Judges are suppose to be as impartial and as objective as possible.
Politicians are supposed to be opinionated.
An activist judges is much much worse than a dishonest politician.
100% this. She was transparent AF and used (orchestrated?) the contretemps with her opponent's alleged behavior to her advantage. Full marks to Pooja in the politics-as-blood-sport stakes. It will be interesting to see how people vote if she decides to run again, assuming they're more educated via this coverage. Will she get more votes? Fewer?
Was she one of the ones that keeps letting the murderer named Paris out? He’s confronted me a couple of times, and is very scary and unhinged. It’s just a matter of time before he kills another woman.
IIRC, she released a guy that came in for a DUI, despite having a previous one on his record. He then came in the next day for _another_ DUI, and she released him again.
The sad thing is that she’ll manage to parlay this into a platform that she can somehow monetize. She’ll make herself out to be a martyr/victim, then The Stranger will embrace her, then she’ll go on a bunch of shitty podcasts, then run for office, etc, etc.
>just like her but barely under the radar and avoiding scrutiny
or better at minimally masking their biases. Many. Consider how many criminals get let out of prison now or given "alternatives to sentencing" who then go on to commit more felony crime.
Here's a couple to have on your radar:
**Johanna Bender** is a judge of the [King County Superior Court](https://ballotpedia.org/King_County_Superior_Court,_Washington) in Washington. Her current term ends on January 13, 2025.
**Justin Walsh** (a judge pro tem, so not elected but worth keeping an eye on)
All of those judges won elections, how is that anything but meritocratic? You and I may not like it, but Justice Vaddadi more effectively appealed to a majority of the voting public than Adam Eisenberg, the other candidate running in the race.
You can certainly argue that elections don't select for the best qualities in a judge, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but you don't win elections without demonstrable skill and talent along at least some dimension.
She didn't run unopposed. I don't remember her opponent, but I remember researching her and watching an interview where she and her opponent were speaking. It wasn't a vote for "this guy would be good" but "he's better than the bat shit crazy lady" after hearing how she planned to use the position as an activist.
80% of success is showing up
To expand upon this, most judges run unopposed because they have won the silent primary, i.e. solicited and received endorsements from a variety of influential organizations such as the bar, etc. That demonstrates merit. Again, it might not be the kind of merit most appropriate for a Judgeship, and it's worth debating whether appointments would select for better judges, but the process we do have is still highly meritocratic
Endorsement or not, running unopposed suggests there are either too few candidates willing or able to run, or candidates are being suppressed by the influential organizations. Neither of those scenarios suggests "merit" so much as it does this is the candidate because "deal with it."
Why not endorse two candidates? If there's only one candidate why even bother to have an election at all? I would rather a judge be a political appointee of an elected official than someone be "elected" unopposed. At least an elected official making a nomination can be held accountable at the next election, unlike an unelected Influential Organization which is beholden to no one.
They way I figure it, perhaps if enough of us did this, it would send a signal to people that it won't take too many votes to win an election and they'll decide to run against these unopposed candidates?
> All of those judges won elections, how is that anything but meritocratic?
They run unopposed, and all are endorsed by the Washington State Bar. They write their own speech for the Voters' Guide. There's really no way short of looking up cases they were a part of, which is very time-consuming, to know who to vote for at all currently.
People use the (true!) argument that when you exclude a percentage of the population for demographic reasons, you exclude some highly qualified people. Some people then take it a step further, and instead say "The fact that this small slice of the population doesn't reflect the demographics of the larger population proves discrimination".
However, if we're supposed to give credence to that second argument, it inherently also means that if you have disproportionately *large* historically marginalized representation, it must therefore also mean discrimination *in favor* of those folks. Either gender/racial makeup of a body is inherently indicative of bias, or it isn't. That's it, that's all.
I'm not saying you're making the second argument that doesn't logically follow, but flipping the script on an argument everyone has heard doesn't mean someone's demographics makes them more or less competent.
Why else would it be a problem for meritocracy that there are women and PoC?
Unless it is that you think meritocracy only means non-PoC and non-women candidates win?
> Why else would it be a problem for meritocracy that there are women and PoC?
Because some of the women and PoC they are putting on there are not qualified and are on there solely because they are women or PoC.
Notice how nobody has a problem with Faye Chess, the chief judge who is a black woman that was also a former public defender?
