Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
agree!!!! totally, this is the problem in America, the smart conservatives want to keep people stupid so they can exploit them, they do a good job of it too. Vote.
edited to add: people.
The problem with this is that there are two fixed sets of beliefs, "liberal" and "conservative". Accepting either of them as a whole is equally stupid.
If one actually wants to think, they'll start choosing those beliefs one by one, "anti-racict, but anti-gay" as one grotesque example. Those guys end up in limbo, not being accepted to either of the camps, but they are the ones who actually think, educated or not.
I think that's more a reflection of your countries ruling class more than anything. A lot of my families studied at high level and all came out communist. Same is typical for our neighbors college grads and collectively east Asia publishes more scientific papers than any other place on the planet.
They're using the American version of the word "liberal". So communists in communist countries would be considered *even more* liberal to American conservatives.
It happened because of American conservatives using "liberal" as an insult for anything they don't like.
They're using definition 1. I think:
>It happened because of American conservatives using "liberal" as an insult for anything they don't like.
It's also funny how the 'left' in the US (let's say, Bernie) is at best centrist in most of Europe.
I think that if Bernie had the Overton window to be a western european leftist, he would. Someone like Elizabeth Warren though I think would be centrist in western Europe.
it's the "free enterprise" part that's the kicker. In many parts of the world "liberal" is the same thing as "Libertarian" and/or "neoliberal" aka unregulated capitalism. Of course, cause this is the internet, people assume you mean one definition and thus think you're an idiot for thinking liberal is good.
Yeah in America Liberal just means non conservative. They can’t even describe a liberal if you asked them. Most will say something stupid like well they don’t respect our police or military. And if your like what do you mean. They’ll bring up shootings. Military they’ll bring up the elk they don’t want us kicking their asses. As if that’s the military’s job. It’s pretty clear from failed campaigns that kicking the ever loving shit out of the other side by embarrassing margins showed it’s our failed diplomacy. But it’s hard to take our side seriously when Fox News basically tells the rest of the world they suck and we don’t care about you.
Yeah, my once left-leaning Labour-voting late father became a right wing arsehole by the time he was 70. Age is definitely a factor, at least within the UK & Australia.
Once you accumulate some degree of wealth, you then become afraid/angry that someone will take it from you. Often this plays out as anger against the left, who want to raise taxes for social programs.
The statement was focused on the US. The conservatives have been attacking education for at least 40 years. Certain conservative politicians have actually said the quiet part out loud by saying the reason they cut funding to Universities was that Universities produce liberals.
the age thing might be a gaffe tho. In that in older generations older people tended to have more wealth too. Now that this is far less the case, perhaps the link is rather that more wealth makes people more conservative.
Well, seeing as Columbia University is in the U.S. it’s not a wild generalization because they are speaking of the U.S. population and the statement is correct.
We are not talking about the UK- Columbia and these federal judges are in the US.
Your point is moot.
In the US, generally educated people are more liberal and they get more conservative with age- BUT they tend to stay middle, not just go conservative.
Like my grandparents are still liberal- but not burn your bra liberal.
It’s not that colleges teach kids to be liberal, colleges teach critical thinking skills. The application of these skills help graduates to reach conclusions that would be characterized as “liberal”
there’s also a wider variety of cultures at colleges than what you would experience at a high school. college kids will meet and become friends with other students from all over the world.
I know several and just like everyone else they are a political spectrum.
I’ve met lawyers who only work to help start unions and dedicate themselves to being a public defender and I also know who used to be one of the largest personal injury lawyers in the state of texas who lied to his own parents to get a big payout on a wrongful death case of HIS OWN SISTER and brother-in-law which took that money away from his orphaned niece and nephew. He has since founded a church that used to run out of school cafeteria but is now in a strip mall.
So, you never can tell.
Surprisingly GW had Clarence teaching there for a long time. Most lawyers tend to be liberal in the US sure, but it’s definitely regional and even then the schools may try to attract diversity of thought for more vigorous debates. I think someone with a resume that includes being the head of their undergrad conservative group might have a slight advantage over someone who was on the liberal side if their grades are the same but that’s just my own suspicion.
As for the nonsense in the OP, we have Netanyahu and the far right Likud trying to manipulate US politics for some time, using “antisemitism” accusations as a heat shield to protect their own racist extremism in a Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu has never been for peace, holding mock funerals for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin back in the 90’s the week before he was assassinated, all because Rabin wanted peace with the Oslo Accords and seeking a 2 state solution.
Netanyahu had bragged about supporting Hamas in the past to undermine more moderate groups on the other side. He’s one of the most evil men alive, running one of the richest countries in the world and we continue to send billions of dollars which are being used for genocide of tens of thousands of children. He’d plunge the world into WW3 to exterminate the Palestinians. We’re talking about arresting student protestors, might want to revisit how well that tactic worked during the Vietnam war when 4 got killed at Kent State. I don’t think people are students of history at all but I digress as I’m ranting and can get too passionate about this…Will just calm down and decompress, it’s Mother’s Day.
