issa osama Appointed by whom? Selected by which group of people? Will the panel be publicly elected? This type of panel would require an amendment to the Constitution. We can’t be sure that the amendment won’t include partisan language.
Jim Ellis you didn’t reply to your own comment by accident. So here you go, your award for dumbest comment of the day. Conservatives have been bullying democrats for decades than crying to Fox News and projecting lol
You have to actually read through the Federalist Papers to get a real sense of the thought that went into designing this original process. It is not as flippant as you think. It was made so that no one individual gets so much power that a country can be driven by him or her alone. That's why the Senate has to confirm a judicial appointee.
And yet, that "broken system at every level" continues to produce and maintain the most free, wealthy, and powerful nation in the world. Maybe you're the one who is broken? Name the country whose government you would propose should replace the one we have in the USA so we can all laugh at you.
It was a good idea originally, intended to prevent judges from being bribed because they have a permanent livelihood with this job. But that is much less relevant in today's age, so judicial terms are increasingly necessary.
@@PureAFM The thing with hereditary lords though is that they arent judges and can only delay a bill passing for a year at most, they have few powers and tend to take the role pretty seriously
@@user-jr4pz5td2r -- First of all. Thanks for your "Facts and logic" mr. Liberal Destroyer. Secondly. it's not the presidents job to personally appoint people to a democratic position. The process is illegal. It's illegal to ignore law, and install a power in your personal favour. it's just not criminalized. It's illegal
How can you vote for an electoral who then votes for the presidential candidate, and who can even vote for a different candidate than the one you asked for? American democracy is deeply flawed in so many ways
@@gatewaysolo104 What do you mean ramming? The popular vote in 2016 showed more left leaning people wanted Hiliary. In 2018 we elected a left leaning house. It's the American public that want the left leaning policies.
Hr says that Republican will destroy the US. Republicans arent rioting saying that is "movement" such as Black lives matter. Trumo wants companies to bring jobs and money to USA. He is creating peace with North Korea. Democrats dont even know what bathroom to use or how to call each other, he, her, or it.
Get people registered to vote. You'd be surprised which people you know personally are not registered voters. This person I've known for many years watches CNN daily and is an openly vocal critique of "the occupant in the office with no corners". This person never hesitates to bring up TOITOWNC in everyday conversion and criticize his latest political move. The other day, I was helping this person apply for a REAL ID driver license online at the DMV website. When the online form asked if the person wanted to apply for voter registration, the person embarrassingly admitted never having been a registered voter. I was at a loss for words. But I registered this person to vote immediately.
In Kansas our state judges are essentially selected by the State Bar Association and I can tell you that this "non-political" process is worse than the political process Vox is addressing.
@@mbevks That is one particular form of a commission form of appointment. There are many different types that involve many different actors. And also, Kansas doesn't tend to have much political power sharing, where a legislature typically has an opposing governor. The US often does have the senate on the opposite side of a president, which would lead to power sharing normally but not in this case.
@@robertjarman3703 Kansas essentially has three political parties: Democrats, Liberal "Moderate" Republicans, and Conservative Republicans. The moderates will coalition with conservatives or Democrats, depending on the issue and usually win the day. In our history, we've only have one conservative governor. The last election conservatives won the legislature and Democrats the governorship. There is rarely a circumstance where there is not a power sharing situation.
No, the mainstream's representation of the judicial system is the root of the problem. These judges have to represent their opinions based on their legal expertise, you can hardly call a justice liberal or conservative. They both have to base their opinions off of historical precedent and the constitution and uphold the law. Some of them have originalist view points, other have expansionist viewpoints, but they have to make a decision supported by the law in the constitution and law created by the lawmakers in congress.
This video is so dishonest senatorial consent only applies to federal district courts not the federal circuit courts. Senators can reject appointments from the president for District courts because they apply to only their state. They can’t reject appointments from the president for circuit courts because it applies to more than one state. In other words senatorial consent does not apply to circuit courts because you can’t have a senator from another state rejecting an appointment for the circuit because it covers a multitude of states.
You know it feels so recent when the first black person got elected president and now we already have the first orange president. I can't see how anyone could possibly complain.
i i Oh that is normal. Trust me, I am right winged and the hate goes both ways. But, what is not normal is the Democratic Party losing votes in the rust belt. Why are they letting the Republicans just steal your votes? Why are you loosing to people like Trump? Can’t they just go back to Bill Clinton? They at least understood who they are representing back then unlike now when the party is totally split in half on the basic ideology of the party. You know it’s bad. Just look who got elected and honestly is probably going to get elected again.
the real part, this has happened a lot. the playbook was written by FDR a democrat. he radically changed the courts in the 30's and 40's and it lasted into the 70's. the warren court was the most liberal court ever and radically changed US law during it's existence.
