was filed Dec 27 in the Veneto courts. No word on court hearing yet. I have a ruolo number but don’t know how to track it. I’ve tried ChatGPT to help me but it kept giving me incorrect instructions. 

Does anyone know how to track your case in the court?

kikashoots

My 1948 case was filed via the court of Bologna in novembre, but no hearing date assigned yet. The referral from one of the judges to the court of cassation resulted in all cases being paused from what I understand, so I've just been sort of in limbo: filed, but no date set 

mziggy91

We filed my case in October 2024, so far no recent changes in my court case at the time I am posting this comment. We are still scheduled for November 2025. 

Bella_Serafina

This law came so out of nowhere that, in comparison, it had the same element of surprise as Pearl Harbor (if you're American) or the Malvinas (if you're Argentinian).

Someone may have challenged your vote, so I would definitely call the Clerk's office and ask if they sent the letter. You don't want your voter registration to be invalidated by not responding for any reason.

GapUnited1111

I would call your Secretary of State’s office and check it out. Might be legit, might be a scam to get a copy of your signature and ID.

Love_Bug_54

I’m  feel like this goes without saying but make sure you don’t use any contact information that may be supplied on that letter.

stormyjetta

NAL, but I’m an election official (not YOUR election official). When is the letter’s postmark dated? I’m wondering if it got lost in the mail for a while. Colorado has a system to “cure” ballots but I can’t imagine it being done after the election is certified. 

However,  I’d still call your county clerk because the alleged consequence for ignoring a letter like this is the envelope being reviewed by the DA’s office to see if a crime has been committed.

cupc4kes

[deleted]

They're not going to arrest you for not talking to them. The crime here is someone impersonating you to vote, so they really can't arrest you. The statute seems to indicate someone else asked them to investigate, because it's notn election statute it just says:

"**(1)** Any person may file an affidavit with the district attorney stating the name of any person who has violated any of the provisions of this code and stating the facts which constitute the alleged offense. Upon the filing of such affidavit, the district attorney shall forthwith investigate, and, if reasonable grounds appear therefor, he shall prosecute the violator.**(2)** The attorney general shall have equal power with district attorneys to file and prosecute informations or complaints against any persons for violating any of the provisions of this code.

C.R.S. § 1-13-101"

You should probably participate because they otherwise they are likely to declare your vote was a fraudulent vote and therefore all mail voting should be banned.

NickBII

I'm not in your state, but I vote in every election and primary by mail.  Over the years I've gotten lazier and dropped letters from my signature.  The letters left look the same, but when I signed my ballet, I guess my signature on file did not match.  (Which is fair - it didn't.)  Twice I've gotten letters basically asking if that is me and if so for me to update my signature.  Both times occurred significantly after an election - like maybe a month or two - which surprised me.  The letter they sent me didn't sound as intense as the one you got though.

Anyway, the point is I would look into it further by contact your district attorney's office (using a number you look up yourself not the one provided) to see if it is legit.  If you are like me and keep changing your signature, you could need to help them know that nothing bad is happening.  BUT this has scam potential.

Mo523

I want to find the statistics for how many Colorado votes get thrown out every year due to signature mismatch. I have had this issue twice. This election and last election

processwater

I would take it to your local registrar and ask if it's valid. Then ask the consequences if it is valud

Redjeepkev

I've had my vote challenged before, it was easy enough to prove I voted. Please don't disregard, it could make it more difficult for you to vote later. In some states, if people miss a vote this was a reason to purge them from the rolls.

Top_Pirate699

Also in CO. My child, who is 23, got the same letter because he won't listen to me and decide on a consistent signature. (He may have learned his lesson now). It's a fairly easy process to cure your ballot, just do what it asks and move on.

International-Snow74

you can ignore it but i suspect they will use the lack of a reply to remove your voter registration completely and you wont be able to vote until you re-enroll (presuming they allow you re-enroll)

i would contact the "\_\_\_\_\_ County Clerk and Recorder" directly though, do not use anything from the letter, to ensure its real.  there should be some sort of reference number on there that they can validate if its real.

