#judicial impartiality

[alwaysbewoke]

the fix is in!!

[tomorrowusa]

Regardless of emoluments, Justice Alito has shown that he's the most fervent MAGA justice on the US Supreme Court. He now even beats out Justice Thomas.

Samuel Alito Can’t Even Lie Properly About That Upside-Down Flag

At the very least, Alito needs to recuse himself from all Trump-related court cases. Though frankly, he should be impeached.

Alito was appointed to SCOTUS by George W. Bush. Bush won the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped vote recounting in Florida as Democrat Al Gore was closing the gap with Bush. And we remember that Alito wrote the majority opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Think of Alito when you're tempted to waste a vote on an impotent third party candidate who has no chance of getting elected president and appointing Supreme Court justices.

[summerhighlandfalls]

And when will they write pop musicals about MY favorite niche American historical figures? I want a musical about Charles Evans Whittaker and Baker v Carr, Mr Miranda.

[julia-keleher]

The Importance of Impartial Juries

I hope most Americans don’t learn about the US Constitution, and its Amendments, the way I did. My crash course in understanding my rights as an American citizen began when I was indicted for the first time in July of 2019. For the next 30 months, I struggled to reconcile what I understood my rights to be and the oppressive machine that is America’s criminal justice system.

During pre-trial my attorneys put forth arguments about my right to free speech (1st Amendment), my right to privacy (4th Amendment), and my right to a trial by an impartial jury (6th Amendment).   All those arguments give rise to additional due process concerns (14th Amendment).

In order to protect my right to a trial by an impartial jury, my attorneys filed a Motion to Change Venue, or a request that the case be heard in another venue. According to the US Department of Justice, change of venue is warranted if it is in the “interest of justice” as long as the move does not unduly inconvenience witnesses who will be called to testify.  In our request to change venue, my attornys argued that, if the trial were held in Puerto Rico, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ensure my right to trial by an impartial jury.

Common Concern Concerns about the ability to seat an impartial jury are common in criminal and civil cases.  Ensuring juror impartiality is even more difficult in high profile cases.

Earlier this month, concerns about seating an impartial jury affected the high profile case of the State of New York v. the Trump Corporation. The New York Times reported both prosecution and the defense struggled to find jurors that did not have disqualifying opinions about Mr. Trump. Reasons for juror disqualification include personal history with any of the parties, personal knowledge relevant to the matter, and personal opinions that engender bias. Albeit for different reasons, both the prosecution and the defense desire jurors capable of objectively evaluating facts presented at trial.

The central issue playing out in jury selection:  the public’s perception of, and feelings toward, Donald Trump. The Times reported that one juror said: “Mr. Trump has no morals. He thinks only of himself. I think he’s a criminal. I think he’s done irreparable damage to this country.” By the end of the first day of juror screening, the court determined more than half of the 130 potential jurors were unable to serve.  The only reason the court could identify and dismiss these jurors: they were honest about their ability to be objective.

Jury Trials Are Important The Founding Fathers designed the jury trial to be fundamental to America’s system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the “check” of a jury trial is not working as intended.  Today, many criminal cases never make it to trial. The trial process has been replaced by plea bargaining and negotiated punishments.  Jury trials are disappearing, and with it, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans’ 6th Amendment protections.

Juries serve as a check on the power of government in several ways. First, they hold the power to convict.  Prosecutors can allege but they cannot render final determinations on citizens’ guilt or innocence. Second, juries engage in an independent assessment of the facts as presented by both sides. Jurors also conduct their own evaluation the parties’ actions in the context of individual rights and legal responsibilities. Finally, they determine if the government met its burden of proof. To convict, no juror can be left with a reasonable doubt.

Equally important to the jury’s role in protecting citizens’ from the unrestrained powers of government, juries also serve as the sole mechanism for ensuring prosecutorial accountability.  Because prosecutors have immunity, prosecutorial error is rarely addressed. Consequentially, there is no negative consequence for prosecutors who bring baseless cases or violate laws during investigations.  If not for juries, citizens would be subject to near tyranny at the hands of all powerful prosecutors. The pervasiveness of the problem is easily seen when data on claims of prosecutorial misconduct are aggregated.

The Duty of Serving on a Jury Despite serving these critical functions, not all Americans agree that serving on a jury is part of being a good citizen. A Pew Research study found that only two-thirds of Americans feel jury duty is a civic responsibility.  The other one-third of respondents said there was little connection between jury duty and good citizenship.