No, FDR was elected as President 4 Times (he died soon after the 4th election). If you are elected by the people 4 times, you're going to have a chance to nominate a great many Federal Judges. FDR's elections were a direct result of the Gilded Age leaving people in poverty without reason. All that money yet people were living in ramshackle Hooverville's, named after the President who let them down. FDR was famously blocked by the Supreme Court many times while trying to pass New Deal legislation that created a strong Middle Class for the 1st time in the nation's history. FDR also tried to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights for the people and I recommend that people research that.
The democrats were the ones that abolished the filibuster for judicial appointees. Harry Reid invented the nuclear option and changed rules so that appointees needed 51 votes instead of 60. But please go on and pretend that Republicans cheat.
In theory the check on a bad-faith legislative body is in hands of people, in a democracy. If people keep supporting these senators and sending them back, one of two things is happening: either the election system is broken (suppression of voting rights, gerrymandering, etc) or the conservative regressive society is exactly what a majority of Americans really want.
That is a big problem for the independence of the judiciary if the judges have the possibility of reappointment. At least in most states that use a term limit like this, it is the voters themselves who decide whether to reelect or retain a judge, not politicians. But if a set term is used for other judges and they can be retained or rejected later by politicians, they will be making rulings friendly to politicians who can help them get reappointed. Independent officers need a non renewable term if they are appointed for fixed terms unless the basis for their reappointment is made independent. A minimum age for judges and a retirement age such as 65 or 70 would be able to limit some of this problem, and non renewable terms for the highest court of a country is a widely used practice, from the 6 year term in South Korea, to 9 years in many European countries like France, to 12 years in places like Germany and South Africa (though the latter allows for terms up to 15 years if doing so would allow a judge to retire with 15 years total in their judicial service to get a pension) and their constitutional court, and they are well respected by judicial philosophers.
Why do judges need to be relevant to the generation? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? The purpose of a lifetime appointment is that judges can take the long view into account and not be pressured or influenced by the here and now flavor of the week crowd.
Honest_Bishop because Obama hardly put up a fight when mitch mcconnell started blocking judges, then with a year to go he gave up because he thought why not let Hillary pick the judges when she becomes president obviously it backfired, democrats are only here to keep the status quo going, they have no backbone, they thought its Hilary’s turn pass on the baton like it’s a relay, they are doing the same things they did in 2016 I won’t be surprised if trump gets a 2nd term.
@@NaudJacob Just because a party is small doesn't mean it can't grow. The German green party had 9 % at the last federal election and now has an acceptance of 25 % which would make it the second largest party. And I think they will become more votes because climate change won't get better. The "throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the 2 biggest parties" mentality is poison for democracy.
Compromise? That's not a thing. The judicial branch has nothing to do with creating or enforcing laws. They just determine if a law is constitutional or not.
@@jimmykilcomons6438 the Republican senate said that in 2016 Obama couldn’t enact a Supreme Court Nomination and republicans ran on a platform of traditionalism Well if you’re so TRADITIONAL Follow your own TRADITIONS?
Please do an updated version of this as many new judges have been appointed by Trump on all types of courts. Would be very interesting to see how the courts have changed under 4 years of Trump
This is why America is more conservative than all EU countries: judges appointed for life by partisan presidents who are being elected by either parties taking turn to take power. If judges were appointed by a panel for a limited terms, it would reflect the current trend of current generation in many aspects of social issues, America would be more like EU. The American system is stabler which is not a bad thing.
@coffeeinthemorning Think about it. The majority of picks in the Supreme Court are Republican, the rest are Democrats. It's unbalanced and is always in the Republicans' favor. This is what I call not playing fair.
democracy is over-rated anyway (a good antidote for believing in democracy is a 10 minute conversation with an average person about any topic other than reality TV or celebrity gossip)
We aren’t a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In fact, the word “democracy” never actually appears in the constitution. Additionally, Harry Reid, a Democrat Senator, is the one who got rid of the filibuster for lower level judges in 2013. Mitch McConnell said this would come back to bite the Democrats, and he was right. It was also Barack Obama who said that “elections have consequences”.
