Why Texas judges have so much power right now
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 май 2023
- Why is Texas so good at changing policy for the whole US?
Subscribe and turn on notifications 🔔 so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO
In April 2021, Texas sued the US government over immigration policy. But they didn’t sue in Texas’s state capital; or in Washington, DC; or in any of the five federal courthouses along Texas’s border with Mexico. They filed the suit in a small Texas city called Victoria, far from any important government officials or immigration centers. And they did it there because they knew that if they did, a judge named Drew Tipton would be assigned to their case.
In the time since Joe Biden has become president, Texas has sued the federal government 31 times. That’s a lot, but what’s more striking is that eight of those lawsuits have been heard by Judge Tipton specifically. The reason that’s weird is that, normally, judges are supposed to be assigned to cases randomly. But in Texas, you can choose your judge. It’s called “judge shopping” and it’s made Texas judges some of the most powerful in the country.
It’s not just the state of Texas filing suits. In 2022 a private group called the Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine filed a suit demanding that the FDA take mifepristone, a widely used abortion medication approved in 2000, off the market. And they filed the suit in Amarillo, Texas, where the judge Matthew Kacsmaryk hears 100 percent of the cases. Kacsmaryk had previously been a lawyer for right-wing causes before he was a judge, and he ruled accordingly, ordering that the FDA ban mifepristone throughout the US.
In the mifepristone case, the Supreme Court stepped in and paused the decision, but the fact that it got so close to being banned shows how empowered Texas federal judges are by the rules of Texas district courts. These judges, most of whom were appointed by Donald Trump, are playing a huge role in shaping national policy, and they’ve turned Texas into a powerful weapon against the federal government.
Sources/further reading:
The Federal Judicial Center keeps a phenomenal and really easy-to-use database of all US federal judges: www.fjc.gov/history/judges/se...
In 2022 Steve Vladeck filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that outlines the issue of judge shopping really clearly: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...
This 2018 article by Alex Botoman dives into the issue of random case assignment and was an invaluable resource in understanding how federal district courts around the country assign cases, with or without the use of divisions: hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2...
Steve also writes a Substack about law and the Supreme Court, and in March wrote a great post about single-judge divisions: stevevladeck.substack.com/p/1...
And Steve's book about the Supreme Court comes out on May 16, 2023: www.hachettebookgroup.com/tit...
Make sure you never miss behind-the-scenes content in the Vox Video newsletter, sign up here: vox.com/video-newsletter
Vox is an explanatory newsroom on a mission to help everyone understand our weird, wonderful, complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. Part of that mission is keeping our work free. You can help us do that by making a gift: www.vox.com/contribute-now
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on TikTok: / voxdotcom
Check out our articles: www.vox.com/
Listen to our podcasts: www.vox.com/podcasts
![Chance The Rapper, DJ Premier - Together (2024) | [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVwTX6WP-MM/mqdefault.jpg)
UPDATE: In March 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which regulates the federal courts, announced a new rule that will attempt to curb "judge shopping" by mandating a random assignment for any lawsuit that tries to change national or statewide policy: www.vox.com/scotus/2024/3/12/24098760/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-shopping-republicans-judicial-conference
Thank God for Texas
The more I learn about the American political and jurisdictional systems, the more I understand why even the most simple problems aren't fixed in the USA.
It’s designed to not work
It's a political gridlock always
@@avacadomangobanana2588true
@@HemstitchedIronythat’s so bad things don’t happen, but bad things happen and then can’t get fixed
@@avacadomangobanana2588 It works as intended
It's sickening to see that one judge in 1 state could make a ruling which could effect the entire country. No judge should have that much power.
They don't have power it just a loopholes found
Lol, it takes a whole year to get anything passed and then has to go through three more layers of federal justice, that's very little power
@@E__368 the vid quite literally explained that a judge can make a ruling and that ruling is in effect until it gets looked at by a higher court. That's a lot of power. Its just from the bottom up instead of the top down
That's the very government overreach the people currently government overreaching used to complain about. What changed?
@@E__368 The fact it takes so long to get anything passed is why judges--whose interpretations take IMMEDIATE effect--are so powerful. Thanks for explaining that.
"Judge shopping" is another layer of astonishing corruption. Imagine if you were on trial for crimes and you could have your case judged by your best friend, who you also happened to give a big "loan" to last year. It would completely break the court system. But that's what's happening here, with judges who make rulings affecting the entire country. It's disgusting.
So it's wrong that the billionaire Harlan Crow paid for vacations, luxury trips, a private plane and the house of the mother of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas... and what did I think?
I’m pretty sure that would violate conflict of interest laws.