For some Americans, the first question they ask when they receive a jury summons is “How can I get out of it?”.  The most common justifications for not engaging in jury duty: financial inconvenience, disability or medical condition, religious obligation, or caregiver responsibilities. The court often excuses jurors for these reasons. But these justifications do not always apply to every person.  In those instances, data suggest some are willing to lie to get out of jury duty.

Potential jurors go through an initial screening to “qualify” for jury duty.  Attorneys conduct voir dire with the qualified jurors. This process is intended to identify individuals who are unlikely to be able to decide the case fairly. According to expert Jeffery Frederick,  voir dire evaluations of jurors should focus on jurors’ backgrounds, experiences, opinions, beliefs, and values. These five elements define the mental framework through which the juror will interpret the case.

Not surprisingly, there is little agreement about what constitutes an “impartial jury”.  In addition to the five elements Frederick highlights, unconscious bias��and privilege can also influence jurors objectivity. To further complicate matters, some experts assert  that inherent bias and the media’s ability to shape public opinion make it impossible to for people to really be objective.

Difficulties of Creating an Impartial Jury The consequences of not seating an impartial jury are significant. First, they may lead to an erroneous conviction and send an innocent person to prison. Unfortunately, this happens all too often. The National Registry of Exonerations includes thousands of individuals who were convicted but later proven innocent.

Convicted defendants can appeal their convictions based on partiality of the jury but success rates are mixed.  In Washington state, a convicted defendant appealed his guilty verdict but the appeals court rejected his assertions. The Appeals Court found that the defendant was “not deprived of her right to an impartial jury even [though] the court’s failed to excuse a juror who may have known the testifying victim”.   Appeals based on allegations that jurors’ racial bias led to an unjustified guilty verdict have been more successful.  In 2016 the Supreme Court held that the trial court must protect defendants from juries that include individuals who rely on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant.

Why Does it Matter Strengthening America’s system of jury trials is one way to protect citizens, restrain the power of the prosecutor, and increase citizens confidence in America’s criminal justice system.

Ensuring Americans have a criminal justice system that they can believe in requires greater understanding of the importance of the jury system, the important roles jurors play and the dangers inherent in failing to safeguard citizens’ right to a trial by an impartial jury.

[studylaws]

Article 121 of the Indian Constitution: Restrictions on Discussion in Parliament

The Indian Constitution is a comprehensive document that lays down the fundamental principles and framework for governance in the country. Among its many provisions, Article 121 addresses the restrictions on the discussion of certain matters in the Parliament. This article focuses on a specific aspect of Article 121, which pertains to the discussion regarding the conduct of judges in the…

[liberalsarecool]

Clarence Thomas categorically destroys judicial impartiality. A society can't function with this conservative orchestrated corruption.

[i-was-today-years-old-when]

i learned what is the most bizarre government in world history?

A bit strange that no one speaks of Italian city-states here.

I think they tried just every conceivable form of government. I will tell a bit about my dearest Florentine Republic.

In 13th century, Italian city-states witnessed an intense fight between pro-Emperor and pro-Pope factions. Most nobles were pro-Emperor. Florence was one of the places where they lost the battle, which led to the establishment of democracy.

Of course, this democracy was very different from what we call democracy today. Modern Western countries are representative democracies where people only vote in the elections and countries are governed by professional politicians. A medieval Italian would call such system aristocratic.

Of course, Florentine democracy was also exclusive. Wage labourers, people in debt and women were excluded. But all others could directly participate in government of their country: 5,000–8,000 people out of 25,000–50,000 adult citizens.

Political parties were forbidden (actually, the word party was invented as a slur, something that people do not remember now). Elections were seen as aristocratic mechanism because the rich and the educated would be capable to convince or bribe others to vote for them. So the main mechanism of democracy was casting lots.

Florence was subdivided into four quarters, sixteen neighborhoods and twenty-one corporations (seven major ones representing rich citizens and fourteen minor ones representing poor citizens): every citizen was a member of one of those. Initially, corporations had something to do with profession. Nobles renounced their nobility and joined corporations to be able to participate in the government. For instance, nobleman Dante Alighieri entered the corporation of Doctors and Apothecaries, and the ancestors of Niccolo Machiavelli registered in the corporation of Winemakers.

The main government body was Signoria. It consisted of eight Priors (two representing every quarter, six representing major corporations and two representing minor corporations) and one Gonfalonier of Justice, the chairman. They ruled the city during the period of two months only and then replaced by others. Signoria was the main legislative and executive authority. However, it could take major decisions only in common with other bodies such as Twelve Good Men (three persons from every quarter, mostly rich people) and Sixteen Gonfaloniers (one from every neighbourhood). These three bodies (Signoria, Twelve Good Men and Sixteen Gonfaloniers) were all chosen by lot: notes with their names were chosen from special leather bags preserved in the sacristy of the Santa Croce cathedral.

