One of my strategies for voting on judges is looking up who in my state appoints them. Do I trust that person to appoint reasonable judges or not? I vote to retain and dismiss judges accordingly.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
100 points (99.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
41863 readers
689 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I live in a small town, so everyone at least knows who both judges in town are. 10 years ago one had a decent reputation, the other everyone hated because he was just a bully in the courtroom. He was suspended by the state for a year back in 2021 because he started harassing a woman at the back of the court room who was minding her own business, commenting about her brother who OD'ed the week before, and then held her in contempt of court for not submitting to a drug test.
Anyway, when his suspension was up he ran for his vacant seat to try and get his pension back. So I joyfully voted against that asshole and was very satisfied to see him get absolutely clobbered since everyone in town hated him.
For judges, I mostly look for key backers. For example, teachers union shows support? I'm in. Moms for Liberty or anything with "Patriot"? Instant vote against. Or I read the voters pamphlet for dog whistles. If neither pan out, then I actually have to do research, ugh.
I was surprised how easy it is to settle on a candidate for general politicians, to be honest. Once you filter out people including dog whistles in their bio, there usually isn’t much work left to do. I do feel bad though when I don’t do serious research on small time positions where there isn’t much separating candidates.
Judges are a bit harder to spot.
Same. Heritage Foundation involvement is another red flag.
Yeah this has been the most reliable method for me. They'll usually tout endorsements and those folks are usually easier to get a read on. Otherwise, try to find news stories or blue voter guides that mention them.
the Bar Association makes bi-partisan recommendations on judges. They're often take suggestions from both defense and prosecuting attorneys and if a judge leans too harsh or too lenient then they'll recommend a vote against.
Example from NY: https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/new-york-city-bar-association-rates-judicial-candidates-in-new-york-city-2/
We don't elect judges in France, it seems weird. And yes they are supposed to be neutral, even if they are supposedly left-leaning in France for some reason (I would expect the opposite actually with lawyers being on the left to protect people and judges on the right to punish).
So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.
What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.
IMO it is a bit weird since it makes them political, but they’re going to be political anyways, since the alternative in the US is appointing them. (See, for example, SCOTUS nomination hearings.)
SCOTUS being appointed isn't exactly the issue. It's the fact that only the senate can give input, and since the senate favors the right wing, its composition is biased. House has no say in this, and that's not very balanced.
Also 9 judges is too few, easily flipped in 1 administration we saw in 2017-2021.
Technically, you can give your senator some input and tell them how to vote. They can also call in witnesses and get commentary.
The point about scotus being appointed is that it’s still a political process, they’re still doing politics.
Of course, studying the performance of individual judges is criminalized in France, so we have very limited ability to know about their individual performance. :)
It's a huge lie that judges are neutral, but some argue it's a necessary lie.
If you can't find any rulings that lean one way or the other. See if you see any vote for judge whoever signs on properties that fly trump flags or had such trumpy grumpies signs in the past. Then you know not to support that judge.
My state provides judicial performance reports for each and every judge per judicial body. They are based on surveys responses from attorneys, peer judges/justices, jurors, witnesses, etc. They score legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, settlement performance, etc. The scores are Superior, Very Good, Satisfactory, Poor, or Unacceptable. It gets pretty in-depth. They also provide judge biographies and history.
We also look at who their supporters are, and check for headlines theyve made, as well as social media posts.
We usually have a big voting party with some cordial friends and go through the performance reports together on our mail in ballots.
Is there any chance that the judges can "buy" their survey responses? E.g. if they pay off the people taking the survey? Or is it all totally anonymous?
(I'm not American, just curious)
Any backers if there are any, searching their name online to see about controversial decisions.
And then I default to replacing them. Most people vote to keep the status quo... I'd rather keep them on their toes.
As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.
I agree that there really is no way for the layman to know. The states all vary as well. Meaning something like 10 states have partisan votes (party listed next to name in ballot). About 20 have non partisan, so they don't list the party. Many have Yes/No retaining votes without listing a replacement, just decision to keep. Then some states have policies where the judge must be confirmed by the state Senate, and others approved by their state Congress. Beyond that, I don't remember much, it is way to much for a person to keep up with and their should be independent bodies that evaluate performance/ judgements. I don't know a perfect way to set it up though, as corruption is everywhere.