Arkayenro

It’s CO. Go in to the Clerks office with the letter and your ID. It’s important.

KJWDistillers-Ouray

My elderly mother voted by mail in November in Arkansas. The Pulaski County's office required that she also mail in her signature on a voter registration form (to scan?) before they would count her mail-in vote. She has voted in Arkansas since we moved there in 1973. The county clerk explained that they needed to verify her signature since they did not have signature records from when she originally registered to vote there. I checked to see if her vote was counted, and it appears to have been. My mother was surprised that they could not simply use her signature from one of the many times she had to previously sign in at her polling location.

Open-Tale-8471

I would verify first if your vote has been counted on ballottrax.com

yarla

Not a lawyer but work on Board of Canvassers' election forms. A lot of times a mismatched signature will just get rejected. They are going the extra mile from the sound of it. Please update your signature with the clerk's office, but if possible, do it in person. People's signatures do change over time. If you don't update it, this will keep happening.

Aliriel

I received one of these quite awhile ago.  

I had changed the way I signed my name (went from my full name to first initial and last name only).

I sent them a copy of my Drivers License and my signature, and that was the end of it.

Realkellye

Particular_Owl_8029

This is a scam.

They already have your drivers license.

SoaringAcrosstheSky

I'd call the office directly and find out if it's legit. I might also call my county party.

oliver_babish

The messaging is very similar to what I got when I did legitimately change my signature (also Colorado). I submitted a signed form and a copy of my ID, and a couple weeks later got another letter back confirming they accepted my vote. However, the first letter came within like a week of the election. 

I would recommend following others' advice and verifying the actual clerk's office address before mailing your response.

Honestly I think you should show up in person with the letter. 
I realize being from the third smallest may skew my perception how hard that would actually be.
Maybe at least start with the local registrar? Ours are usually located in our town halls.

DiggityDooWop

Sounds like a scam. Call the District Attorneys office.

therealDrPraetorius

Total scam. There was a discrepancy about my signature before (Snohomish County, WA) and I had to appear in person at the Snohomish County campus with ID.  Also, why would they waste their time auditing an election that already happened?

malachite_13

Unless they have a handwriting expert, they're  full of BS. Your signature can change with your mood, the temperature of the room, etc

Go to the Clerks office with the letter and your ID. Be prepared to argue the veracity of the qualifications of the person who decided the signatures don't match.

CatPerson88

OP has flaired this post as QUESTION. Please do not interject your own opinions and bias. Simply answer the question and cite a credible source.

Please report rule violators and bad faith commenters.

What’s your favorite musician or band?

Please do not post politics under the mod comment. Those comments will be removed. The mod comment is a place for complaints and memeing.

MunitionGuyMike

Because this is the realm of powers that does belong to the president. If the president did not have control over these, the president would not have power.

The role of the executive is to “execute“ the laws of the United States, which place is the president literally at the top of law-enforcement.

AlanShore60607

The doj is part of the executive branch. The president nominates people to scotus as well as the other levels of the judicial branch. Senate approves. The appointed judges aren’t subordinate to the exec or legislative branches. The rulings of courts are under judicial discretion, high courts can overturn or affirm lower court decisions, the Supreme Court being the ultimate authority

d2r_freak

Yeah this is a good question! it is mostly tackled in a separate manner.

The department of justice makes sense since the president is meant to enforced the federal laws.

The supreme court appointment one is to add a second check and balance. 

However you are right it does create a major issue. Appointing law enforcement does insulate the executive from the rule of law.

And when the supreme court is majority appointed by one party it skews one of our least accountable branches. 