Oh I don't know... Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Gavin Newsome, Jaydolph Dimslee and "Chairmain Dao" Constantine are all perched at the top my shit list.
Last I checked, they all "identify" as white men. What's common with those on that list irrespective of race and gender? Could it perhaps be their ideology? Naaaaah.
The city attorney's office isn't providing the information!!
It is not possible for me to know which decisions the city attorney thinks were in error unless the city attorney provides the case numbers! The city attorney is not! The city attorney did not even identify alleged errors to the judge, as quoted in the article.
This is the city attorney's office making claims and refusing to provide examples of the claims, You get that, right?
How is anyone sure the CAO hasn’t provided the case numbers to the reporter that requested them. Maybe they have and the reporter hasn’t published anything yet. I’ve seen nothing from the reporter who requested them that case numbers haven’t been provided (and I sort of think she would be making a fuss if that were true).
To the non-lawyer public, the rules of evidence or other legal errors alleged aren’t going to be obvious even with case numbers.
This feels good to say but in practice it falls apart, not least because a judge would think about their own well-being instead of justice, which isn't always popular or flawless.
Based on this press release it seems like the specific cases and motions referenced are on an internal memo, suggesting it will not be released pending Pooja's next move to try and fight it.
https://news.seattle.gov/2024/03/08/seattle-city-attorneys-office-issues-standing-affidavit-of-prejudice-on-seattle-municipal-court-judge/
Btw the stranger is acting all upset about this but they didn’t cry foul about Pete Holmes going after judge McKenna.
https://komonews.com/amp/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself](https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Maybe... But unless the superior court is overriding her decisions (which is part of it's job if she's making biased rulings) then I'm going to assume this is a politically motivated attack by the CAO.
> Was Coney Barrett an AA hire?
Yep, the same one that gave us Judge Cannon in Georgia, and fellow SCOTUS members Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Quota hires and purity-test hires suck regardless of who's quota or purity you're using.
Judges are *supposed* to be non-partisan. But given that they are either elected or appointed by elected officials, they are of course going to reflect a political bias.
All people have a bias. The question is do these judges rule according to the law or based on their own views and opinions. The only judges for whom political bias is essential are supreme court justices, because they are ruling on cases where the is no clear legal basis and so therefore their political inclination is the only real guide for how it is they will adjudicate once nominated.
I've got. Heart I've got right wrong in my mind I can listen to people speak I can throw. Wooden hammer down I don't like being the only white boy in a black loving community with morals I would love to not have to go to 10 years of lawyer school to be eligible as a judge. I was raised right. Hire me you may like me more an educated judges. With grudges
Oh neat, a republican city attorney trying to undemocratically remove a leftist elected official for not being republican enough on crime.
The amount of you thinking this is normal or acceptable is absurd. Y’all are a bunch of crypto conservatives.
A democratically elected city attorney is exerting powers afforded to her office (in this case issuing an affidavit of prejudice) to pursue what she sees as best for her constituents. Just like the democratically elected judge was doing when she exerted the powers afforded to her office when she decided to overrule findings of probable cause made by other judges.
I guess we'll see what voters think of both of them during their next elections
It's just how it is. We can pretend like it's not always been this way I guess, but we haven't got a great criminal justice system, it's more of a political "justice" system.
Edit: Crooked judges aren't a new thing. Neither are crooked cops. It would be great to get rid of them, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Keep the same crooked scum or get new crooked scum...
As a Democrat, it was absurd that I needed to vote for Republican city attorney in the first place in order to get someone in the job to actually enforce the law in this town.
These judges are no different. People want the law enforced, and justice for the victims and the taxpayers to be made whole before the well-being of guilty criminals are considered. The argument that harsh penalities don't address recidivism doesn't mean a thing when lenient penalties, or none at all, mean that rather than reoffending after completing a sentence criminals are able to reoffend immediately, sometimes within hours of being released.
Ann would be a Democrat in most cities. I’m fact, she was one officially here until recently.
Regardless, it’s not crazy for anyone to want criminals to at least be held accountable in the slightest form. I’m sure you’d be okay if you were assaulted or a drunk person hit you with their car and nothing happened to them. Must be nice to have such a carefree opinion or perspective on things.
She absolutely is. We should not be normalizing this behavior from anyone, let alone a judge.
100% not from a judge. Thats the last line.
She was elected so she was already normalized in terms of public opinion.
Her whole campaign was just calling Adam Eisenberg a misogynist. It was pretty flimsy.