Like how that same judge in New York gets all the Trump cases.
And yet it is ILLEGAL “judge shop” for criminal offenses in Texas. 🧐
@@Coco-yy5pw It is also illegal in New York. In fact a federal judge told them to stop, but the same Judge keeps drawing the Trump cases.
America seems so complicated and divided.
It is. But the people can and must make it right.
@@DanielCharry1025 LOL the people can barely spell
@@jimethota And you’re proof of that.
An expected result for a country that carried out brutal actions all over the world. I hope the worst for the US actually. As Noam Chomsky puts it: the US is the gravest threat to world peace.
@Zaydan Alfariz By right I mean the oath that the US is "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
No state and political party should be able to do these shenanigans that affect the entire country without a vote. How corrupt.
Democrats often do it without a vote. Did you forget how a letter from politicians out of California and new york influenced credit card providers to come with identification codes to track purchases of possible firearms from outdoors and sporting goods stores to make a backdoor firearms registry against the law? Or do you just ignore it when democrats do it?
Bureaucracy smh
@@Dommy521 Bureaucracy is not to blame here. An insufficiently regulated system which allows small groups to seize outsized power is the problem. Decreasing the amount of bureaucracy here would not solve the problem.
It's only one political party that does that, they don't care about the law, they just want want to force their religious beliefs on everyone
@@cogspace Ironically, it's kinda a lack of bureaucracy that did this.
Regulatory bodies that keep things working efficiently and as intended IS bureaucratic. People tend to see bureaucracy as "something that gums up the works", and rightfully so because it often does just that. But the solution of "just get rid of the bureaucracy" is the opposite solution if you aren't throwing the WHOLE system out whole-cloth.
Here's a non complicated solution, judges shouldn't be chosen by political entities and they should be impartial
In most countries, that’s how it is
Or just let the local or federal parliament do their job and change laws.
It's an obvious solution that has already happened over 100 years ago, in the case of postmasters and other federal employees. These were once partisan positions appointed by the party in power that gave positions to party supporters that would often be incompetent and corrupt rather than qualified.
Like in every good democracy around the world which excludes many parts of the US I guess. But who needs impartiality if you can openly carry guns in public, right? The US is so f'ed up right now, they should really get a handle on things and their priorities straightened out.
Sure, you could do that but it would not stop judges from having biases because that's impossible. So you would end up in the same situation
It's incredible that so much of US policy is decided by judges rather than elected lawmakers...
have you heard about checks and balances?
Right? Almost like we need originalist and textualist indulges
@@archmad The point being made here is that it's obviously excessive. Like, why should a judge get to decide the legality of a drug that is deemed safe by health regulators? Pregnancies are more deadly than the abortion pill he attempted to ban.
@@hhaa3728the judge didn't rule if the pill was legal he ruled if the FDA followed the procedures or not and since he ruled they didn't then they must ban it until they do the FDA can put in New testing and follow it's guidelines and say done
@@hhaa3728because judges decide if something legal or not whether it's safe or not is entirely a different issue
Ah, so corruption. Sounds like the rules need to be changed and some judges who clearly are activists need to be dismissed.
We should start with the liberal justices on the jupreme court that do not adhere to the constitution as demonstrated by their dessent in the bruen decision. They cared more about the opinions of activist gun control groups than the constitution. They should be dismissed according to you.
I agree 100%
Sooooooo, why haven't we passed the anti-corruption act? And why is corruption still LEGAL in the United States? Maybe we, the people, should stop asking for the impossible out of politicians and stop electing people who lie straight to our faces because those lies are precisely what we are asking for.
You're spot on about the rules needing changes, but the judges in question are elected. As much as I hate to defend them, dismissing them would be undemocratic. Instead, if we could simply effectively limit their power to the districts who actually voted for them (and enact voting reforms to make those elections more fair), that would properly resolve the problem. Constrain the judges' rulings to the jurisdiction that elected them, and the problem largely disappears.
As for appointed judges (like those on the Supreme Court), that entire segment of government needs to go away. The Supreme Court should not exist. Any decision that would go to them should go to Congress instead. Those people, for all their faults, are at least elected (and of course, the demand for fair elections must be reiterated).
that would be a great idea, though that would also cut on the left as well [though honestly, wouldnt be a terrible thing if both sides lost activist judges]
As a native Texan, I've always been grossed out by how our judicial system works. They didn't even get into how judges are voted into their positions and then refuse to recuse themselves for conflicts of interest.
Couldn’t they be disbarred for violating conflict of interest laws, though?