Unfortunately our system really doesn’t account for political parties. However it adapts but this is a major issue in the US as the supreme court’s only real hold back is the fact the founding fathers just expected them to be unbiased and uphold the rule of law. And the supreme courts role wasn’t even really set in stone until Madison V.Madberry , where they kinda just appointed themselves the role they cover.

Ill_Pride5820

The heads of departments have to be confirmed by congress do congress checks them there. 

Congress also has the power to create it dissolve agencies so they can just completely wipe out a government agency let's say if the President had corrupted that agency. There's a check there. If the President feels he needs another agency, he has to get congress to create it and fund it. 

As for the lower positions within the federal government, Congress, per the constitution, can decide that the heads of the departments, not the president, can hire and fire people there. However, Congress has also passed laws laying out how and why employees can be hired and fired for the government. Right now the current administration is violating those laws

citizen_x_

The President appoints judges, but that appointment is for life, so some judges will be appointed by the current President, but most are not.

Altruistic_Role_9329

Under the Constitution, two branches of government (Executive and Legislative) are directly chosen by the people.  As others have pointed out, the Dept of Justice (DOJ) is part of the Executive Branch and they prosecute cases.  The Judiciary is the third branch.  Only the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was explicitly referenced in the Constitution but Congress has the power to create inferior courts.  They have created inferior courts (District and Appellate Courts).  As in Justices for SCOTUS, judges for the inferior courts are nominated by the sitting President and confirmed by the Senate.  As such, the Judiciary is not staffed with elected officials but those who go through a nomination and confirmation process.  The Judiciary does not prosecute cases but are entrusted with INTERPRETING the Constitution and laws.  Once confirmed, they do not report to the Executive Branch but are managed within the Judiciary with Congress able to modify the structure of the Judiciary.

JMN10003

Judges, at least, are revolving door intended to be appointed by numerous presidents over time, and then they are confirmed by congress. That is pretty clearly separation of powers imo. The president doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have unilateral control over them.

JoshHuff1332

The executive nominates an appointee, and legislature have advice and consent powers is a balance of power issue between the branches of power. There are times when the President and Senate are in the hands of different parties, so approval is not always a sure thing.  Looking at other ways to choose judges, for lower courts in some states they run for election and periodic reelection.   The separation is between church and state.  The powers of each branch is spelled out in the Constitution. The ability of the other branches to control each other is what, in theory, keeps any one branch from overstepping the bounds of their Constitutional authority.

whatdoiknow75

The president is head of the executive branch of government. Enforcing laws is an executive function, so it makes sense that he would choose the lawyers at the DOJ who would carry out that function. 

Appointing judges is not solely a presidential thing, they have to be confirmed by the Senate. So it is the executive and legislative branch agreeing on judicial members, and the judicial appointees then using the authority given to them by those branches to interpret the validity of the laws passed by the legislature and the steps taken by the executive, through the DOJ, to enforce them. 

It was a beautiful system in general, it just wasn't designed to handle an executive that ignores the laws themself.

DipperJC

It's a tradition which in the past was followed out of respect for principles of good governance -- politics should not influence the administration of justice. The felon who currently sits in the white house finds that tradition to be an impediment to his efforts to obtain autocratic power and so is disregarding it. 

It is a true flaw in our system that the just administration of justice hinged upon politicians having respect for principle of good governance.

Dry_Jury2858

He runs the DOJ, so it makes sense he would nominate who heads it up. That DOJ leader will be running the department how the president wants to run it, anyway. Prosecutors are a politically elected position at the local and stat level. There is actually a lot of discretion that goes into it. 

Someone has to nominate judges, and Congress does have to confirm it. He cannot fire judges, however so that is there so judges don't feel compelled to make rulings based on fear of political reprisal. 

Everyone has to be accountable to everyone else. 

Also important to remember that when the federal government was created it was really small and had waaaaay less authority than it does now.

So it may be the current set up isn't optimal for how the federal government exists now.