The laws were approved by the Council of the Commune (192 people, 48 from every quarter, majority rich) and the Council of the People (160 people, 10 from every neighbourhood, majority poor).

There was an enormous quantity of other governing bodies that regulated everything that needed to be regulated in the Republic, from quality checks of the bread to the licensing of the sex workers. In most cases, people served from three to six months. It meant that every full-fledged male citizen of the Florentine Republic could hope to be chosen for one of these positions.

The judicial and military power belonged to the podestà, a foreign citizen with good reputation, legal education and a military company or at least a group of armed servants. Florentines believed that a foreigner would be a more impartial judge in Florentine discussions. A podestà was invited to Florence for six months.

Finally, the Medici family managed to circumvent the system and become rulers of Florence but it took time. The system of checks and balances did work.

However, no one was able to circumvent the government system of Venetian Republic. Do you know why?

For more than five centuries (from 1268 to 1797) the procedure to elect the doge (chief of state) did not change.

Choose 30 members of the Great Council by lot.

These 30 people are reduced by lot to 9.

These 9 people choose 40 other people.

These 40 are reduced by lot to 12.

These 12 people choose 25 other people.

These 25 people are reduced by lot to 9.

These 9 people choose 45 other people.

These 45 people are reduced by lot to 11.

These 11 people choose 41 other people.

These 41 people elect the doge.

Funny that many Americans blame their electoral system for being complicated. You may think what you want about the Venetian system but it guaranteed what was probably the most stable government in the history of mankind.

By the way, despite the fact he was elected for life, the power of the chief of state in Venice was very much limited.

He could not appear in public without other officials present (security from populism). He could not meet foreign diplomats or open foreign dispatches without other officials present (security from collusion with foreign governments). He could not possess any property in a foreign land.

However, he had a nice place to live.

[todaysdocument]

Indictment for Sedition

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Criminal Case FilesFile Unit: United States versus Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahustock, #6 October Session 1799

In the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Pennsylvania district of the Middle Circuit

The Grand Inquest of the United States of America for the Pennsylvania District upon their respective oaths and affirmations do present that Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahnestock late of the same district Yeoman being ill disposed persons designing and intending to vilify and defame the government of the United States and the administration of justice therein and to cause it to be believed that the Judicial Courts of the said United States was actuated by unlawful motives and not by the duty imposed on them by the Constitution of the United States aforesaid and thereby to weaken and diminish the authority of the said court and excite opposition against the same on the twenty first day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine at the County of Dauphin in the District aforesaid wickedly and maliciously did print and publish and cause to be printed and published in a certain newspaper then and there in the German language and called Unpartheyische Harrisburg Zeitung which German words signify The Impartial Harrisburg Newspaper the false scandalous contemptuous and malicious words matters and things following that is to say Capt. John Fries Die Constitution der Vereinigten Staaten sagt Hochverrath soll nur darein bestehen wenn man krieg gegen dieselben erklaret oder ihren feinden anhanget und sie [complete document and transcription at link]

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." (Article III, Section 1) [emphasis added]

Alexander Hamilton would be outraged to know that the current Supreme Court justices assume the Constitution gives them lifetime appointments — regardless of their behavior. He wouldn’t understand how any justice could overlook Article III, Section I that states that judges and justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

In the above commentary, Jack Jordan makes an excellent case that the Founders' intentions regarding the tenure of federal justices and judges has been grossly misinterpreted--and by justices who claim to be "originalists." Below are some excerpts:

A favorite falsehood by fake originalists (including those on SCOTUS) is that federal judges have “life tenure” or “lifetime appointments” (essentially the right to employment for life). Nothing explicitly or implicitly in our Constitution supports that myth. Often, so-called originalists who assert such falsehoods are lying to us about our Constitution.  [...] Our Constitution (Article III) strongly and clearly emphasized that all federal “Judges,” i.e., “of the supreme [court] and [all] inferior Courts shall” (and may) “hold their Offices” only “during good Behaviour.” This particular principle was discussed repeatedly and in multiple respects during the debates over whether the people should ratify our Constitution. Such discussions are evidence of what the people actually did ratify. Such discussions are evidence of what the people (including Federalists and Antifederalists) understood our Constitution meant. Some of the most obvious and emphatic statements were by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78. Hamilton emphasized that some state “constitutions” already “established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices” and our Constitution “would have been inexcusably defective, if it had [failed to include] this important feature of good government.” “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy” was carefully (and repeatedly) chosen to be “one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.” [color/ emphasis added]

______________ Alexander Hamilton image was AI generated by Shutterstock.

[See more excerpts below the cut.]