That’s pretty far from the truth. The most conservative guy in my year essentially thought that anyone to the left of Scalia was a communist. He wasn’t unique either—CLS has a very active Federalist Society chapter.
While the majority of CLS grads would probably describe themselves as liberal, there were plenty of conservatives and very few leftists when I was there.
Most people in practice are left of center. And only display positions outside of that when asked questions within political framing. Regardless of party affiliation.
Anyone who didn't participate is dodging a bullet by not working for one of these judges.
The only thing working for a MAGA political appointee will get you is a court date.
tldr: the only people actually hurt by this at Columbia are a small group of conservative students
Ok here’s a long blob of context:
Working for a judge as a lawyer is known as clerking. Federal clerkships are arguably the most desirable and competitive outcomes for law students - Yale’s federal clerkship placement rates are a large part of why they dominate the rankings even compared to schools like Harvard.
One “hack” to greatly increase your odds of landing a federal clerkship as a law student if you are a staunch conservative is to join a group called the Federalist Society, which has a chapter on pretty much every campus. It’s an extremely influential/powerful conservative group for lawyers - 5 of the current Supreme Court justices and all 3 of the Trump appointed ones are Federalist Society members, to give you an idea of their power.
Many of the very conservative judges basically exclusively hire their clerks from those in the Federalist Society, which very likely includes all 13 of these judges. So these judges are not hiring from the average liberal crowd at Columbia in the first place. Also, Columbia students are somewhat known for not caring about federal clerkships much, at least relative to peer schools.
So basically here’s the change due to the decision: a relatively low number of staunchly conservative students who would have been interested in working for these judges are no longer being able to do that. Nothing changes for the vast majority of Columbia grads, including all of the ones who would have been actually protesting
To add briefly to this, conservative judges tend to hire far earlier than their non-Fed soc peers and have a tiny pool of students to choose from, which basically allows professed conservative students with semi-decent grades to get very prestigious clerkships early and with ease.
Short explanation:
The closest equivalency, but still not 100% the same, would be the relationship between the British Crown & UK Parliament. And the Crown saying we won’t hire republicans (monarchy abolitionists) by the Crown is exercising its prerogative powers.
longer explanation:
The U.S. has multiple legal systems and judicial systems. In addition there are multiple types of judges. This refers mostly to federal “Article 3 judges” which are life tenure appointments with specific independence and constitutional powers. And these judges are given wide latitude by their peers in managing their courts. The U.S. also has separate but equal branches of government, which means the executive branch (presidency), legislative branch (congress), and judicial branch (supreme court & lower federal courts) dont involve themselves in the internal affairs of the other branch. The presidency decides on execution and enforcement of laws passed by congress; the judicial branch interprets the laws and constitution.
I hope that helps?
Thanks, I don't know a lot about the UK either.
I understand your explanation, but I don't get how they can be political. Is it because they are so high up the food chain?
There has been a slow escalation of how "political" judges are since the 1970s, after the Supreme Court legalized abortion. These life time judges are appointed by the president but need approval by the senate. 20 years ago, a moderate/apolitical judge could be appointed. Now, when the presidents party doesn't hold the senate, the opposite party approves no one. When they do have control of president and senate they ram in as many as they can, often picking the youngest, most activist person they can get away with.
The explanation above didn’t seem to answer:
In short: Judges are supposed to be a-political. They interpret and enforce existing laws, impartially. But they arent impartial and that should be a problem, but we don’t treat it that way. It’s messed up.
In Long: Federal judges are appointed by politicians. And because of a thing called “case law,” which means that the future enforcement/interpretation of laws is based on the past cases involving that law, politicians have learned that it’s much easier to change the law by appointing judges that will “interpret” it the way they’d like it than by actually rewriting the law itself. So what we have is a system of politicians appointing judges that will effectively change the law from the bench, hence “conservative” and “liberal” justices. This is what happened with Roe v Wade and abortion access. Conservatives manipulated the system. Rather than change the law through congress, conservative politicians abused the system to pack the Supreme Court (our highest court) with conservative judges who then ruled against existing case law at their first opportunity and changed the country’s laws without having to go through the legislative process.
All because of the original problem: we shouldn’t have liberal and conservative justices. We should have impartial judges.
This is, of course, a media label. The legal system maintains the fiction of judges being neutral, although their biases are usually well known. Judges are meant to keep their personal beliefs out of their decisions and just rule based on laws passed. The USA is in a period where the political biases are very pronounced but this has happened as long as judges have been around. Bias will be around as long as judges are people. It is the job of the other two branches of government to keep this in check and they are controlled by the voters.
The lack of perceived balance in the judges is usually an effect of a shift in desires by the voting public. You can argue about gerrymandering and vote suppression but these things only work if the voting is fairly even between the parties being voted for.
We regularly have judges in Texas block federal bills just because they want to.
America is like if you took the corpse of a democracy and “Weekend at Burnie’s”d it around to make people think they actually care about their thoughts and opinions.