Checks and balances. Yes, we have three branches of government with separate powers, but, in theory anyway, each branch has an ability to check the power of the other branches. So the President appoints judges, but those appointments have to be approved by majority vote in the Senate. And those appointments are for life, to give those judges independence from the President who appointed them.

As far as the Justice Department, that’s a part of the executive branch, not the judiciary. I don’t know what country you’re from, but unlike most countries, our judicial system is adversarial, with a prosecutor advocating on behalf of the state and/or the victim, and a defense attorney providing a rigorous defense opposite that. And our judges are supposed to be impartial facilitators, essentially, making sure trials are fair. And because a jury trial is a fundamental right here, federal judges often don’t decide the verdict.

danimagoo

Congress is supposed to reign in the president and not let him appoint bad judges.

Unfortunately in this legislature Trump owns everyone so gets whatever he wants.

Similar_Coyote1104

The executive branch nominates, the legislative branch confirms. The nominee has a lifetime appointment and is beholden to neither.

FrankCastleJR2

The key aspect to this is "with advice and counsel of the Senate".

The President is not actually supposed to be doing this alone, and the Senate is not supposed to be a partisan circus. This is supposed to be a shared power of the executive and legislative branches.

There used to be norms about this. They started breaking down after the Warren court.

LeagueEfficient5945

He nominates.  Senate approves.  House can impeach Judges.  Senate can convict.  So there are checks and balances.  Separation comes when Judges are in office.  US Attorneys and Department heads are parts of the Executive branch.

Boatingboy57

The president (executive branch) nominates judges, but it’s actually the Senate (legislative branch) that approves each nominee.

Ideally, the different branches of government check the power of the others. Clearly that’s broken now as everything has become a zero-sum game rather than a collaboration.

24bean62

Okay, there are two things that are sometimes misunderstood. The Judges of the Judicial branch of the United States government is an independent branch, but people need to first be nominated to the bench by the President,  who is the head of the Executive branch, and approved by the Senate, in the Legislative Branch. In theory, and up to 20 years ago, if you were a qualified judge, you got approved. Then, one side decided to make it very political and and instead of questioning the capabilities of the judges, they began to question the ideology of the judges. This led to a reduced trust in the Judicial branch of the United States government. 

The second piece of the puzzle is the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), which is the prosecutorial arm of the government. Since the President, as the head of the Executive Branch, is the one responsible for "executing" the laws of the United States, the Department of Justice falls under the Executive branch. It is up to the Department of Justice, in the Executive branch, to bring charges against people for violating the laws created by the Legislative Branch and it is up to the Judicial Branch to ensure that people get a fair trial on the merits of their case.

That is why the president gets to a point judges. Up until the recent "lawfare" against Trump and his administrations, it was very rare to see the President actually involved in any legal case.

Training_Calendar849

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I would find some way to reduce the inequality caused by the expense of legal representation. 

1. The radical solution is to make legal representation a publicly funded service assigned to individual cases by lottery, within their specializations. So if you, some random schmuck, are accused of murder, you're just as likely to get Johnny Cochran as a big shot like OJ is. 

2. The less radical solution is to excuse bar-admitted lawyers from jury duty (since no one wants them on a jury anyway) and require instead that every attorney has to take a random case now and then within their specialties at the public defender payscale, as a form of mandated public service. This would mix up the talent levels of legal representation that the man on the street can access, and supplement the sorely overtaxed public defender system. It would also, I think, break down some of the elitism in law firm culture, which I've seen firsthand and is psychologically and institutionally corrosive.

punninglinguist

I'm very hesitant to consider any structural changes to the US legal system. I think, while it is far from perfect, it is pretty darn good and does not need a major overhaul. When it comes to what you have suggested, increasing the levels of the judiciary that are tribunal would be a no from me. And I am a strong textualist and reject any move towards greater morality in law. You are going to have to explain what changing the parameters of jury selection means before I can give an opinion on it.