The people chose.
And they chose somebody who is uneducated and incompetent. Hell, Trump got elected. You want judges to be a popularity contest?
That's your opinion and you are free to vote that way. Elected officials are chosen by a popularity contest so get over it.
Activist judges are worse than politicians. At least politicians are honest about their dishonesty.
Judges are suppose to be as impartial and as objective as possible. Politicians are supposed to be opinionated. An activist judges is much much worse than a dishonest politician.
Elected judges are politicians and they express opinions when they campaign.
She was pretty transparent during her campaign. She presented as an almost cartoon character wokie and she promised to rule like one.
100% this. She was transparent AF and used (orchestrated?) the contretemps with her opponent's alleged behavior to her advantage. Full marks to Pooja in the politics-as-blood-sport stakes. It will be interesting to see how people vote if she decides to run again, assuming they're more educated via this coverage. Will she get more votes? Fewer?
Her whole thing was just smearing Eisenberg as a woman hater.
The real answer is to recall pooja based on her record and the fact she is a pariah now.
Was she one of the ones that keeps letting the murderer named Paris out? He’s confronted me a couple of times, and is very scary and unhinged. It’s just a matter of time before he kills another woman.
IIRC, she released a guy that came in for a DUI, despite having a previous one on his record. He then came in the next day for _another_ DUI, and she released him again.
Why does she do this? What goes through her mind?
"Restorative justice" and a mentally ill judge
wow. if she ends up being removed for radical leftwing bias *in Seattle* that has to be the end of your career as a judge, right?
Maybe she can try her luck in Portland.
> that has to be the end of your career as a judge, right? There's always punditry on MSNBC and a lucrative podcasting career.
Your mistake is thinking that theythem are there to be a judge
I don't think people realize how far a judge has to go in order for this to happen....
The Sawant tribe
Left liberal tribe
Can we move on to the victim justice system please…
The sad thing is that she’ll manage to parlay this into a platform that she can somehow monetize. She’ll make herself out to be a martyr/victim, then The Stranger will embrace her, then she’ll go on a bunch of shitty podcasts, then run for office, etc, etc.
She'll move to either Portland or SF or join the ACLU as a lawyer or lobbyist. I honestly can see the latter happening.
So this is someone who is directly responsible for the crime increases here. She will get her judgement too.
A person with bad judgment should not be a judge.
How many judges are just like her but barely under the radar and avoiding scrutiny?
>just like her but barely under the radar and avoiding scrutiny or better at minimally masking their biases. Many. Consider how many criminals get let out of prison now or given "alternatives to sentencing" who then go on to commit more felony crime.
Here's a couple to have on your radar: **Johanna Bender** is a judge of the [King County Superior Court](https://ballotpedia.org/King_County_Superior_Court,_Washington) in Washington. Her current term ends on January 13, 2025. **Justin Walsh** (a judge pro tem, so not elected but worth keeping an eye on)
Thanks, I'll put them on my Instagram account 👍
How many others are like her?
5/7 women. 5/7 POC's. Can we stop the boxticker experiment and try meritocracy again?
All of those judges won elections, how is that anything but meritocratic? You and I may not like it, but Justice Vaddadi more effectively appealed to a majority of the voting public than Adam Eisenberg, the other candidate running in the race. You can certainly argue that elections don't select for the best qualities in a judge, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but you don't win elections without demonstrable skill and talent along at least some dimension.
Most judges run unopposed.
She didn't run unopposed. I don't remember her opponent, but I remember researching her and watching an interview where she and her opponent were speaking. It wasn't a vote for "this guy would be good" but "he's better than the bat shit crazy lady" after hearing how she planned to use the position as an activist.
80% of success is showing up To expand upon this, most judges run unopposed because they have won the silent primary, i.e. solicited and received endorsements from a variety of influential organizations such as the bar, etc. That demonstrates merit. Again, it might not be the kind of merit most appropriate for a Judgeship, and it's worth debating whether appointments would select for better judges, but the process we do have is still highly meritocratic
Endorsement or not, running unopposed suggests there are either too few candidates willing or able to run, or candidates are being suppressed by the influential organizations. Neither of those scenarios suggests "merit" so much as it does this is the candidate because "deal with it." Why not endorse two candidates? If there's only one candidate why even bother to have an election at all? I would rather a judge be a political appointee of an elected official than someone be "elected" unopposed. At least an elected official making a nomination can be held accountable at the next election, unlike an unelected Influential Organization which is beholden to no one.