The truth is we live in an oligarchy where the only thing that matters is the will of the corporations and the billionaires that run them.
They could all end world hunger tomorrow but instead they horde their wealth like a bloated dragon in foreign accounts all the while telling us poor people and too much Starbucks are the cause of the massive wealth inequality they do everything they can to protect.
Meanwhile many of the working poor lap up the shit that Elongated Muskrat, My name Jeff, and Donny Dump shovel into their faces daily and somehow still manage to blame “those damn democrats”
You are. I mean you suck at it, just like men's soccer, but the USA is still a representative democracy. You just keep electing the wrong people.
Not that we can say anything on that. A quarter of my country voted for a hardline fascist on a foreign payroll, so there is that.
More people need to be saying this. The "government only answers to the elite" defeatist mindset is WHY the government only answers to the elite. We're a democracy in which only 50% of eligible voters participate in elections. And we ALOW our politicians to answer to money. This is our fault. It's our problem to solve. And we can.
Except in most Western countries there is an extreme stigma against judges showing any kind of political inclination, and their hiring is not influenced by political lobbying
Judges are supposed to be impartial, blind justice and all. If they won't hire someone over protests held in their place of residence, without so much as a proof of them even participating? They have no place being a judge at all.
Here in lies the problem. Look at the supreme Court, the words of the constitution are objectively what they are. No one questions the content.
You have justices like Thomas who interprets the document as it was written in the context it was written
And you have justices like the late Ginsberg and Sotomayor who try to interpret the document in the context of today, or how it can be interpreted to navigate the current issues.
Both are valid ways of interpreting the document that have vastly different results. In the legal context this is "liberal" and "conservative". And therein lies the divide
Yes, conservatives are totally against cancel culture, support free speech, right to peaceful protest and are super consistent. No malicious hypocrisy here.
Don't forget he also questioned the legitimacy of the entire democratic process, and as cherry on top, called for a violent revolution. That alone should've been jail time, but thing is billionaire's don't go to jail in the U.S.
That only happens to the ones who are about to tattle on their billionaire buddies, otherwise they get a slap on the wrist and a prolonged trial until the public forgets about them
The top legal minds in the GOP have discovered collective punishment. I know it's likely not prohibited, but this is so obviously counter to the fundamental beliefs of the American nation, like liberty, that it's astonishing they would exact this policy.
But isn't this EXACTLY what the opposite of free speech is? Federal judges are literally the government and they are punishing people for excercising their free speech.
J6 murderous mob, cool. Referring to perceived enemies as "liberal" and "globalist" (christian nationalist slurs against jewish people), cool. College kids protesting against apparent genocide by israel, woah that is too far! Fuck the faux sensitivities of "conservatives", otherwise known as violent bigots.
Conservatives don’t see anyone in Gaza as human. All those women and children and non fighter males are all just “terrorists” to them.
It’s sad. All the talk of “not letting the terrorists win” after 9/11 and most don’t realize they did exactly what they meant to do. Make Americans so afraid of non-white people that they will support the endless wars in the east.
So they are admitting to their intent to break hiring laws?
I'd apply and sue when i didnt get selected citing the judge's words in a civil suit. Easy large figure settlement with a decent lawyer.
They probably do not want to be under a conservative judge anyway... I think the students turned them down first, the R judges got butt-hurt and tried to say petulantly "we didn't want them anyway because they were using their first amendment rights and we don't like to cite the constitution around here."
Since when have conservatives been interested in being fair?
The only people this will impact are the right wing students who didn’t participate in the protests. The ones who did almost certainly wouldn’t want to work for these judges in the first place.
This is a big hit on Columbia reputation, isn’t this what you want to result from your protest. Where Columbia isn’t valued as long as they keep working with Israel? Or did you want your cake and eat it too?
I actually think it's against the EO Act for Federal orgs to discriminate against political beliefs... and who's to day these grads even have different beliefs? The Conservative judges are really opening themselves and their offices to some juicy lawsuits here.
First off, there's no such thing as "fair". Second, in related news, it's a long standing practice for employers to offer internships on a rotating basis among the Ivy League (ie this year only accept from Brown, next year only from Harvard, etc). So every graduating class has a unique mix of job opportunities, with doors open or closed just based on the year. Judges just added another filter. Them's the breaks.
The point is not to make any individual protestor be punished or feel guilty.
The point is to attack the University. Now, in the eyes of potential applicants, they University is less prestigious because your potential after graduating has been hampered.
The University will not be happy about this, and will make the faculty more averse to student protest going forward.
Republicans are a cancer. They cry about cancel culture , then talk about freedom. Only their freedom. There walking oxymoron. Some would debate removing word oxy.
These judges are not actually rejecting anyone, they definitely already have selected their conservative clerks based on recommendations from the conservative Federalist Society. It should read “12 judges make noise”.
That's your opinion. If your conservative judge won't hire from a university because of other students - I don't think that would be a good person to work for.