Well, that election issue doesn't apply when it comes to the Federal system--the State system, yes, but not the Federal system. The cases being discussed in this video were handled by FEDERAL judges. (The only "voting" that goes on with Federal judges involves the US Senate which votes to confirm nominees who are supposed to go through hearings that are supposed to weed out potential conflict of interest matters. And with the Federal system, justices with conflicts of interest ARE supposed to recuse themselves--well, except for the good folks on the Supreme Court which made the rules regarding to conflict of interests and recusal for the LOWER courts, not themselves.)
Y’all have guns. Y’all can use them.
@@tecc-ns462 At least on the local levels, it happens so often that it's basically unavoidable. I would need to look up how it works again. It's just what I remember from Texas state government class in college.
@@clonemarine8214 That would be a weird thing to lie about...
When Conservatives said "activist judges".... apparently they are the ones appointing activist judges to the bench
Every accusation is a confession.
"judge shopping" and "activist judges" are entirely different concepts.
@@E__368 kind of. Judge shopping only works if you know that a specific judge is likely to side with you. If Texas is always going to the same judge, it implies that guy is different from the other judges. Almost like he’s an activist judge
Follow how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is getting shepherded by his benefactor Harlan Crow - you can see how right wing nuts took their conspiracy theories against liberals and turned them into a blueprint for their own actions.
@@GoErikTheRed i.e. “Legislating on the bench”
I think all the people complaining about the 9th circuit are missing the point of the video. Judicial partisanship is an issue, but this video is not about that, nor is it about forum shopping, which is easy to do for cases that implicate national issues. Even so, most districts - including those in Texas and California - have a mix of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. If a judge is assigned to your case randomly, there may be a better chance you'll get an amenable judge in certain districts, but it's by no means guaranteed. So even in a district in California stacked with liberal judges, you still don't know which specific judge will hear your case and you could pull a moderate or conservative judge, even if the chances of this happening are slimmer than in other districts. The issue with the Northern District of Texas is twofold: 1) There are no restrictions on filing a case in the Amarillo division, such as requiring that a party to the action be from or have some connection to Amarillo, and 2) There's only one judge in that division. There are, in fact, other divisions in other districts in other states that only have one judge. The difference is that those districts have stricter rules around how cases are assigned to any particular division. The system in Texas Northern seems almost designed to allow plaintiffs to funnel cases to friendly judges, in a way that's unique in the nation and is an issue separate and part from judicial partisanship.
the point of this video is "republicans bad, democrats good" even when they violate the constitution and launch political witchunt on republicans. This video is not honest, its just dnc propagandists mad that they dont get they way 100% of the time, there is nothing more partisan than the demos.
thank you for the detailed and fair breakdown
i think this vido is about two things. one is you just mentioned, another is most people are complain about
It’s sad but I don’t have any faith in our legal system nowadays.
No! Apathy is what the Republicans want you to feel. They want you to feel like you can't do anything so you will let them enact policies against you. DON'T. Don't feel like you can't change. VOTE, convince your friends to vote, vote in the primaries, vote in off seasons, VOTE VOTE VOTE.
@@shinokiba lol democrats say the same thing lol nothing you do matrers if you dont have a billion dollars once you have that then youll actually have a choice
@@shinokibaDems would need to get a 2/3rds majority in a hyper partisan anti democratic system to remove these judges. Which is only legal way they’re getting off the bench. I do vote dem but pretending like Dems will fix this is delusional.
That's understandable. It started out to take care of the rich and those in power and it continues to do so.
People will tell you to vote, but you don't have too. Over 50 percent of the population doesn't vote on average, to include me, thanks to corruption.
I do recommend it if you actually believe it helps though!
@@shinokiba Voting democrats won’t do much better either. We as people are given dozens of different ingredients to make a dish of food but they’ll only let you make a burger or a pizza. Regardless of which one you like better, any other options that differently combine the ingredients will be shoved out of the kitchen.
That is ridiculously easy to abuse for rich people
and that's why it wont change
America is ridiculously easy to abuse for rich people as a whole. Has been. Will be.
That's the point of the system
Selective Justice?!🤔🧐
@@tryitworks try mexico.
How dafuq can the Americans even claim that they have Rule of Law, when their legal system is this messed up and prone to abuse of process =.=
For the beginning: in the US is the precedent system, where case from 1886 can be valid in 2024.
America doesn’t have a Rule of Law. No country does. Democracy is a big lie. Mega corporations and wealthy men rule. Whether you like it or not.
because common law is a mess, the judiciary has quasi legislative powers
@@genybr Dude are you suggesting that all Civil law countries, such as France and Germany, where case precedent are not binding but merely illustrative, does not have Rule of Law?