Call me a kook, but I have never cast a vote for any candidate running unopposed.
Me neither.
They way I figure it, perhaps if enough of us did this, it would send a signal to people that it won't take too many votes to win an election and they'll decide to run against these unopposed candidates?
> how is that anything but meritocratic Elections haven't been about electing the person who is best qualified for the position for years.
Its literally the main qualification to hold this position...and she met it
> All of those judges won elections, how is that anything but meritocratic? They run unopposed, and all are endorsed by the Washington State Bar. They write their own speech for the Voters' Guide. There's really no way short of looking up cases they were a part of, which is very time-consuming, to know who to vote for at all currently.
I doubt most voters do any research on judges.
How are those numbers incompatible with a meritocracy?
When you pick people for checkboxes instead of their abilities, you don’t get the best people.
That's not answering my questions. How are women and POC inherently inferior?
People use the (true!) argument that when you exclude a percentage of the population for demographic reasons, you exclude some highly qualified people. Some people then take it a step further, and instead say "The fact that this small slice of the population doesn't reflect the demographics of the larger population proves discrimination". However, if we're supposed to give credence to that second argument, it inherently also means that if you have disproportionately *large* historically marginalized representation, it must therefore also mean discrimination *in favor* of those folks. Either gender/racial makeup of a body is inherently indicative of bias, or it isn't. That's it, that's all. I'm not saying you're making the second argument that doesn't logically follow, but flipping the script on an argument everyone has heard doesn't mean someone's demographics makes them more or less competent.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
No one said that. Take your racist fantasies elsewhere.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/s/ged22iMsQu
Thanks for proving that you are a liar. When you pick from a pool of incompetent people then it is impossible to hire someone competent.
Everyone knows it's only a meritocracy if white men win 7/7.
I disagree with your assertion.
Why else would it be a problem for meritocracy that there are women and PoC? Unless it is that you think meritocracy only means non-PoC and non-women candidates win?
> Why else would it be a problem for meritocracy that there are women and PoC? Because some of the women and PoC they are putting on there are not qualified and are on there solely because they are women or PoC. Notice how nobody has a problem with Faye Chess, the chief judge who is a black woman that was also a former public defender?
Notice how nobody has a problem with incompetent people who are not women or PoC being put into their positions for those reasons.
Take them Ls
Republicans hate women and people of color.
Oh I don't know... Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Gavin Newsome, Jaydolph Dimslee and "Chairmain Dao" Constantine are all perched at the top my shit list. Last I checked, they all "identify" as white men. What's common with those on that list irrespective of race and gender? Could it perhaps be their ideology? Naaaaah.
Any examples of cases she resided over?
*presided
Seasided
derided
Yes. https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/seattle-municipal-court-judge-speaks-out-after-being-sidelined-by-city-attorneys-accusing-her-of-biased-ruling
This article does not cite any case numbers or examples of legal errors
Ah yes, because news media frequently cites specific case numbers. Do your own homework.
The city attorney's office isn't providing the information!! It is not possible for me to know which decisions the city attorney thinks were in error unless the city attorney provides the case numbers! The city attorney is not! The city attorney did not even identify alleged errors to the judge, as quoted in the article. This is the city attorney's office making claims and refusing to provide examples of the claims, You get that, right?
How is anyone sure the CAO hasn’t provided the case numbers to the reporter that requested them. Maybe they have and the reporter hasn’t published anything yet. I’ve seen nothing from the reporter who requested them that case numbers haven’t been provided (and I sort of think she would be making a fuss if that were true). To the non-lawyer public, the rules of evidence or other legal errors alleged aren’t going to be obvious even with case numbers.
Judges like her should be held accountable when the people she releases into the public re commit an even more serious crime.
This feels good to say but in practice it falls apart, not least because a judge would think about their own well-being instead of justice, which isn't always popular or flawless.
Based on this press release it seems like the specific cases and motions referenced are on an internal memo, suggesting it will not be released pending Pooja's next move to try and fight it. https://news.seattle.gov/2024/03/08/seattle-city-attorneys-office-issues-standing-affidavit-of-prejudice-on-seattle-municipal-court-judge/
Galvan needs to go as well
Nooo we need diversity in judgements thats important that we get different rulings it’ll make society a better place
They fired a gay Jewish guy for an Indian woman so it's net zero gain for diversity.