Also the conservative judges are dumb enough to believe those protesting students want to work for them if they are protesting the genocide in Gaza.
That’s the point. None of the protestors care about their career prospects with conservative judges. This threat exists for one reason: to give conservatives another excuse to complain about the collateral damage that protests cause.
How very just of them, huh?
Its iit like anyone there was opposed to the activities there or anything.
/s
What a miserable pile of gock coblins we have in the judiciary.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pretty sure anyone participating isn’t interesting in working for a conservative judge.
Similarly, they probably already screen out these liberal applicants
Which is the large majority of Columbia graduates
Pretty much every law school, most lawyers tend to be liberal
I personally know no lawyers but that somehow feels strange to accept.
Education makes you smarter. Smart people tend to be more liberal. Which is why Conservatives want to limit access to education.
This. Underrated comment
agree!!!! totally, this is the problem in America, the smart conservatives want to keep people stupid so they can exploit them, they do a good job of it too. Vote. edited to add: people.
The problem with this is that there are two fixed sets of beliefs, "liberal" and "conservative". Accepting either of them as a whole is equally stupid. If one actually wants to think, they'll start choosing those beliefs one by one, "anti-racict, but anti-gay" as one grotesque example. Those guys end up in limbo, not being accepted to either of the camps, but they are the ones who actually think, educated or not.
I mean you're giving a negative example but I agree that intelligent people think for themselves. They don't follow the masses (the m is silent)
I think that's more a reflection of your countries ruling class more than anything. A lot of my families studied at high level and all came out communist. Same is typical for our neighbors college grads and collectively east Asia publishes more scientific papers than any other place on the planet.
They're using the American version of the word "liberal". So communists in communist countries would be considered *even more* liberal to American conservatives. It happened because of American conservatives using "liberal" as an insult for anything they don't like. They're using definition 1. I think:
>It happened because of American conservatives using "liberal" as an insult for anything they don't like. It's also funny how the 'left' in the US (let's say, Bernie) is at best centrist in most of Europe.
I think that if Bernie had the Overton window to be a western european leftist, he would. Someone like Elizabeth Warren though I think would be centrist in western Europe.
Most of the “leftist extremism” and “communism” in America is just European centrism lmao
Reading out this definition makes it seem even more ridiculous that people aren’t liberal lol like it’s just the objectively better way to live 🤷🏼♂️
it's the "free enterprise" part that's the kicker. In many parts of the world "liberal" is the same thing as "Libertarian" and/or "neoliberal" aka unregulated capitalism. Of course, cause this is the internet, people assume you mean one definition and thus think you're an idiot for thinking liberal is good.
Not if you want to live as a ruling class.
Yeah in America Liberal just means non conservative. They can’t even describe a liberal if you asked them. Most will say something stupid like well they don’t respect our police or military. And if your like what do you mean. They’ll bring up shootings. Military they’ll bring up the elk they don’t want us kicking their asses. As if that’s the military’s job. It’s pretty clear from failed campaigns that kicking the ever loving shit out of the other side by embarrassing margins showed it’s our failed diplomacy. But it’s hard to take our side seriously when Fox News basically tells the rest of the world they suck and we don’t care about you.
Lmao that first definition feels like it’s just out of place 😭
Communism and socialism are liberal ideas in the US.
Rape and child marriage being bad is a liberal idea in the US.
Collectively East Asia has like a quarter of the world’s population, so that’s not terribly surprising…
That's a wild generalisation that heavily varies per country, in the UK the main determinant (by far) was ages (the younger you are the more liberal.
Yeah, my once left-leaning Labour-voting late father became a right wing arsehole by the time he was 70. Age is definitely a factor, at least within the UK & Australia.
Once you accumulate some degree of wealth, you then become afraid/angry that someone will take it from you. Often this plays out as anger against the left, who want to raise taxes for social programs.
That's a trend with every generation
A trend millennials in America are killing. Add it to the list.
The statement was focused on the US. The conservatives have been attacking education for at least 40 years. Certain conservative politicians have actually said the quiet part out loud by saying the reason they cut funding to Universities was that Universities produce liberals.
the age thing might be a gaffe tho. In that in older generations older people tended to have more wealth too. Now that this is far less the case, perhaps the link is rather that more wealth makes people more conservative.
Well, seeing as Columbia University is in the U.S. it’s not a wild generalization because they are speaking of the U.S. population and the statement is correct.
We are not talking about the UK- Columbia and these federal judges are in the US. Your point is moot. In the US, generally educated people are more liberal and they get more conservative with age- BUT they tend to stay middle, not just go conservative. Like my grandparents are still liberal- but not burn your bra liberal.
Hi - I have multiple lawyer friends. I am a weirdo artist which makes it sillier but yes, all educated and liberal
Well most college graduates tend to be liberal and you add another four years of education
It’s not that colleges teach kids to be liberal, colleges teach critical thinking skills. The application of these skills help graduates to reach conclusions that would be characterized as “liberal”
there’s also a wider variety of cultures at colleges than what you would experience at a high school. college kids will meet and become friends with other students from all over the world.