[...] Hamilton also emphasized that judges are “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people.” We the People used our Constitution (Article III) to impose the “standard of good behavior” on judges as an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [all our] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by all our public servants. [...] Repeatedly, Hamilton and James Madison emphasized similar principles. Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.”  The Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton).  Having “courts composed of judges holding their offices” only “during good behavior” is a “powerful means” for ensuring “the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.”  The Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton).  “The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.”  The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison).  Only “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”  The Federalist No. 79 (Hamilton). In The Federalist No. 81 (Hamilton) also addressed a particular form of bad judicial behavior that is remarkably common among some SCOTUS justices: “judges” committing “deliberate usurpations” of “authority” that was not delegated to them by our Constitution. Hamilton also emphasized “the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments” (by the House of Representatives) “and of determining upon them” (in a trial by the Senate) “would give to” Congress as “the means of punishing [the] presumption” of judges usurping powers that the Constitution did not give judges or courts (or to Congress, which creates all federal courts below SCOTUS). [color/ emphasis added]

So the Founders expected federal judges and justices who were not showing "good behavior" to be removed.

This also suggests that they would have expected the Supreme Court to develop a code of ethics that had actual teeth, in addition to the institutional check against bad judicial behavior that they put in place by allowing Congress to impeach corrupt justices.

Unfortunately, the Founders didn't expect that in the future one party in Congress (the Republicans) would be so corrupt that there is no way they would ever impeach the equally corrupt right-wing "politicians in robes" on the current Supreme Court.

Still, anytime a justice asserts that they have tenure for life in an interview, the interviewer might want to remind them about that "good behavior" stipulation in Article III, and ask them how they are making sure they are fulfilling that requirement for their continued tenure.

[spunkykirby]

Uhm...I found another potential flaw mihoyo needs to confront about Neuvillette and his Archon Trials:

...how exactly is he playing both the Plaintiff and the Judge???

This "legal" case would present several significant flaws:

1. Conflict of Interest. Neuvillette would be responsible for both presenting their case and making decisions on the outcome, creating a clear conflict of interest. The archons don't even need to point this out, the jury would be questioning this from the get go (especially when Neuvi has never acted as both before, nor has anyone in all of fontaine's history).

2. Bias: It's likely that Neuvi would be biased in favor of his own interests (he's the one who enforced the "come to trial or there's Violence™ in the first place anyway), leading to potential unfair rulings and potentially denying the opposing party a fair trial.

3. Violation of Due Process: The principles of due process, which ensure fair treatment and impartiality in legal proceedings, would be compromised if one person held BOTH roles. I understand the PO did this but Neuvillette is not the PO and touts a lot about being impartial and true Fairness. He is not embodying that if he projects his grievances with only the PO onto the people who aren't the PO nor did they do the PO's exact crime.

4. Loss of Confidence in the Legal System. Such a setup would undermine public trust and confidence in the legal system, as it goes against fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Once again, highly doubt it has ever happened in all of Fontaine's history.

This scenario would likely be considered a severe violation of judicial ethics. It would be called a conflict of interest, where the individual holding both roles has a personal stake in the outcome of the case (Justice for Dragons™ but then again it's NOT against their actual Perpetrator™ which is THE PO), compromising the integrity of the legal process.

SOLUTION(S):

1. Get someone else to act as the Judge. Would be hilarious for it to be Furina. She'd be familiar with the court and no longer needs to speak in bias since she's not masquerading as the Archon. Additionally she has experience/understanding from both sides. Main issue of course being: topic of gods is an anxiety inducing thing for her...though this time it has nothing to do with her.

2. Someone else to act as the Plaintiff. This is iffy. It'd have to be a person with extensive knowledge on the old world and/or Teyvat's true history while being in agreement with Neuvillette. But this would also potentially spark the conflict of interest thing again, cause they could be said to be put there as an agent for Neuvillette/a slimy way for Neuvi to act in both positions.

They may be archons, but they're far from being fools. They have leagues of experience dealing with these situations; they're not walking into one that's obviously drenched in bias against them and they serve to gain nothing from it (well, nothing but harm/death and potentially affecting their denizens).

Two ways to dodge that would be to put either Furina or maybe some Natlantean on stand.