Look I have no intention to start a jurisprudential debate with a stranger on RUclips comments, but that can't possibly be right.
Herr durr America bad, stay silent from whatever country you live in. You depend on the USA to live safely and make this comment
We should pass a federal law against judge shopping. These are unelected officials making laws.
In a way they are elected, the president picks them and the senate confirms with a vote
It is a praetorian system where the judge creates jurisprudence that has the force of law. The Romans already used it.
Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono has recently proposed a bill that would do exactly that.
Judges are not making laws; they interpret them with president.
If your concern is really "unelected officials making laws," you'd be opposed to the administrative state: executive branch regulatory agencies that _do_ in fact make laws (though called "regulations" for constitutional reasons). I bet you aren't.
Christ America's entire political system is a joke.
This is no laughing matter.
Usa was made by of and for the plantation oligarchs just like in Ulster
Well at least we’re a republic not a monarchy and our constitution is pretty good but yeah so agree needs some change
@@bradley8575 There are monarchies that are less corrupt and more functional than ours. And actually our constitution is not very good; it's really outdated and full of flaws and just plain bad ideas that were questionable in the 18th century and are terrible in the 21st.
@@bradley8575 Our constitution is good, but since then American's freedom and rights have been burning away, amazing how a constituion written over 250 years ago is keeping our country together.
all judges in this country have way too much power and almost no accountability
yeah we should abolish judges
might as well abolish law and order too. terrible idea@@YungBeezer
"with great power comes great corruption"
Michael Jordan played five seasons without Scottie Pippen
84-85 38-44..First round exit
85-86. 30-52..First round exit
86-87. 40-42...First round exit
01-02. 37-45..out of playoffs
02-03. 37-45..out of playoffs
LeBron james carried an absolutely horrific 2007 Cleveland Cavaliers team to the nba finals
In the modern NBA era (post 1960) only eight NBA top 75 players have won a championship without another top 75 player as a teammate
Rick Barry (1975)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1994)
Tim Duncan (2005) (2007)
Kobe Bryant (2009) (2010)
Steph Curry (2015) (2022)
LeBron james (2016)
Kawhi Leonard (2019)
Giannis Antetokounmpo (2021)
As you can see, LeBron James is on the list and Michael Jordan isnt
Lebron james has won 17 playoff series, without an nba top 75 teammate. Michael Jordan won ZERO
In the year before Michael Jordan and LeBron James joined their team and the year after they left their team, their records were
83-84 bulls 27-55
84-85 bulls. 38-44
92-93 bulls 57-25
93-94 bulls 55-27
98-99 bulls 13-37 without Scottie Pippen
00-01 wizards 19-63
01-02 wizards. 37-45
02-03 wizards 37-45
03-04 wizards 25-57
02-03 cavaliers 17-65
03-04 cavaliers 35-47
09-10 cavaliers 61-21
10-11 cavaliers 19-63
09-10 heat. 47-35
10-11 heat 58-24
14-15 heat 37-45
2013-14 cavaliers 33-49
2014-15 cavaliers 53-29
2017- 18 cavaliers 50-32
2018-19 cavaliers 19-63
2017-18 lakers. 35-47
2018-19 lakers were 20-14 when LeBron James got injured on Christmas day.
As you can see When LeBron James joins a team, the team improves more than Michael Jordan and when LeBron James leaves a team, the team always goes into the tank.
Michael Jordan, excluding the 94-97 seasons, when the NBA moved the three point line to 22 feet, was a career 28% three point shooter. LeBron James is a career 34% three point shooter
Michael Jordan was a great defensive player, in an Era where you could handcheck. Playing defense is much easier when you can handcheck. For nearly 6'9 250 LeBron James' entire career he wasn't afforded the opportunity to handcheck.
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR..LEBRON JAMES IS THE GOAT!!!!!
@Zaydan Alfariz I’m
@@srinathreddy4078 the one who knocks
Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Politicians pick their voters. Lawyers pick their judges. This is how democracy crumbles.
I find it puzzling that a local dostrict court and local judge can make decisions that can have *nationwide* affects that aren't limited to the state the decision was made in?
The video also doesn't clarify why district courts can make decisions for the whole country. What if another state counter-sues on an opposite position and a different local judge rules in the opposite way for a separate suit that addresses the same problem?
Because it's a federal court not your local court. Federal court only hears and decides on cases involving federal law which apply across the country. They do not hear lawsuits and criminal cases that involve state/local laws.
The Irony is if the ninth circuit of appeals makes a ruling it actually has no effect in the fifth circuit!
Note that these are Federal District courts not State courts.