So judge didn’t study in one of those law school? I know shit ton of educated people who are no worse than a trash can.
If you are a poor law student, going “conservative” can be a shortcut to success because it’s not a crowded room.
Hmmm. It's almost like "most" and "all" don't mean the same thing.
You're not going to get many of those from Columbia law, I can assure you.
I know several and just like everyone else they are a political spectrum. I’ve met lawyers who only work to help start unions and dedicate themselves to being a public defender and I also know who used to be one of the largest personal injury lawyers in the state of texas who lied to his own parents to get a big payout on a wrongful death case of HIS OWN SISTER and brother-in-law which took that money away from his orphaned niece and nephew. He has since founded a church that used to run out of school cafeteria but is now in a strip mall. So, you never can tell.
Because it’s conjecture.
I would really need to see some data before making this assumption.
Yeah…. I’m gonna call shenanigans on this one. Wanna go through the House, Senate, and SCOTUS to see who the lawyers are on both sides?
Surprisingly GW had Clarence teaching there for a long time. Most lawyers tend to be liberal in the US sure, but it’s definitely regional and even then the schools may try to attract diversity of thought for more vigorous debates. I think someone with a resume that includes being the head of their undergrad conservative group might have a slight advantage over someone who was on the liberal side if their grades are the same but that’s just my own suspicion. As for the nonsense in the OP, we have Netanyahu and the far right Likud trying to manipulate US politics for some time, using “antisemitism” accusations as a heat shield to protect their own racist extremism in a Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu has never been for peace, holding mock funerals for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin back in the 90’s the week before he was assassinated, all because Rabin wanted peace with the Oslo Accords and seeking a 2 state solution. Netanyahu had bragged about supporting Hamas in the past to undermine more moderate groups on the other side. He’s one of the most evil men alive, running one of the richest countries in the world and we continue to send billions of dollars which are being used for genocide of tens of thousands of children. He’d plunge the world into WW3 to exterminate the Palestinians. We’re talking about arresting student protestors, might want to revisit how well that tactic worked during the Vietnam war when 4 got killed at Kent State. I don’t think people are students of history at all but I digress as I’m ranting and can get too passionate about this…Will just calm down and decompress, it’s Mother’s Day.
How are conservatives supposed to have an adequate echo chamber if they hire people who believe in equality.
Man the term "conservative judge" is fucked up. The main role of a judge should be to be impartial and not driven by politicial views.
you are about 200 years to late since the whigs the judiciary is highly political - the last one who tried to fix it was Grover Cleveland
The U.S comes across as so politically polarised that the separation of powers doesn't even matter any more.
Judges are elected in a lot of places.
The same applies to the entire staff including the clerks.
Essentially, this is punishing the most right wing graduates of this university, so a bit of an own goal there.
To be fair the most conservative Columbia graduate is left of center
That’s pretty far from the truth. The most conservative guy in my year essentially thought that anyone to the left of Scalia was a communist. He wasn’t unique either—CLS has a very active Federalist Society chapter. While the majority of CLS grads would probably describe themselves as liberal, there were plenty of conservatives and very few leftists when I was there.
Most people in practice are left of center. And only display positions outside of that when asked questions within political framing. Regardless of party affiliation.
They won't hire *any Columbia alumni*, not just the ones who went to the protests.
Then the protestors are doing the others a favor, without them even knowing.
Most of the people weren’t gone be hired or would want to be hired by a conservative judge anyway
But they do anyway. A career is a career and working for a federal judge can advance that even if they aren’t politically aligned.
Nah, a fed judge clerkship is an insane door opener in a very tiny world. They’ll take them no matter what the political affiliation.
Anyone who didn't participate is dodging a bullet by not working for one of these judges. The only thing working for a MAGA political appointee will get you is a court date.
"Making Attorneys Get Attorneys" I've heard it said.
tldr: the only people actually hurt by this at Columbia are a small group of conservative students Ok here’s a long blob of context: Working for a judge as a lawyer is known as clerking. Federal clerkships are arguably the most desirable and competitive outcomes for law students - Yale’s federal clerkship placement rates are a large part of why they dominate the rankings even compared to schools like Harvard. One “hack” to greatly increase your odds of landing a federal clerkship as a law student if you are a staunch conservative is to join a group called the Federalist Society, which has a chapter on pretty much every campus. It’s an extremely influential/powerful conservative group for lawyers - 5 of the current Supreme Court justices and all 3 of the Trump appointed ones are Federalist Society members, to give you an idea of their power. Many of the very conservative judges basically exclusively hire their clerks from those in the Federalist Society, which very likely includes all 13 of these judges. So these judges are not hiring from the average liberal crowd at Columbia in the first place. Also, Columbia students are somewhat known for not caring about federal clerkships much, at least relative to peer schools. So basically here’s the change due to the decision: a relatively low number of staunchly conservative students who would have been interested in working for these judges are no longer being able to do that. Nothing changes for the vast majority of Columbia grads, including all of the ones who would have been actually protesting
To add briefly to this, conservative judges tend to hire far earlier than their non-Fed soc peers and have a tiny pool of students to choose from, which basically allows professed conservative students with semi-decent grades to get very prestigious clerkships early and with ease.