[wilwheaton]

Under binding 11th Circuit precedents a case should be reassigned to a different judge if, among other reasons, the original judge would have “difficulty” setting aside her previous views and findings and reassignment would not result in a waste of judicial resources. Those factors clearly weigh in favor of reassignment here, due to the difficulties that Judge Cannon will likely face in diverging from her previous unorthodox and wrongful rulings benefiting Trump. This is the path that appears most likely to be pursued if Judge Cannon is to be removed, because her approach thus far suggests that it unlikely that the judge will recuse herself. DOJ might choose to make the case in a recusal motion that it would be better for her and everyone concerned if she stepped aside. In just about any other high-profile criminal case, if a trial judge were to err in the direction of excessive leniency favoring a criminal defendant in a preliminary hearing and were reversed on appeal, law-and-order conservatives would be the first to say that trial judge had a conflict and should be removed. That judge’s reputation would be on trial. Impartiality would be too dubious. The same is true here.

Trump indictment: How to force Judge Aileen Cannon off the case.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Access Now condemns the suspension of X in Brazil

On August 30, 2024, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the suspension of X, following a months-long legal confrontation. The conflict began in April when the court mandated the suspension of several X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation and attacking democracy. X’s failure to comply with this order led to the court imposing fines and threatening to imprison company representatives in the country. In response to these measures, the company decided not to pay the fines and instead closed their offices in the country which eventually resulted in the suspension of the entire platform in Brazil. On September 2, First Chamber Justices unanimously endorsed Moraes’ ruling. We note that the text of the proceedings remain sealed and more information is needed for a comprehensive analysis.

Access Now opposes the suspension of X in Brazil and is concerned by the growing trend of blocking of entire online platforms and applications as a response to systemic non-compliance. Such extreme actions are rarely proportionate as they violate people’s fundamental human rights and negatively impact the most marginalized communities instead of ensuring meaningful accountability from the platforms and mitigating their negative impact on human rights.

The recent block on X—formerly Twitter —in Brazil is a clear example of this trend, where approximately 22 million users are caught in the crossfire of platforms and judicial decisions. Moreover, the platform has had a big influence on political affairs and information sharing in Brazil. Blocking a platform does not solve the underlying issues of disinformation and hate speech. Instead, it limits access to information and stifles free expression, broadly, and in particular here, will have major implications for democracy as Brazil prepares to hold local elections in October.

International human rights law considers blocking online platforms a last resort measure if backed by significant procedural safeguards. They include providing advance notification of the blocking measures to affected parties and conducting an impact assessment of the measures to avoid their arbitrary or excessive effects. In addition, a blocking order has to be issued by an independent and impartial judicial body, and the legal basis for ordering platforms’ blocking must, among other things, be clear and predictable. 

Continue reading.

[ms-scarletwings]

On Defective Irkens

“It is theorized that Tak may also be an Irken defect because-“

“Say guys do you think Skoodge is defective? He did a thing he wasn’t told to do once do you suppose-“

“Service Drone Bob's contempt for the Tallest is extremely abnormal, even for most defective Irkens…”

“Hints of the comms officer being a defective are seen when-“

Ohhh mauling the fan wiki writers grr biting biting thrashing and then turning around to the rest of you before I’m done, you bet, for I have sat and listened for over 12 years of leaps and speculations of this sort and now I’m now one of the ones who gets to have what the cool kids these days call a hot take on the matter.

By the end of this I’M going to bring up and expose who I actually think may be the only other defective Irken(s) in the show besides Zim, whom I’m aghast I haven’t seen anyone suggest before.

But before anything else, I want to front one preassumption center and loud.

It took me a long time to guess at why very few people can ever seem to get on the same page of what it actually means to call an Irken defective. Implicitly, the bulk of what we are given is that something can be wrong with a member of this species, and Zim is our prime and singular clear example of that. So there’s a ton of trying to find patterns between Zim’s behavior and that of other Irken characters. Weirdly (to me), a lot of people have, in their efforts, chalked the status up to a sense of rebelliousness or insubordination- a defectiveness in the manner of D&D illithids, stomping out disloyal break-aways from the collective hive mind with punitive wrath. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a cool concept, and it’s definitely closer to my opinion at least than the comparisons to real life mental disorders or disabilities. Not knocking the comfort or the enthusiasm, obviously.