One top of the first reply you got, which is correct, the hypothetical you talk about in the last sentence actually happened with the very ruling on abortion pills mentioned in the video.
At the same time as the Texas judge ruled that the FDA should pause its approval of the drug, a judge in the state of Washington ruled that the FDA has to keep approving the drug in the states where it’s legal.
What happens then is that the FDA has to try to obey both rulings at the same time, even if they contradict each other, while waiting for the Appeals courts and maybe the Supreme Court to decide which ruling is correct.
Because this is not the problem.
Listen carefully, what options are exactly was said to solve: "let's make all decisions in the hands of democrats".
Is it another way to solve the issue? Of course! At least make it to be approved by federal administration. Or make law base clear to make judge just a function. But this is not a suggested way...
Very informative video and easily explains this issue to a layman like me. The is a prime example of how flawed the judicial system can be.
In some ways, the judiciary was always the worst-defined branch of government. The writers put a bit of thought into the design of the legislature, and a LOT of thought into the design of the presidency, but barely defined the structure (and specific powers) of the federal courts. A lot of political conflict today could be a result of things that people 250 ago just took for granted based on their contemporary culture/traditions instead of _actually putting it in writing_ for future generations to reference.
@@StratelierI’d agree with you, but “shall not be infringed” is in writing yet it still get ignored so I don’t think it has helped much…
@@Stratelier Given that the US has prevented Europe from authoritarianism two times, helped much of eastern Europe, much of asia to transition to democracy, I would say the founding fathers did a good job.
The founding fathers set a rule book. You can argue some rules need to be changed, but everyone play by the same rules. It's childish and hypocritical to complain about rules only when you're not benefiting from it.
@@Stratelier i'd argue they knew that, the judicial branch was something of a human heart, to account for the cold oversights of written law. Kind of like discretion was for cops. It actually paid off thanks to judicial review btw. If anything, it's problem is that it's not allowed to do it's job as intended do to outside pressures. You may have noticed severe goverment over reach as a whole, that was kind of the Supreme courts job to keep in check.
The Supreme Court was meant to be human and be more flexible in execution as well as be the leash on goverment after Mayberry v Madison.
So actually it's more representative of gen z and millennial people than it has right to be: slow, clueless, and a huge bandwagon
@@urielgalindo2647 Good point. Likewise, the president's ability to pardon (which we know WAS argued at length) was intended to be a matter of discretion, at the obvious risk of what happens when the guy in office is the "wrong" one to exercise such power.
Heck, when phrasing it that way there are a lot more (potentially malicious) exploits that the writers of the Constitution couldn't find much defense for beyond "let's just hope that never happens".
Just start rotating judges randomly through the district courts so people have no idea which judge they’re going in front of and they won’t have any idea of the outcome of their case.
My uncle is actually a judge in Texas (albeit state not federal) and he is not a big fan about the judge shopping
Judge shopping is a thing everywhere. It benefits liberals a lot of the time too.
@@dylanf3108 Judge shopping like this is literally illegal in most of the developed world. Texas is a lone wolf here. It completely nullfiies any credibility transparency, and fairness in the legal system. If anything it (and american conservative politics as a whole) are getting closer and closer by the day into becoming something like a modern feudal system, which is all kinds of messed up. And thats on top of the neo nazism that is appearing all over the southern united states and amongst republican voters.
@@dylanf3108 give us an example.
@@Quanic2000 Example of democrat judge shopping - Brown v. Board of Education (1954): In the landmark case challenging racial segregation in public schools, the NAACP strategically chose the jurisdiction of Topeka, Kansas, to file the lawsuit. They sought a ruling from the Supreme Court that would overturn the "separate but equal" doctrine. The selection of Topeka was part of a broader strategy to target sympathetic judges and pursue a favorable outcome.
@@Quanic2000 Gerrymandering Cases:
Pennsylvania Redistricting Cases (2018): Democrats challenged the congressional district map in Pennsylvania, alleging partisan gerrymandering. They sought to have the map declared unconstitutional and replaced with a more favorable one. The case was filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the majority of justices were elected as Democrats.
What an ironic, head-in-the-sand article. That, or they've never heard of California and New York.
Democracy can't continue like this.
Nahh
ameirca is a constitutional republic.
@@arkgaharandan5881 ???
never been a democracy. look up plutocracy and that's what we have.
@@ellsmayab8642 If you restrict the term "democracy" to an extremely strict definition, then it has never existed.
6:06 "Congress could pass a law" lol, good one! 😄
filibuster rule!!!!!
The more I learn about USA, more I get scarified of my country seeing it as an example.