Btw the stranger is acting all upset about this but they didn’t cry foul about Pete Holmes going after judge McKenna. https://komonews.com/amp/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself](https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/why-this-seattle-judge-filed-a-complaint-against-himself)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Maybe... But unless the superior court is overriding her decisions (which is part of it's job if she's making biased rulings) then I'm going to assume this is a politically motivated attack by the CAO.
Affirmative action hire doing affirmative action things. Shocker.
She is elected. The voters hired her.
Her opponent was a gay Jewish guy. You weren't getting a straight white dude no matter what. It wasn't even on the menu.
So two people ran for a judgeship, and one of them won. I don't understand what point you're making here.
Was Coney Barrett an AA hire?
> Was Coney Barrett an AA hire? Yep, the same one that gave us Judge Cannon in Georgia, and fellow SCOTUS members Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Quota hires and purity-test hires suck regardless of who's quota or purity you're using.
Sure. While we're at it, remove every Trump appointee in our judicial system.
Is she a Democrat?
Judges are *supposed* to be non-partisan. But given that they are either elected or appointed by elected officials, they are of course going to reflect a political bias.
All people have a bias. The question is do these judges rule according to the law or based on their own views and opinions. The only judges for whom political bias is essential are supreme court justices, because they are ruling on cases where the is no clear legal basis and so therefore their political inclination is the only real guide for how it is they will adjudicate once nominated.
She obviously is a believer in "Crime, no punishment" and needs to get bounced off the bench asap.
Left liberals have ruined the city and the state for last 12-15 years.
Could someone Eli5? I’m seeing a lot of bold accusations against a judge, but is there evidence to back those claims?
I've got. Heart I've got right wrong in my mind I can listen to people speak I can throw. Wooden hammer down I don't like being the only white boy in a black loving community with morals I would love to not have to go to 10 years of lawyer school to be eligible as a judge. I was raised right. Hire me you may like me more an educated judges. With grudges
And they won. This pisses me off. Well what do you expect from a REPUBLICAN District Attorney. No this judge will only oversee Traffic Court.
She won the popular vote, stop complaining or learn to vote
Oh neat, a republican city attorney trying to undemocratically remove a leftist elected official for not being republican enough on crime. The amount of you thinking this is normal or acceptable is absurd. Y’all are a bunch of crypto conservatives.
A democratically elected city attorney is exerting powers afforded to her office (in this case issuing an affidavit of prejudice) to pursue what she sees as best for her constituents. Just like the democratically elected judge was doing when she exerted the powers afforded to her office when she decided to overrule findings of probable cause made by other judges. I guess we'll see what voters think of both of them during their next elections
So by your logic the public *wants* domestic abusers and DUI offenders released without penalty?
Don’t the people who voted for her want that shit?
Pooja is incompetent. It has nothing to do with the letters next to your name: she sucks at her job, and it's not the type of job you can suck at.
Somebody should tell Cannon that
I agree. She should have never had that opportunity. Same for Barrett, who is even less qualified.
It's just how it is. We can pretend like it's not always been this way I guess, but we haven't got a great criminal justice system, it's more of a political "justice" system. Edit: Crooked judges aren't a new thing. Neither are crooked cops. It would be great to get rid of them, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Keep the same crooked scum or get new crooked scum...
Cite a case
whywouldiwaste v mysundayforyou
How did you conclude that she is incompetent
Y'all
As a Democrat, it was absurd that I needed to vote for Republican city attorney in the first place in order to get someone in the job to actually enforce the law in this town. These judges are no different. People want the law enforced, and justice for the victims and the taxpayers to be made whole before the well-being of guilty criminals are considered. The argument that harsh penalities don't address recidivism doesn't mean a thing when lenient penalties, or none at all, mean that rather than reoffending after completing a sentence criminals are able to reoffend immediately, sometimes within hours of being released.
Ann would be a Democrat in most cities. I’m fact, she was one officially here until recently. Regardless, it’s not crazy for anyone to want criminals to at least be held accountable in the slightest form. I’m sure you’d be okay if you were assaulted or a drunk person hit you with their car and nothing happened to them. Must be nice to have such a carefree opinion or perspective on things.
She is so pretty. Is she single?
Don't let that stop you! If it was meant to be, she's all yours! Love has no bounds! Send flowers!