Yeah, we need the house, senate, and presidency next year. It's the only way we'll be able to pass reforms that can fix what he's broken. We might even be able to remove judges that were added in bad faith (not approved by their home state) If we don't win by a landslide in 2020, it's all over, we'll be losing rights for women, lgbt, and minorities for decades. We might even be able to impeach Kavanaugh or however tf you spell that pig's name
What also troubles me is the longevity of McConnell’s species - up to 250 years! With time on his side he diligently and patiently keeps pushing ever further to the right.
The 9th is the most overturned in the country. So trump should apoint better judges. Why did you not complain when obama got elected and fired all political appointees and replaced them with his people?
@@codekillerz5392 Well, how can you define how liberal or conservative someone really is. As long as the judges didn't fill out some kind of form specifing their political agenda on a scale from 0 (very liberal) to 10 (very conservative), I don't see a way of fairly comparing these parameters.
@@alexv2738 Yes, sure, but imo that's rather vague to put in a graph. If you'd just say, those judges are more liberal and those more conservative, ok, but the graph implicates more detailed data. I'm not saying you couldn't compare it, I just wouldn't do it in the way Vox did.
I think trumps presidency has been really important. It's shown the world how easy it is for a government to be changed so drastically. Hopefully this will lead to more reform and strengthening of international and national law.
That is the shittest graph I've ever seen. A graph for how "conservative" or "liberal" judges are. Doesn't even make sense. What is currently conservative? Tariffs? censorship? - seems to change every 15 years.
This video is so dishonest senatorial consent only applies to federal district courts not the federal circuit courts. Senators can reject appointments from the president for District courts because they apply to only their state. They can’t reject appointments from the president for circuit courts because it applies to more than one state. In other words senatorial consent does not apply to circuit courts because you can’t have a senator from another state rejecting an appointment for the circuit because it covers a multitude of states.
Just to be fair you should bring up that Obama also appointed more liberal judges than previous democratic presidents like Clinton based on your graph.
Yes, Trump and the republicans are engineering a very dangerous judicial situation. And democrats and independents need to view and understand this video presentation. It is an important factor in the coming Nov/20 elections.
Vox crying because DemocRATS hold majority of the judges and a republican might fill empty seats. Wow vox!!! By the way what’s your references for your charts or did you make it up like usual?
Okay I see how this works Trump doesn’t do something you like so you call him out for taking advantage of something someone else did. When trump nominated those 2 men for the state of California and the state didn’t like them it wasn’t up to trump to diced if Congress will let those 2 into the court. Stop blaming trump for everything
or any rigorous explanation of how political donations are a solid proxy for ideological tilt or any discussion on how Trump SCOTUS judges don't agree with each other...
”When trump topk office most of the judges had been appointed by democratic presidents” how then is it weird that trump to is appointing his own judges? If democrats did it and it was good why is it “bad” when trump does it?
I like that you cry, you and all the other hillary supporters were crying on 11/9/16. We saw. We did it to you. We loved it. P.S. We've never been so weak as to cry when we lose an election.
@@michaelpeterson2441 What are you talking about, we didn't cry. You talking about that capitol in vasion, I heard about that secondhand and there was antifa involved, we don't cry, we're cool as a cucumber, in fact it was frustrating for the left at how quiet we were.
@@timurabakarov You're right, Trump didn't our founding fathers did and it's in the Constitution. There is a reason why we didn't have to make a lot of revisions to the Constitution and that's because they had a brain to look for the future not the present
Politicians criticising judges? How is he allowed to do that? In India no one is allowed to criticise judges only their judgement. Also politician don’t appoint judges in India. This should have been a no brainier for an advanced democracy like US for independence of judiciary.
Scary, however, if Mitch McConnel blocked the Executive Branch's right to appoint judges for 2yrs and this Administration has thrown out long-standing histories of tradition and past practice regarding balance, what's to stop somebody from saying since the playbook has been burned how 'bout we 'retire' them all? What would be the motivation of a Democratic super-majority such as Trump had to leave it as is?
Why are judges appointed by political parties???? Should be an indipendent panel that promotes good judges and not partisan judges.
Some states have an independent commission where they recommend judicial nominees to the governor.
Independent panels will inevitably lead to partisan panels.
LemonadepieX that’s still played with by parties... it should be completely independent.
issa osama
Appointed by whom? Selected by which group of people? Will the panel be publicly elected?
This type of panel would require an amendment to the Constitution. We can’t be sure that the amendment won’t include partisan language.
@@codekillerz5392 Not, if they need a super majority
So, in the end, no separation of the three branches, great job USA
Yeah, it's called checks and balances
Now we are really f-**ed
@Jim Ellis nah, you just have more radical Christians in power.