Fignons_missing_8sec

For those interested in this topic, you may be interesting in the 2019 Reith lectures by Jonathan Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

It includes a number of direct comparisons between the UK and the US.  He "argues that a decline in the willingness of politics to engage with divisive subjects has been accompanied by an unwelcome rise in the power of the courts."

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9)

Aetylus

Only real change I would suggest for the US is to mandate a 2/3 approval for supreme court appointments. Actually force the parties to either work together or try and get a mandate.

JohnTEdward

Expanding the Supreme Court to thirteen Justices was popular a year or two ago.

The idea was to have a single Justice for each of the thirteen appellate courts.  

It's no longer popular for some reason.

Ozark--Howler

Judge Dredd.  much quicker and efficient.

Joking aside If I had to go on trial anywhere in the world,  I'd pick the USA.

I definitely wouldn't pick japan, china, Russia, I wouldn't pick Europe either based on how they wildly (incorrectly) interpret what is free speech .

I'd like our criminal cases to hand sentencing off to a 2nd judge who doesn't get to know age, gender, race of the guilty.   sure minor, senior, (everyone else) could be told to them, but there's no reason they need to know  racial / gender stuff.

  
just a report like "an adult  was found guilty of this and was remorseful and apologized"

discourse_friendly

No politically appointed judges  

Way less power for the president. 

Parliament with more parties

povlhp

Move a LEA to the judicial court. This administration has shown that all law enforcement being under the executive branch is a bad idea.

About137Ninjas

Partisan judge is an oxymoron.

Choose unbiased judges. Resist the temptation.

WiartonWilly

I like our judicial system too much to even think of overhauling it.  But I'd like to see the creation of a nationwide federal district court for original complaints about the constitutionality of some federal laws and regulations.  Instead of news headlines about "a federal judge in [whatever state] issued an injunction against [some nationwide federal policy]," we'd have a single national district for those kinds of cases.  

The DC district kind of works that way now, but it's very limited in comparison to what I think we could use.

rcglinsk

People are mentioning more lawyers and cheap lawyers but I'm thinking that judges are the problem. 

They have extreme latitude to punish minorities and give light sentences to rich people.

Judges who get a lot of crap decisions turned over on appeal sound be penalized or eventually removed from the bench.

Flincher14

Very small change which could have a big impact? Randomize prosecutors and defending attorneys. Routinely having to be on both sides would result in a set of norms that are more balanced than the massive one-sided discretion prosecutors currently have.

agreeduponspring

Pretty sure Germany got rid of all political appointments to their Judiciary because of their prior experience with a quasi-trump administration back in the 1930's and 40's.. Each court selects new members for the next lower bench - we should do that. 

For Tort, we need it to be LOSER PAYS. Trump and his ilk stiff their workers/suppliers by simply refusing to pay knowing the legal fees needed to fight them in court will be beyond the means of those they stiff.  Also when a court decides in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant should be required to pay all the damages awarded into a trust account held for the plaintiff, and some reasonable time limit (30 days?) be set for the defendant to appeal the case and have the verdict reversed before final payment is made to the plaintiff..

We need better liable laws. It should be a lot easier to sue when someone tells lies about you on the internet like Jones did to the slaughtered children and their families. The ability to sue for slander should extend to cities where some crypto-fascist tells the World there are "no-go-zones"  and law and order have broken down.

Olderscout77

One thing the current "justice" system gets absolutely wrong is the belief in freewill. There is no scientific evidence we have this thing called freewill. In fact, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Individuals and their individuality are shaped through societal forces long before they become adults (whatever age you think that is). The part of the brain involved in decision making, executive function, and the like is the prefrontal cortex which doesn't finish maturing until around 25 years old. 

The point is, our justice system assumes freewill in every case rather than acknowledging the social processes which lead to individual outcomes. A person who has problems with being violent or hyper sexual should be viewed in the same way we view a broken car. To paraphrase Robert Sapolsky, we don't think of a car that crashes into a playground because it's brakes weren't working as evil. We think of it as it is, a broken car. It's brakes need to be fixed. Similarly, those of us who have antisocial behaviors who are a danger to the community need to be "fixed" through a process of therapy, psychedelic drug intervention. etc.   