@B Babbich If America was all split like Europe, America would be war ridden just like Europe (Thank GOD it’s not)
if you live in any other country apart form north europe it should be an example
Go Texas!!! I love my state!!
Here, in Australia, this is impossible. All second-instance-or-higher civil cases are heard by a randomly assigned jury whose members cannot be struck down, so it is impossible to influence them. Or at least in VIC, that is.
Congrats on living in a good democracy, same goes for most parts of Europe 👍
Also, Australian judges are independently chosen, and political partisanship is frowned on by both the government, and the legal profession.
A politically corrupt judge who regularly goes rogue is likely to be in deep trouble and will be asked to explain themselves in huge detail to the point it is a huge hassle for an Australian judge to do it.
So while an Australian judge could do what they are doing in the US, it would be a huge headache for them... and us Australians prefer to not make our lives harder like that, even judges.
I my opinion, the Jury system, though based on a very thoughtful idea, is flawed.
A Jury of randomly appointed people who may or may not have knowledge about the law and legal system is not a good way to decide judicial cases.
A single Adept Judge with Common Sense can do a better job than a Jury of 5 people, just because of his/her knowledge and experience about the law.
And if one needs the Outlook of more than one person, than a panel of more than one judge can be one of the most effective ways to do things.
@@JoelReid That worked in US until Roe v Wade when Republicans decided that judicial impartiality was less important than just winning, and "norms" or "headaches" didn't matter and weren't going to stand in their way, (the pinnacle of norms / headaches not mattering was the prior resident of the White House, of course). Took 40-50 years to get to where they were going, but here we are. Here's hoping you folks are smarter about realizing that societal norms only last until they don't, and "that won't happen here"s eventually happen here unless they're headed off by actual laws.
Man I love the Australian legal system!
Thank you for bringing light to this.
Thank you for the succinct explanation! The animations and the narration was on- point
Lol remember that Texas Judge Gilstrap or whatever his name was? He did those internet copyright cases and law firms always picked this judge because they would win each time. The whole town was in on it because of the amount of business it brought into their little town, so the jury always sided with the plaintiff. I think it finally stopped after some new law was passed that changed where the copyright cases can be heard. But that dude was a piece of work, I'm suprised he was never investigated for corruption.
Another way of "judge shopping" is to make close (but not the same) issues and cancel all that was unlucky to get to the wrong judge.
Ofc it may vary, but this theme is exploitable all over the world if you have enough power.
If you do this here in Brazil, it does not matter. If the case is nearly related, its going to the same judge.
It is possible to judge shop several ways, but if the judge knows what they are doing it is almost impossible.
@@JoelReid _> but if the judge knows _
Ofc they know, they are keys of power. See CGPGrey "Rulers for Rulers", this is good explanation of the topic.
@@genybr in the USA, the judge may not be aware. This is one fo the problems of publically elected judges, they can be ignorant.
@@JoelReid no, I mean they already had lobbied enough. They not ignorant, they know what they do. And I am not about US only.
Ah, so this is American freedom. The freedom for one interest group to pick their jury who can dictate what happens in the entirety of America.
I'm from Europe, and our concept of freedom is much more focussed on the wellbeing of the entire population and on democracy. Americans often talk about freedom, and this has always been strange for me because I've grown up with a wildly different concept of freedom. America seems so much more restrictive compared to most places in Europe, but I suppose this is simply because we have different concepts of freedom 🤔
Your concept of freedom depends on Daddy USA to back you. Europeans think they’re so cool and independent until Russia or China come knocking, and then it’s “oh please come help us”
Amen.
I honestly wish I lived in EU somewhere and not here in the US. Freedom isn't freedom as it should be here. I honestly fear for my life.
You gotta remember our populace is very conservative. Our "liberal left" is centrist in comparison to the rest of the world. It's part of the mindset in which help is very selective and your have to earn everything to include the right to live here.
Don't want to do that? Prison time, get back to work.
American freedom is the freedom to oppress and take advantage of others. They don't mean collective freedom, they mean your freedom to impose your will on others. It's an anti-social, anti-human way of looking at things, but it's at the foundation of American libertarian thought.
I'm getting tired of hearing "So what can we do about it?" and the answer essentially boiling down to, "Nothing, really. Suffer."
@B Babbich Voting didn't change anything, both sides are equally bad
Umm taking presidency + senate is how you do something about it.. President nominates judges and senate confirms them.
They really can't win without cheating. All this tells me is that they are fully aware of the reality they don't speak for the majority of this country and their ideas are unpopular, so instead of just trying to convince people they're right and make their case, they just want to ignore everyone who doesn't agree with them and take away their right to participate in the process.