From my view of the canon, I hope it’s at least apparent to other fans that “defective” isn’t some empirical measurement or status to Irkens. Look at the way they determine the defects from normal society. IRL, if I have a faulty device on my hands, there’s some way out there to tell me in a clear cut fashion if there’s a problem and what exactly it is. If it’s code, it can be scanned and debugged. If it’s mechanical, something can be seen, fixed physically. Most organic health problems are only different in the complexity of the matter, but the entire purpose of medical research is to come close as we can to bridging that gap. In Irk’s people, that line is rapidly becoming one long smear of wet chalk. I’m going on like this because if defective paks were akin to hardware actually being damaged, as Purple had put it, it doesn’t make as much sense that they are neither “fixed” nor given real, concrete diagnostics. The only way we know of that the aliens are tested in a since on this merit is by existence evaluations. And existence evaluations are anything but empirical, impartial events. They’re worlds more political and cultural than clinical.

Digest the terms we keep seeing all around the concept: Innocent, justice, trial/evaluation, Judgementia, these are terms of judicial courts and moral weight and sentencing. In effective practice,

Irk labels defects by what one does, not by what one is.

Yet, defection is presented as if that’s not the case, and there are reasons for that. Reasons that reinforce the current power structures and promote what its leadership has decided is healthy for the broader society. When Zim was merely re-encoded from invader status to food service work, it was a more secluded evaluation, presumably done on Irk. His only seen witnesses then were the Tallests and the single control brain dishing the judgement. His existence evaluation, on the other hand, rings more similarly to the IRL historical practice of literal “show trials”. Show trials were something that existed way less for the actual crimes of the accused and so much more for their audience, which, show trials are always for an audience. Three main points about them off the Wikipedia cuff:

• Typically, the defendant of such has already been determined to be guilty (oftentimes of completely fabricated transgressions), and the trial serves mostly to make a massive public spectacle and warning of the accused.

• They tend to focus on retributive punishment over correction. The disproportional brutality and lack of mercy is often the point.

• Their goals are propagandistic in nature, and there’s many notable examples to be found in the history of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and in witch trials across the world (because it was never just Salem).

A formality? Well, that much they couldn’t have more brazenly admitted to. Retribution? There’s hardly a more absolute punitive sentence I could craft up over obliteration PLUS Damnatio Memoariae. And as for the degree of spectacle, I will let you make your own observation here.

Believe it or not, the part where my comparisons along this line end with Existence Evaluations is that their standard for taking place isn’t actually this cartoonishly oppressive one that some fans try to make it out to be. In “The Trial”, Zim was not having his data read for some binary is/is not determination… he was having his experiences and actions interpreted by how much damage he has done against the Armada. He said it himself, that hotseat is reserved for criminals. Likely outright traitors and maniacs. Those who have given cause to alert the brains to a genuine existential threat to their civilization and who have repeatedly failed every opportunity given to redeem themselves.

Defective doesn’t just mean “different” to Irk. We’ve hardly seen an exploration of what the median Irken example even is, because the more we see of any one of these characters, the more they show us their eccentric uniqueness and will. Yes, Irkens are authoritarian; yes they’re over-militarized; yes, they’re a supremacist breed aligned under one ruling military… but listen, they are not literally The Borg, or illithids.

The biggest victims of this government itself are those races it colonizes. Average civilians on the other hand, they get to largely enjoy all the vices and pains and indulgences of hyper-space-capitalism. The height-ocracy may limit their opportunities, but even the lowest drones among them are supposedly hired into their positions in return for wages. Irkens are pretty selfish, but in a rugged individualism sense. It’s a dystopia of atomization instead of collectivization. If everyone had agreed that “defective” had anything to do with arrogance, free will, or an ability to feel one’s sense of self worth, no one would ever be pointing to Skoodge as a possible example. That guy’s the poster boy for what it means to be a “tool” in the derogatory sense. I’m not forgetting that he technically never even left his job. He was fired and more or less forced into hiding, and he’s still not even that perturbed over the whole thing.

Moreover, it also takes some extreme acts of harm to justify such a trial. Real harm- not rebellious attitude or even disrespect to authority. The control brains and the tallests alone get to define that threshold, and neither Tak’s/Zim’s insubordination nor Bob’s audacity concerned them enough for a ticket to Judgementia. In fact, they really don’t seem that bothered at all by deserters and those that abandon their encoded function. Tak is likely to be merely the responsibility of her janitorial squadron, the same way that enforcing Zim’s banishment was the responsibility of his Frylord. Because Irk actually does have standards of justice and layers of bureaucracy to work within when it comes to dealing with true malice. Small fry problems are for the lower rungs of the ladder to handle, until they become a higher priority by necessity. Incompetency alone isn’t a crime, either. The go-to punishment for failure in one function is demotion to a lower position. These are the only Irkens formally not allowed to change jobs, making what they do a kind of communal service or forced labor sentencing. Remember how Tak’s motivation for leaving Dirt wasn’t solely dissatisfaction with the grunt labor? Remember how she kept justifying her actions by the logic of fairness and setting things right? Not to mention how she fully made the Tallest aware of what she was up to and how her plan was well crafted enough to probably work out exactly like she wanted. Tak is utterly as loyal to the empire and competent as any invader. She was genuinely just dealt a shitty hand, and her response to it is at least understandable.