Jim Ellis you didn’t reply to your own comment by accident. So here you go, your award for dumbest comment of the day. Conservatives have been bullying democrats for decades than crying to Fox News and projecting lol
You have to actually read through the Federalist Papers to get a real sense of the thought that went into designing this original process. It is not as flippant as you think. It was made so that no one individual gets so much power that a country can be driven by him or her alone. That's why the Senate has to confirm a judicial appointee.
Judges should not be appointed for life. They should have a term, like other powerful positions.
True. Power corrupts anyone
Members of Congress also need term limits
Yeah, especially considering that they move left when they’re appointed for life to get media praise (cough cough Roberts cough)
Cancerino read federalist 78 to learn why they are.
the founding fathers didn't expect the courts to become just as political as the other 2 branches. This definitely needs to be fixed
I feel like they need to release a patch for the US government. It's not working.
The patch is Trump's re-election. Don't worry, the patch is coming
Mitch McConnell and Donald J. Trump are too op, pls nerf
Dice pls
Learn to love the pendulum swing
The patch is called bernie2020
It's amazing how broken the american system is at every level.
Bhargos Not at every level.
You're welcome to leave.
explain how it is broken
Uh oh, here come the patriots!
And yet, that "broken system at every level" continues to produce and maintain the most free, wealthy, and powerful nation in the world. Maybe you're the one who is broken? Name the country whose government you would propose should replace the one we have in the USA so we can all laugh at you.
Only In America where judges are appointed for life .......
Syed Abdul Wasay annndd read Federalist no 78 for the reason why
Some Lords in the UK are. At least some are appointed by committee but some are freekin inherited.
Yeah, it should be 8 years max. Like the presidency.
It was a good idea originally, intended to prevent judges from being bribed because they have a permanent livelihood with this job. But that is much less relevant in today's age, so judicial terms are increasingly necessary.
@@PureAFM The thing with hereditary lords though is that they arent judges and can only delay a bill passing for a year at most, they have few powers and tend to take the role pretty seriously
That's the problem with unwritten rules. They are impossible to enforce.
The Majority Leader's power is actually largely defined in the Senate rules. They're just bad.
These are defined laws. In context of Trump appointees. Theyre just illegall ignoring laws
TheKiroshi it’s not a law just a tradition no need to follow outdated traditions
@@user-jr4pz5td2r -- First of all. Thanks for your "Facts and logic" mr. Liberal Destroyer.
Secondly.
it's not the presidents job to personally appoint people to a democratic position. The process is illegal. It's illegal to ignore law, and install a power in your personal favour.
it's just not criminalized. It's illegal
Not true, with no gun zones it always makes sure everyone is safe. Laws work for sure.
I like the fact that you color code Trump with orange color😆
corgisbutt ORANGE MAN BAD
@@randombanana3771
you're right he is bad at least you understand.
@@randombanana3771 You think that up yourself , genius?
@@ielohim2423 ORANGE MAN BAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Subtle shade. I love it.
I still can't understand, how can judges being appointed by a party, that's just wrong.
How can you vote for an electoral who then votes for the presidential candidate, and who can even vote for a different candidate than the one you asked for? American democracy is deeply flawed in so many ways
@@milosilic23 That's because we are not a democracy but a constitutional Republic.
milosilic23 one can make a strong case that America isn’t a democracy
NYEH!!! You can be a democracy and a constitutional republic
@@aderinolamiju please make that case then
Who's here after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died?
Me
I really hope more republicans vote to not replace her right away
@@owen9669 no
Owen well that aged well
You got the algorithm to thank for that
The senate has a disgusting amount of power when the party doesn't act in good faith.
Doesn't act in good faith...aka not ramming left wing legislation down the throats of the American public
@@gatewaysolo104 What do you mean ramming? The popular vote in 2016 showed more left leaning people wanted Hiliary. In 2018 we elected a left leaning house. It's the American public that want the left leaning policies.
@@spoons4414 yes but the Senate represents the States, not the people, so maybe go read the Constitution
@@alquinn8576 you cant separate the states from the people. If there are no people there are no states.
@@alquinn8576 By your own ridiculous logic then, why should people representing a state hold so much power over the entire country?
Wow. thats really problematic. It means even if trump lost the 2020 elections, his legacy will last for generations.
Yeah that's why the electorate shouldnt be so flippant about their choices.
Liked the comment, but the pedent in me wants to point out that "problematic" is for otherwise good things that have issues. This is simply a problem.
Not a bad thing!