If they can take away a “right” it was never a “right”. It was a temporary privilege.
Very informative. Thank you
Great video, important topic. Thank you for creating! This is important journalism
This feels unreal 😂
You could copy&paste this comment to anything without even watching 😂
Yet completely unsurprising
Ah, yes. The famous "checks and balances" of the American government.
Texas a state that understands the constitution.
Do one on the ridiculous 9th "circus" court.
Who's only job it is is to do the absolute opposite.
Why don’t you guys talk about how messed up California is? Texas is the best state for legal immigrants like me. No taxes , less government intervention less crime. Better place to live.
Pretty much why Texas has a yelp rating of "Lone Star"
Hahaha, this is perfect! 😂
☝🏽
I love that Texas makes you cry...I bet you also cried when beto lost a 4th time
😂 Great comment.
So, "leave it to the states" was just a front for "leave it to the states we like to choose for everyone else."
We live in a failed state
Cool...
Really glad that's not threatening the fabric of our society or anything.
What about when california judges rule against your legal rights, i dont hear anything about those laws
If the courts were even remotely fair to begin with, this would be a much more alarming realization.
Yet another massive Texas W. God bless Texas
God bless corruption
HolyTemplar_88... I truly wonder what his opinions on jews must be.
@@Leadlight280 idk what the username would have to do with that since I’ve had this username on just about every platform I’m on since I was like, 9-10 years old, but you don’t want to start on the JQ
@@Leadlight280 if it furthers my political faction’s goals, yes
@@TheLordNovo your political faction is killing America and helping Russia. Ted cruz, trump, Biden. The right galvanizing religious nuts and the left stirring up controversy that doesn’t exist. And you’re playing right into. Assuming you aren’t a Russian or Chinese bot.
Thank you, Texas. Thank you, 5th court. Make America great again.
Good. States Rights! Hoo-Ah!
But…but… small government!!!GOP gonna GOP. Texas gonna Texas
I’m sorry, but why are we talking about immigration in Amarillo?
Great video. Great organization and explanation. Thank you
Something is happening in Texas. The levels of absurdity are growing exponentially. Thank you.
Please move out of Texas go move to Mexico thanks
you are correct, hopefully migations into texas will spread the population and bring us back to a level of moderate secular politics and remove the increasing far right hypocrisy that exists.
@@JS-pk2wh Laughable.
@@bradleywhite6815 oh wow people openly acknowledging that the whole point of the purposeful biden border crisis is to change politics and replace the natives for control.
rare to see folks like this in the wild. This surely won't have any consequences
🎶 *_The stars at night, are big and bright._* 🎶
_(clap clap clap clap)_
🎶 *_Unlike the GQP in Texas_* 🎶
I mildly disagree that Judge Shopping is new. Maybe in its current form, it is, but there are still examples of it going back decades. In the 1948 US Senate election in Texas, Lyndon Johnson specifically chose what federal court to file his lawsuits in to stop the investigations into the voter fraud his campaign committed during the Democratic runoff. He knew that the court he filed in would be under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS Justice Hugo Black for emergency rulings, so he intentionally lost the federal court case and sent it to Black, who sided with Johnson. This ruling came just as another court in South Texas was about to prove the fraud that Johnson had committed, but the injunction halted their work until after the full Supreme Court could hear the case. By then, though, the ballot printing deadline and the election would have well passed, and Johnson would already be in the Senate, so it wouldn't matter.
Thanks for thinking uniquely. I love this point of view.
Texas: where everything is huge, even corruption
Way to use your power Texas!
Why is the Western District of Texas covering all of Central Texas??
This is obscene, but this is also the country where judges are chosen by politicians rather than being independent - so par for the course?
An “independent” selection panel could still be bribed by members of a political assembly to select judges in their favors. Plus, who appoints the members of this panel?
Here s a no brainer why not have a court system completely independent of politics
Nope. That’s no fun. Keep money in politics ….
I doubt that could realistically happen. Even if there were an independent panel that selected judges, said panel could also be bribed by existing political officials to select judges that represent them.
you want a court system that doesn't have humans? You think the AI will do better?
@@xShadowChrisx Not that but people that dont have preferences except the law and are placed not due to political affiliation but due to and by judicial qualifications
@@aryanshukla7305 that doesn't exist. There's no such thing as humans who know the law and don't have political opinions about it.
Judges are never places for political affiliation. They're placed or elected for because of past rulings. And when judges are elected it's inherently political. When Judges are appointed it's the same result with the can kicked down the road.
There's no end game where political affiliations aren't involved, it's literally a paradox to think you can have people who know the law and not have interpretations of it.