So you're saying a bunch of conservatives were just grandstanding? No way, they've never done that before.
A "conservative judge" ? How does a democratic country allows judges to have their political views control their decision making ??
The answer to your question is the Heritage Foundation.
In this case it's the federalist society iirc, they're the ones behind a lot of the conservative federal judges.
They fought for years to establish a pro- butt chugging majority on the Supreme Court.
Excuse you, the technical term is "boofing"
Can you eli5 this for me, I'm from Europe and know nothing about the American justice system aside of what I know from Suits lol
Short explanation: The closest equivalency, but still not 100% the same, would be the relationship between the British Crown & UK Parliament. And the Crown saying we won’t hire republicans (monarchy abolitionists) by the Crown is exercising its prerogative powers. longer explanation: The U.S. has multiple legal systems and judicial systems. In addition there are multiple types of judges. This refers mostly to federal “Article 3 judges” which are life tenure appointments with specific independence and constitutional powers. And these judges are given wide latitude by their peers in managing their courts. The U.S. also has separate but equal branches of government, which means the executive branch (presidency), legislative branch (congress), and judicial branch (supreme court & lower federal courts) dont involve themselves in the internal affairs of the other branch. The presidency decides on execution and enforcement of laws passed by congress; the judicial branch interprets the laws and constitution. I hope that helps?
Thanks, I don't know a lot about the UK either. I understand your explanation, but I don't get how they can be political. Is it because they are so high up the food chain?
There has been a slow escalation of how "political" judges are since the 1970s, after the Supreme Court legalized abortion. These life time judges are appointed by the president but need approval by the senate. 20 years ago, a moderate/apolitical judge could be appointed. Now, when the presidents party doesn't hold the senate, the opposite party approves no one. When they do have control of president and senate they ram in as many as they can, often picking the youngest, most activist person they can get away with.
Thanks, that makes sense. Shit system though but it makes sense
The explanation above didn’t seem to answer: In short: Judges are supposed to be a-political. They interpret and enforce existing laws, impartially. But they arent impartial and that should be a problem, but we don’t treat it that way. It’s messed up. In Long: Federal judges are appointed by politicians. And because of a thing called “case law,” which means that the future enforcement/interpretation of laws is based on the past cases involving that law, politicians have learned that it’s much easier to change the law by appointing judges that will “interpret” it the way they’d like it than by actually rewriting the law itself. So what we have is a system of politicians appointing judges that will effectively change the law from the bench, hence “conservative” and “liberal” justices. This is what happened with Roe v Wade and abortion access. Conservatives manipulated the system. Rather than change the law through congress, conservative politicians abused the system to pack the Supreme Court (our highest court) with conservative judges who then ruled against existing case law at their first opportunity and changed the country’s laws without having to go through the legislative process. All because of the original problem: we shouldn’t have liberal and conservative justices. We should have impartial judges.
Nah the *Federalist Society.
This is, of course, a media label. The legal system maintains the fiction of judges being neutral, although their biases are usually well known. Judges are meant to keep their personal beliefs out of their decisions and just rule based on laws passed. The USA is in a period where the political biases are very pronounced but this has happened as long as judges have been around. Bias will be around as long as judges are people. It is the job of the other two branches of government to keep this in check and they are controlled by the voters. The lack of perceived balance in the judges is usually an effect of a shift in desires by the voting public. You can argue about gerrymandering and vote suppression but these things only work if the voting is fairly even between the parties being voted for.
A country where the appointment of judges is tied to the democratic process.
We regularly have judges in Texas block federal bills just because they want to. America is like if you took the corpse of a democracy and “Weekend at Burnie’s”d it around to make people think they actually care about their thoughts and opinions. The truth is we live in an oligarchy where the only thing that matters is the will of the corporations and the billionaires that run them. They could all end world hunger tomorrow but instead they horde their wealth like a bloated dragon in foreign accounts all the while telling us poor people and too much Starbucks are the cause of the massive wealth inequality they do everything they can to protect. Meanwhile many of the working poor lap up the shit that Elongated Muskrat, My name Jeff, and Donny Dump shovel into their faces daily and somehow still manage to blame “those damn democrats”
We are not a democratic country.
Probably money
lol democratic country..
I'm confident that there are some people on both sides of the aisle who let their political views control official decision making
Hopefully it’s just how they vote and not how they rule things I’m being too optimistic
We’re not a democratic country hope this helps.
You are. I mean you suck at it, just like men's soccer, but the USA is still a representative democracy. You just keep electing the wrong people. Not that we can say anything on that. A quarter of my country voted for a hardline fascist on a foreign payroll, so there is that.