She even went to great lengths to identify and specifically target Zim and to use a planet that otherwise had less than no value to the armada’s operations. She is a great foil to Zim, but I can’t see how she’s any bit defective, only full of rage that she was screwed over by the actions of a real disgrace to their species. Genuinely destructive cases like Zim are an incredible rarity. Such a rarity that I can only guess it took this long for him to go to Judgementia because his degree of dysfunction outright baffles the system. It also would appear that it’s an event of such significance that it can only be set into motion by the command of the ruling Tallest. By murdering a couple of them, and then being a clown show for a couple more, he inadvertently bought himself some time.

And the crazy thing to remember here is that Zim doesn’t even understand that his actions are an existential threat to the Empire- that he IS a whole supervillain to his planet. This is how effective Irken programming and the education plugs are. They’re supposed to do 99% of the work of setting up the population, even the lowest drones, for not turning out like traitors to their kin in the first place. ALL of them grew up on a steady diet of the same drip-fed propaganda and essentialist ideology as their most militant soldiers. So I can see the logic behind the conclusion that the only explanation for criminals in their society must be outright brain damage or corrupted data… and I’m not gonna lie I do openly headcanon that the latter case is exactly what happened to bad egg Zim.

The limits of only having the one example in him notwithstanding, I’m anything but against theorizing about who else could be “worthy” in the Irken sense to also stand before those brains, playing sweaty advocate for the worth of their continued existence and all. I just don’t see it in Bob, or the Comms officer, or any other invader. Tak, there may be some hypothetical ramp to that end, in her future, but as things are right now, I only see a candidate that has become comfortable right in the control brains’ biggest blind spot of all. See, eggs don’t always have to crack in order to go bad. Sometimes, maybe they just spoil. Sometimes, I believe just the right conditions and time can turn them downright rotten.

Dramatic musical flourish, please.

I forget whoever said the quote “Power doesn’t corrupt, It just exposes who people really are”, but I’m a huge fan of the fact that they did. In my opinion, it’s less about power itself and more about a complete lack of accountability that allows the weakest and most toxic seeds to really fester in a seat of authority. Indeed, we all know that there is something pathetic, and vapid, and cruel floating around The Massive’s bridge. I am saying I’d call Red defective, but I couldn’t be certain enough with myself to say that Purple’s largely the one carrying a lot of fault. His greatest sin is his negligence and enabling his companion. whoever we can say shoulders more of the blame, they have been running this horror show as a joint unit, so they will both bear the guilt. Without a doubt, these two are terrible- popular maybe, but terrible leaders. Like, more responsible for the near ruin of their home world and species than I can even pin on Zim at this point. By almost every measure once you hold them up to Miyuki’s and Spork’s barely few moments of would-be screen time, they’re the worst Tallests for the Empire we’ve ever known. It’s too bad that they have no one over them we know of to flag them for an existence evaluation, because I am assured that the real orchestrators of the Armada would be disgusted to look over their track records since they took power.

I mean, what can I remember just off the top of my head?

- Full awareness of Zim’s blackout-causing history before the beginning of Operation Impending Doom I and not keeping a close eye on him, removing him from his position, or keeping him away from the homeworld’s WoMDs

- Overseeing the shipment of faulty equipment to Invader Tenn (even if the packages had not been switched, the Megadoomer still had a potentially fatal flaw), and then presumably NOT giving her urgent guidance/assistance to avoid being captured by native hostiles

- Showing an egregious amount of immaturity and frivolity when making logistical decisions, such as the flight path of the Armada or how conquered planets are utilized

- Repeated abuses of their standing, trying to extra-judicially get rid of subjects over the pettiest reasons (if they had the formal authority to just vaporize Skoodge, Bob, OR Zim on the spot, they wouldn’t need to come up with convoluted and indirect methods that they only hope kill said targets)

- Upon Zim returning to them from his banishment: not sending him back to Foodcourtia and not refusing to humor his wishes to larp as an invader

- Oh yeah, also granting Zim at least some invader tech and allowing him to leave Conventia in what I assume is a ship he could have only stolen

- Still not dealing with Zim with extreme prejudice in a timely fashion after the events of Backseat Drivers from Beyond the stars, or investigating enough to find out and deal with prisoner 777

- HAVING WAITED THROUGH ALL OF THE ABOVE BEFORE SENDING FOR ZIM��S EXISTENCE EVALUATION

- Spending the bulk of their reign so far dicking around in space and gorging themselves. Seriously, Red showed us one act of proactive competence… and it was in order to fix a mess that they allowed Zim to get them into. Not to mention, the Resisty got away from that scrap after thoroughly humiliating their flagship.