People right now apparently still think they can debate the words "Shall Not be Infringed"
The easiest patch would be for Congress to force each subdivision to have a minimum number of active judges.
Its budget leak
Thanks for the video!
Textbook Corruption!!!!!
The us scares me
Neat! What a great and fair system we have
You know mexico, has extreme gun control, no problems with judges, and lots of nature! If you hate it si much here you must love it there.
Freedom for Texas
As a far right conservative, I'm super impressed with how good these political videos are...kudos Vox.
Speaking of Texas judges, the sheer coincidence is that two days before this clip came out is when I had to go for jury duty.
Ah, yes. The land of the free ❤
That's a typo, it's land of the fee. That checks out very well.
Everyone loves a Judge until his ruling don’t go your way! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It doesn't matter what judge gets a case they are all identical in their obligation to follow, uphold and protect justice. Not having to travel all the way across Texas for a year+ of trial nonsense seems reasonable.
Anyone going to talk about Washington state's attempt to pass a bill forcing cases that challenge their gun control laws to go to a specific judge?
Or claiming a capital gains tax is actually NOT an income tax… just because they say so!
According to the GVA, there have been 202 mass shootings this year alone. According to them(i dont feel like doing the math), that's more shootings that days in the year so far.
Look, I like guns too, but it's time to get this stuff under control.
That being said, it shouldn't be done via judge shopping.
Wow! I'm both amazed and shocked. Amazed at the fact that this itty bitty place I live in, Amarillo, has so much effect on the US, and shocked because it shouldn't be this way!
Come and take it, long live Texas !!!
We will
would you like a single liberal judge in california to decide what happens in the entire country?
@@michaelmiller7928 yeehaw 🤠
@@topapo3661 but their not😜
im not sure but yall clearly dont understand how the separation of power works in the US. Federal law outweighs state law. unless state law directly circumvents federal law. Texas having a majority Libertarian population you can see why this is still in affect. We in general dont like when the feds make laws about our state and border when they do not live here and have no idea about our situation.
Wonder which political party this video is in favor of 🤔 hmmmm…
Legalized corruption in the US is mind boggling! Whether in the judicial system or with politics…anywhere else these would be considered straight up corruption; in the US these things are celebrated….
This seems to be less a problem with Texas and more a problem with how judges are appointed in the USA
So what would you do to resolve it?
@@tecc-ns462 change the way judges are selected. Make it an impartial apolitical process rather then presidential appointment
6:14 That would not solve the issue, but rather amplify it, just to which political party has control over DC.
But are they powerful enough against 1 mall gunman who loves Raid Shadow Legends?
@Zaydan Alfariz no, we might be able to! The gunman just have to be anything other than white
This is so scary.
for who ?
@@monkeypox3147 democracy as a whole
@@topapo3661 Nah just for Democrats 😂
Both parties "shop for judges" by picking judges that will rule in favor of what that party wants
Welcome to Brazil, Texas. First time?
Hi you mentioned Texas
I am from Texas
Congratulations you have made me watch the video
None of these problems would exist if congress would first apply strict constitutional scrutiny BEFORE making laws. Another good tactic would be to use a think tank for every law to determine loopholes and ways to misuse the law should it be enacted BEFORE it is enacted.
But why can a decision from one judge in Texas determines the law for an entire country?
It's a broken system. Law should be made by congress, not by judges.
America. The greatest country in the world. Said someone who has never left that country.
Vox got soooooooooo left omfg.
We are at a point where people can now see the obvious flaws in modern society and democracy in general. It could be the breaking point like so many times in history when people revolted to change the system
We have freedom in internet
Until it censored by goverments
Good thing we're a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy
I'm an attorney and yeah the courts are SUPPOSED to have power as granted in the Constitution.
??? after john adams, judiciary system got huge power which it shouldn't have. It actually betrayed the intension of founding fathers and the principle of democracy
Yes we’re getting powerful TEXAS IS NUMBER WAN
Even if it was random, it would still probably go for a conservative judge. Now, if you are saying that judge shopping allows specific judges to get new cars, a fixed house, or a ride on a yacht...that's a different story.
Texan here. Please save us from this 3rd world police-state.❤
Get ‘em Texas!! Remember the Alamo!
Great. Now do Illinois where the exact same thing is happening, but with gun rights.
moving all lawsuits on fed law to DC would be unconstitianl becaus it not distric
This is a very skewed veiw point. These districts only have one federal judge due to the low population. With increased case counts in the one diatrict they've added another judge. This is like saying no one should be able to choose their tac deductions, everyone must accept whatever random deduction the recieve from the irs