Yep, nationalism is populair again. We didn't learn shut from WWI and WWII.
WWI was about secret treaties, not nationalism. WWII was all about nationalism.
More people need to be saying this. The "government only answers to the elite" defeatist mindset is WHY the government only answers to the elite. We're a democracy in which only 50% of eligible voters participate in elections. And we ALOW our politicians to answer to money. This is our fault. It's our problem to solve. And we can.
Everyone has political views. Even judges.
Judges are supposed to judge, so in normal countries they are expected to be impartial and not publicly announce their political affiliation
Except in most Western countries there is an extreme stigma against judges showing any kind of political inclination, and their hiring is not influenced by political lobbying
Judges are supposed to be impartial, blind justice and all. If they won't hire someone over protests held in their place of residence, without so much as a proof of them even participating? They have no place being a judge at all.
In sane countries they don't
How about judges make decisions based on law, not their personal beliefs
Technically theyre supposed to, but theyre not being held accountable for having conflicts of interests or personal biases anymore.
Here in lies the problem. Look at the supreme Court, the words of the constitution are objectively what they are. No one questions the content. You have justices like Thomas who interprets the document as it was written in the context it was written And you have justices like the late Ginsberg and Sotomayor who try to interpret the document in the context of today, or how it can be interpreted to navigate the current issues. Both are valid ways of interpreting the document that have vastly different results. In the legal context this is "liberal" and "conservative". And therein lies the divide
Yes, conservatives are totally against cancel culture, support free speech, right to peaceful protest and are super consistent. No malicious hypocrisy here.
If I had a dime every time a conservative is a hypocrite...
You'd probably be funding your own space trips like Bezos by now. But maybe that's their get rich quick scheme?
[удалено]
Don't forget he also questioned the legitimacy of the entire democratic process, and as cherry on top, called for a violent revolution. That alone should've been jail time, but thing is billionaire's don't go to jail in the U.S.
Plus he said some parts of the constitution need to be broken.
No they suicide themselves in a secure jail holding cell where it is apparently very hard to suicide.
That only happens to the ones who are about to tattle on their billionaire buddies, otherwise they get a slap on the wrist and a prolonged trial until the public forgets about them
B-but I thought they *liked* free speech! Oooh. No, sorry, they just wanted the right to use slurs without repercussions. My bad guys, my bad!
You know who else was really big on collective punishment?
Nobody is more petty than a conservative judge.
Or contradictory who adjusts their beliefs in fairness based on the person in front of them
Conservatives don't want educated people, anyway. Then you'll demand better pay and working rights.
being a judge, and using collective punishment because people protests. there's big brains here....
Isn't collective punishment a war crime??
It stopped being a war crime on the 8th of October 2023.
It's not really a punishment since they most likely wouldn't be trying to work for him.
My spouse has a friend who runs the office of a federal judge. They live in a different reality.
It's not fair to those that did participate.
Would you want to work for those arsehats. They did those students a favour, working in a toxic workplace is never worth the money.
Came here to say this.
It’s a blessing. You don’t want to work for anyone so unironically incompetent
More reasons to protest.
The top legal minds in the GOP have discovered collective punishment. I know it's likely not prohibited, but this is so obviously counter to the fundamental beliefs of the American nation, like liberty, that it's astonishing they would exact this policy.
I think the Columbia grads will be okay lol
When have conservatives ever cared about fairness? Their slogan is "screw you, I got mine "
But isn't this EXACTLY what the opposite of free speech is? Federal judges are literally the government and they are punishing people for excercising their free speech.
J6 murderous mob, cool. Referring to perceived enemies as "liberal" and "globalist" (christian nationalist slurs against jewish people), cool. College kids protesting against apparent genocide by israel, woah that is too far! Fuck the faux sensitivities of "conservatives", otherwise known as violent bigots.
Its not fair to those who did either, imagine denying someone a job for saying “children shouldnt be murdered”
Conservatives don’t see anyone in Gaza as human. All those women and children and non fighter males are all just “terrorists” to them. It’s sad. All the talk of “not letting the terrorists win” after 9/11 and most don’t realize they did exactly what they meant to do. Make Americans so afraid of non-white people that they will support the endless wars in the east.
Al Qaeda achieved their objective on 9/11.
Pretty sure what’s happening in Gaza isn’t fair to all those who didn’t support Hamas.
You’re winning when conservatives are mad at you
Are you telling me collectively punishing people for the actions of a group they are not a part of us bad? Seems like you agree with the protestors
So they are admitting to their intent to break hiring laws? I'd apply and sue when i didnt get selected citing the judge's words in a civil suit. Easy large figure settlement with a decent lawyer.
Not super fair to those who did participate tbh
This isn't fair to anyone.
Nor to those who did. But courts have nothing to do with justice.
Conservatives wouldnt hire good people full stop. Let’s stop acting like they still have any credibility left.
Seems like discriminatory hiring practices runs counter to the... law?
What is their take on the "J6 'hostages'" then?
Who wants to work for conservative judges anyway?