And we haven't even mentioned the two-tiered nature of our justice system. If you're rich, you can get away with just about anything. If you're poor, good luck. This is a reflection of the economic system we all live in which equates wealth with virtue. Those who have money must be better people, and those who are poor must be bad people. It really does validate Marx's analysis of the base (economic system) informing everything else in society such as a justice system which is part of the superstructure.

oldassnastymask

The basic foundations of our criminal justice system are fine. The real problem is we're fine with paying for prisons, but we drastically underfund the courts. We should probably double or triple the number of court rooms so that both civil and criminal cases could be concluded much faster. We also need to fully fund public defenders so that poor defendants get a quality defense. The main systematic problem we really need to address is the plea bargain extortion racket. To some degree having more courts would help with that as well, but we really need serious sentencing reform. A system that holds the threat of a lengthy prison sentence over someone's head if they don't plead guilty to a lesser offense is a broken system.

Searching4Buddha

Personally I am for direct democracy and I don’t believe the myth of the “independent judiciary” which really just defines a class authorized to rule over people, despite the rulers being guilty of all the same human foibles and compromises as the ruled. 

I would rather courts be a venue where popular committees convene for a constitutionally defined process of evidence submitting and fact-finding to support decision making. It would not be limited to criminal justice, but something people participate in regularly to establish what should be believed according to available evidence and how much confidence is warranted. 

Judges would only administer the system, issuing warnings and recording any abuse of the process to report to the public, who would presumably consider the results suspect and might seek to hold the perpetrators responsible. Juries would include the entire population of the jurisdiction. 

When questions of what is constitutional arise final determination would be made by popular vote, requiring something like 60% of the vote—else a formal constitutional crisis would be triggered and ordinary business suspended until a consensus can be reached.

ResurgentOcelot

The US system, but applied evenly and fairly to ALL and not only those who can't buy their way out.

Bantis_darys

Tbh I don't see how you can stand common law so I guess it would be a first point that law should be decided by democracy and not by some judges personal opinion and interpretation of a 300 years old piece of paper.


Also sanction proportional to income is neat

Mofane

Easy: we need a true multi party system. Enough of this left/right major political lobbying crap. Both sides have long been bought and paid for (by a foreign nation state). We need to ban lobbying and income tax.

North-Beautiful7417

Honestly, the biggest issues we face are mandatory minimum sentences and the incentive to plea bargain away a trial.  Right now the "innocent until proven guilty" is in theory only and that needs to change.

ClockOfTheLongNow

 We need an enforceable ethics requirement for the Supreme Court. At a more local level we need reform to stop frivolous lawsuits. There should be penalties for lawyers who lose such cases to deter them from seeking them out and clogging our court system.

calguy1955

Single 13 year terms for SCOTUS Justices.  Rather than dropping dead on the bench, or gracing us with their presence for half an entire lifetime, they can just hop over into cushy chairs at top 10 law schools.

/u/BlackMilk23 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ita080/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_judicial_branch_will/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

The courts refused to hear any of the election challenges in 2020. If this SCOTUS wanted to, in your view, march towards totalitarianism, Trump would’ve already finished his second term. In fact, they’ve ruled against him repeatedly, drawing the ire of many Trump supporters. The SCOTUS picks by Trump are not Trump loyalist, they’re federalist society plants by McConnell, who despite the flak he catches from the left and right, is far from a Trump loyalist.

Maga0351

SCOTUS absolutely has the power to stop a president's unconstitutional plan. Just ask FDR.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2

H4RN4SS

What do you call it when someone has all the power and doesn't care about your opinion?

SirTiffAlot

So, I think you’re underestimating just how much the SCOTUS cares about its own power.