Red, and by extension, Purple, are the almighty, Tallest threats to the entire Irken project of galactic conquest, as much as Zim would have loved all the credit in the universe. By what they’ve done, and who they are. He might be damaged, but them? There’s some defective moral character if I’ve ever seen.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Perez at Rolling Stone:

EARLIER THIS WEEK, two Democratic senators announced they have requested a criminal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — regarding, in part, a loan for a luxury RV provided by a longtime executive at UnitedHealth Group, one of America’s largest health insurers. Thomas apparently recused himself in at least two cases involving UnitedHealth when the loan was active, according to a Rolling Stone review. Yet, he separately chose to participate in another health insurance case and authored the court’s unanimous opinion in 2004. The ruling broadly benefited the industry — shielding employer-sponsored health insurers from damages if they refuse to cover certain services and patients are harmed. Thomas’ advice to patients facing such denials? Pull out your checkbook.

While UnitedHealth was not a party to the case, the company belonged to two trade associations that filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to side with the insurers.  “As we saw so starkly this term, Supreme Court decisions can have sweeping collateral implications: If the court rules in favor of one insurance giant, for instance, it tends to be a boon for all the other insurance giants, too,” says Alex Aronson, executive director at the judicial reform group Court Accountability. “That was the case here, and it’s a perfect example of why justices shouldn’t accept gifts — especially secret ones — from industry titans whose interests are implicated, whether directly or indirectly, by their rulings.” The public had no way of knowing about Thomas’ RV loan at the time of the decision: The loan was only exposed by The New York Times last year. Senate Democrats investigating Thomas believe that much or all of the loan, for a $267,230 motor coach, was ultimately forgiven. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) recently requested the Justice Department investigate whether Thomas reported the forgiven portion of the loan on his tax filings, after he failed to disclose it in ethics forms.

Meanwhile, Thomas’ health insurance opinion has had wide-ranging, long-lasting ramifications, according to Mark DeBofsky, an employee benefits lawyer and former law professor.  “It hasn’t been rectified. The repercussions continue,” DeBofsky tells Rolling Stone. “People who are in dire need of specific medical care, and [their] insurance company turns around and says, ‘That care is not medically necessary,’ and there’s an adverse outcome as a result of the denial of the treatment, or hospitalization, or service — there’s no recompense for what could have been an unnecessary death or serious injury.” Since last year, the Supreme Court has faced an unprecedented ethics crisis, with much of the focus aimed squarely at Thomas. ProPublica reported that Thomas received and failed to disclose two decades worth of luxury gifts from a conservative billionaire, Harlan Crow, who allegedly provided free private jet and superyacht trips to Thomas and his wife; bought a house from Thomas and allowed the justice’s elderly mother to live there for free; and paid for at least two years of boarding school tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew.

[...] Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves in any case where their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The justices decide for themselves when such a move is necessary — and when they do withdraw from a case, they rarely say why. Thomas does not appear to have explained his decision to withdraw from the two matters that directly involved UnitedHealth. Thomas did not take similar steps in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, a case that broadly affected the health insurance industry. He instead authored the court’s opinion, which expanded insurers’ favorite tool for limiting liability: ERISA. Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA, in 1974 to protect employee benefits. The law is relatively vague when it comes to “welfare benefits,” and contains a broad preemption clause. The courts have filled in the blanks — including in the Aetna Health case — with distressing results for patients. Half of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance coverage; nearly all of these plans are governed by ERISA.

Rolling Stone exposes how SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas received a $267K RV from a health insurance executive.

[redxluna]

"As Nurbanu lay dying, the sultan loudly lamented that he would be an orphan. Nurbanu's final advice to Murad, was, in the words of the ambassador Morosini, 'the most judicious and prudent caution as regards this government could have come from a good, intelligent, and consummate statesman.' Nurbanu urged her son to be particularly heedful of three matters: ensuring that swifter and more impartial justice be rendered to his subjects, restraining his natural avidity for gold and money, and above all keeping watch on the conduct of his son."—The Imperial Harem, by Leslie Peirce

[doggendoodle]

. hold on is Rita being nonbinary related to them being an impartial judge. did. did they sacrifice their fucking gender to the judicial system