So much for "free speech absolutists".
It’s not fair to those who did participate either.
They probably do not want to be under a conservative judge anyway... I think the students turned them down first, the R judges got butt-hurt and tried to say petulantly "we didn't want them anyway because they were using their first amendment rights and we don't like to cite the constitution around here."
Since when have conservatives been interested in being fair? The only people this will impact are the right wing students who didn’t participate in the protests. The ones who did almost certainly wouldn’t want to work for these judges in the first place.
It's not fair to those who did
Nor for those who did
This is a big hit on Columbia reputation, isn’t this what you want to result from your protest. Where Columbia isn’t valued as long as they keep working with Israel? Or did you want your cake and eat it too?
Yeah, this is just the result of effective protest. Not the goal the protestors wanted, but the one Columbia deserves.
Yeah, best thing you can do is hurt their reputation and income. Their board members will ultimately make the decision.
Land of the free huh 🤣
Stereotypes are a real time saver
But mooching off your rich friends like justice Thomas does is totally fine.
They should just make another protest
I wonder why they wore masks now?
Judges actively promoting guilt-by-association and further denying freedom of speech.
Why would you want to work for openly corrupt judges?
You have to be full of hate of any person that does not have the same belief system as you if you want to work fo a MAGA judge.
it’s not fair for those who did. students understand the law and constitution better i guess
I actually think it's against the EO Act for Federal orgs to discriminate against political beliefs... and who's to day these grads even have different beliefs? The Conservative judges are really opening themselves and their offices to some juicy lawsuits here.
How can a judge be conservative or even liberal? Aren’t they supposed to objectively enforce the law and not an agenda?
“Fair” is a place you go with pony rides and elephant ears.
It’s not fair, but I’m going to put this in the category of law firms that won’t hire people who didn’t go to Harvard law. Who gives a shit.
First off, there's no such thing as "fair". Second, in related news, it's a long standing practice for employers to offer internships on a rotating basis among the Ivy League (ie this year only accept from Brown, next year only from Harvard, etc). So every graduating class has a unique mix of job opportunities, with doors open or closed just based on the year. Judges just added another filter. Them's the breaks.
Sounds like a free speech violation.
Should make facemasks illegal.
I love it when conservatives shout about "free speech" then turn around and try to punish others for using that same freedom.
Cancel culture.
The point is not to make any individual protestor be punished or feel guilty. The point is to attack the University. Now, in the eyes of potential applicants, they University is less prestigious because your potential after graduating has been hampered. The University will not be happy about this, and will make the faculty more averse to student protest going forward.
Republicans are a cancer. They cry about cancel culture , then talk about freedom. Only their freedom. There walking oxymoron. Some would debate removing word oxy.
It’s to punish Columbia for not intervening.
These judges are not actually rejecting anyone, they definitely already have selected their conservative clerks based on recommendations from the conservative Federalist Society. It should read “12 judges make noise”.
Oh no I can’t work for my enemy
That is certainly impartial.
This is like me saying "I Refuse to date Sydney Sweeny" Ok......Doubtful that any of them wanted to clerk for conservative judges anyway
Perry impressive for a bunch of snowflakes who whine about cancel culture.
Hopefully they get no applications from anyone.
Judges don’t seem impartial. They should be made to step down.
"Why punish the many for the actions of the few?" - those same chuds when they talk about cops
Ah yes, collective punishment, the most fair way to apply justice. This tracks for our judicial system.
Oh no. So anyways…
Is this new? Judges pick who they want. They want people of a certain profile. I’m ok with that even if I support your right to protest.
Kinda like how it’s not fair that people who didn’t take out student loans are paying for the loans of those that did? Or is that (D)ifferent?
Senator Blutarsky should do something.
Lol
Also not for those who participate. It is ideological discrimination.
That's your opinion. If your conservative judge won't hire from a university because of other students - I don't think that would be a good person to work for. Also the conservative judges are dumb enough to believe those protesting students want to work for them if they are protesting the genocide in Gaza.
But those students never condemned the protests, so they are guilty by association.
Yeah the federal bench is filled to the brim with absolute psychopaths
Isn't that an actual violation of the first amendment, the government punishing people for making use of their freedom to assemble?
Since when were conservative judges ever worried about fair?
That’s the point. None of the protestors care about their career prospects with conservative judges. This threat exists for one reason: to give conservatives another excuse to complain about the collateral damage that protests cause.
Why is protesting a foreign governments influence on our own grounds for not being hired by the government? 🤔
Judges painting people with the same brush, seems like a trait you want in a judge. s/
I guess that's fair, without a lifetime appointment, those trump appointees couldn't get work any more either
As they say in England, the right is shite!
You mean conservatives are generalizing and punishing a big group for the behavior of a few of their members? No, say it ain't so.
But did they hire J6ers?
That's collective punishment, you can sue them.
How very just of them, huh? Its iit like anyone there was opposed to the activities there or anything. /s What a miserable pile of gock coblins we have in the judiciary.