Sure, they don’t have an army to enforce their rulings, but they’ve got something just as strong: legitimacy. If they roll over and let Trump redefine the Constitution just because he says so, they lose their entire reason for existing. They don’t just care about legacy, they care about power. And the minute they become his rubber stamp, they lose it all.

Look at history: Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes. Truman was blocked from seizing steel mills. Even during WWII, FDR’s administration faced pushback. And who stopped them? Justices who were appointed by those very presidents. The Court has never been shy about checking the executive branch, no matter who’s in office. They’re not about to start now.

Oh and don’t forget: the justices Trump appointed are originalists. They’re all about the Constitution as written, and the Constitution gives them, not the President the final say on what’s legal. If they hand that power over to Trump, they undermine their own judicial philosophy. They’re not going to rewrite the Constitution to give away their own job security.

Plus, if Trump ignores them, he triggers a constitutional crisis that forces Congress to act. It’s political suicide. And if Congress still won’t do anything, the military, which swears allegiance to the Constitution, not the President, gets involved. Nobody wants that chaos, least of all the justices who rely on a functioning government to maintain their influence.

Bottom line: the Supreme Court isn’t just going to roll over and let Trump redefine the Constitution. They’ll find ways to strategically assert their power because that’s what keeps them relevant.

It’s not about loyalty to Trump; it’s about loyalty to themselves.

zaibatsu

Yeaah, too bad Biden didn't get his wish to put 4 more justices he wanted on the SC since he didn't get what he wanted.

Presidents are alway upset if they get shut down by courts.  However, that didn't stop Biden from ignoring the SC on forgiving student debt without asking Congress even though it just got shut down again.

Old-Tiger-4971

I would argue that it isn't because they don't want to be ignored. It provides two major things:



Legitimacy to what he doing.
A way to prevent opposition from doing the same to them. 



The Roberts court and Trump are two sides of the same coin. So while they may feel that his approach is removing their power- he ultimately is putting rules in place that they agree with. So by going a long with it and ruling in favor of it, it makes these moves legitimate. 



Equally important is that they also maintain the ability to prevent an erosion of these rules. A scenario in which Democrats regain control will see the court step in to curb any attempts to block this progress. If they had totally given up their power, they would be unable to address this. 



I don't think "being ignored" is a major factor in that they're still able to contribute quite solidly to the conservative movement.

MaverickBG

Sorry but you are simply wrong. What kind of legacy would they have if they walked in lock step with a dictator 

Historical-Block8206

I honestly think it's the other way around. The Federalist Society's judicial project has been all about reducing executive authority (see Chevron).

Capitulating to Trump on the plain language of the Constitution would harm the court's legitimacy, effectively transferring that legitimacy to Trump. Stomping on Trump's plans would increase the legitimacy of a court that is largely viewed as being partisan AND provide an opportunity to further restrict the power of the executive.

There are two competing ideologies at play here. There's unitary executive theory versus the non-delegation doctrine. SCOTUS has an amazing opportunity to advance their desired non-delegation doctrine, further gut the administrative state, and restore some institutional legitimacy by pushing back.

MxMippy

I partially agree with you, *but* I think SCOTUS will push back on *some* things that either are so insane that they have to in order to preserve their legacy (absolutely horrible and non-justifiable rulings will harm legacy more than good rulings be ignored), or where they think they won't be ignored because the stupid position taken by the Trump administration isn't a hill Trump will die on. That said, this SCOTUS is awful and they *will* go shamelessly in lockstep (or as close to it as possible) with Trump any time Trump has even the vaguest argument they (the conservative majority) can hang their hats on. This was demonstrated by the presidential immunity decision.

For instance, I think they will strike down the executive order to end birthright citizenship. It's blatantly unconstitutional with zero grey area. *And*, Trump won't die on that hill. They'll strike it down, and Trump will whine and moan and use it to galvanize his base against the whole concept of rule of law and the constitution.

However, I think they will *not* interfere, or not substantially interfere, in him shuttering agencies and ignoring Congress' direction about what to spend money on. They'll say he has wide leeway to execute the laws as he sees fit. It'll fit with the unitary executive model, and there are almost-not-insane arguments you can make in Trump's favour ("Trump cannot decide not to spend *any* money on foreign aid if it's earmarked by congress, but he *can* shutter USAID if USAID is doing a bad job of spending it, and then put somebody else/some other agency in charge. He has to have discretion in how he structures the actual organs of government and gives effect to the laws passed by congress in order to function!" etc).

The only circumstance in which I could see them taking a stand where Trump *might* ignore them is if he went full dictator and tried to cancel elections, suspend habeas corpus outside of a war, etc. And, while I wouldn't put it past Trump to *want* to do this, I think there are enough sophisticated bad actors influencing him (Peter Thiel, the project 2025 folks, etc) who know that he can't go that far that fast and that obviously. There are plenty of ways to be an authoritarian-near-dictator-basically-a-king President and stack the deck in your Party's favour that could *maybe if you squint hard enough and do a bunch of mental gymnastics* not be unconstitutional. And that's all he needs with his shitty stacked court of Federalist assholes.

LJofthelaw

Just to clarify the British monarchy has great power unlike the US Supreme Court. 

The monarchy can dissolve government. Which the Supreme Court cannot do in the US. 

All executive and legal and religious authority stem from the monarch. It is at their pleasure that the government serves **them**. 

If the government loses the favour of the people or if the government violates the constitutional law then the monarch simply dismisses all of them as they all serve the monarch.

Sharp_Iodine

Your arguments while not directly contradictory, are clashing against each other. 

&gt; Supreme Court justices, particularly chief justices, care about their legacy. This is evident in their writings and interviews

-—————————————————

&gt; However, allowing the President to consolidate power is a different story. Sure, historians, legal scholars, and other observers might view them as cowards, but they would still maintain a privileged position under a more powerful executive

So which is it? Does the Supreme Court desperately care about their legacy, or do they value short term power over their legacy? 

It’s strange to argue that Justices value their legacy in one paragraph, then argue that they’ll be willing to tarnish their life’s work/legacy in the next. 

In_Pursuit_of_Fire

You're totally correct, I tried to bring this up with liberals over the last couple of years, but how many divisions has the supreme court? They are just a bunch of weirdos in dresses and funny hats and cravats who send out shitty press releases periodically. Nobody actually has to listen to those fuckers. Biden could have canceled student debt, continued pandemic assistance programs, fired Louis dejoy at the post office, and done an executive order enshrining abortion rights. And either he or Kamala would have been elected, instead people stayed home because their lives got worse even when "the good guys" were in office.

NumerousWeather9560

I don't agree with this take. A lot of federal justices have already bristled at blatant executive overreach regardless of their party affiliations. Also, our Supreme court justices enjoy immense wealth and comfort. The fastest way to lose that comfort and prestige is to allow this nation to collapse into a dictatorship and suffer the inevitable civil war that will follow. 

None of them are getting through something like that unscathed, and they know it. These are people that enjoy the status quo, and they will defend it out of self-interest, even if duty isn't compelling enough on its own.

Idellius

Beyond the question how courts will rule, how are rulings going to be enforced? With the deep penetration by bobbleheads at the DOJ and the millitary (purges are ongoing and in progress), who is to say the US Marshals will actually evict them from the White House after they ignore the next election outcome? Or carry out a court's arrest warrant?

There's a high chance that the US is in for a long period of one-party rule. Perhaps the only potent defense is blue states getting their act together and secede rather than become part of a full-blown autocracy.

The CJAR has urged the Supreme Court to address concerns regarding the government's selective approach to judicial appointments, emphasizing that the future of an independent judiciary hinges on these practices.

Judicial Appointments and Independence

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want