Good
Leo Shaq blame the Democratic Party
This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for us youngsters going forward. I urge you all to show this to any of your friends who show an interest in politics.
But what can we do? :(
Tommy some dems are good but their party just ruins them
Hr says that Republican will destroy the US. Republicans arent rioting saying that is "movement" such as Black lives matter. Trumo wants companies to bring jobs and money to USA. He is creating peace with North Korea. Democrats dont even know what bathroom to use or how to call each other, he, her, or it.
Do you think there is time left for change before the old canabls finish eating
Get people registered to vote. You'd be surprised which people you know personally are not registered voters. This person I've known for many years watches CNN daily and is an openly vocal critique of "the occupant in the office with no corners". This person never hesitates to bring up TOITOWNC in everyday conversion and criticize his latest political move. The other day, I was helping this person apply for a REAL ID driver license online at the DMV website. When the online form asked if the person wanted to apply for voter registration, the person embarrassingly admitted never having been a registered voter. I was at a loss for words. But I registered this person to vote immediately.
Political appointment of judges is the root of the problem
In Kansas our state judges are essentially selected by the State Bar Association and I can tell you that this "non-political" process is worse than the political process Vox is addressing.
@@mbevks That is one particular form of a commission form of appointment. There are many different types that involve many different actors.
And also, Kansas doesn't tend to have much political power sharing, where a legislature typically has an opposing governor. The US often does have the senate on the opposite side of a president, which would lead to power sharing normally but not in this case.
@@robertjarman3703 Kansas essentially has three political parties: Democrats, Liberal "Moderate" Republicans, and Conservative Republicans. The moderates will coalition with conservatives or Democrats, depending on the issue and usually win the day. In our history, we've only have one conservative governor. The last election conservatives won the legislature and Democrats the governorship. There is rarely a circumstance where there is not a power sharing situation.
No, the mainstream's representation of the judicial system is the root of the problem. These judges have to represent their opinions based on their legal expertise, you can hardly call a justice liberal or conservative. They both have to base their opinions off of historical precedent and the constitution and uphold the law. Some of them have originalist view points, other have expansionist viewpoints, but they have to make a decision supported by the law in the constitution and law created by the lawmakers in congress.
This video is so dishonest senatorial consent only applies to federal district courts not the federal circuit courts. Senators can reject appointments from the president for District courts because they apply to only their state. They can’t reject appointments from the president for circuit courts because it applies to more than one state. In other words senatorial consent does not apply to circuit courts because you can’t have a senator from another state rejecting an appointment for the circuit because it covers a multitude of states.
I love how the judges trump appointed are in orange just like the man himself
You know it feels so recent when the first black person got elected president and now we already have the first orange president. I can't see how anyone could possibly complain.
@@8is next up a blue president
i i Is it just me or has the Democratic Party kinda lost its soul?
@@8isI really don't know but i kinda think so because every one is going after or against them mostly the Republicans or other politicians
i i Oh that is normal. Trust me, I am right winged and the hate goes both ways. But, what is not normal is the Democratic Party losing votes in the rust belt. Why are they letting the Republicans just steal your votes? Why are you loosing to people like Trump? Can’t they just go back to Bill Clinton? They at least understood who they are representing back then unlike now when the party is totally split in half on the basic ideology of the party. You know it’s bad. Just look who got elected and honestly is probably going to get elected again.
Vox’s makes these scary realities so simple to understand with their super smooth animations.
They are just pushing their agenda with those 'smooth animations'
@@bednar1991
You're right they are pushing their agenda, their agenda to educate people.
Tobby Isiba elaborate.
They point out some fair criticisms/concerns, however nothing they presented is really scary in my opinion.
What's so scary?
How does Mitch McConnell live so long without a spine?
You'd be surprised his spine is stronger than that of your whole party
The scary part:
This gets normalized, it isn't going to stop when Trump leaves office.
the real part, this has happened a lot. the playbook was written by FDR a democrat. he radically changed the courts in the 30's and 40's and it lasted into the 70's. the warren court was the most liberal court ever and radically changed US law during it's existence.
No, FDR was elected as President 4 Times (he died soon after the 4th election). If you are elected by the people 4 times, you're going to have a chance to nominate a great many Federal Judges.
FDR's elections were a direct result of the Gilded Age leaving people in poverty without reason. All that money yet people were living in ramshackle Hooverville's, named after the President who let them down.
FDR was famously blocked by the Supreme Court many times while trying to pass New Deal legislation that created a strong Middle Class for the 1st time in the nation's history. FDR also tried to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights for the people and I recommend that people research that.
And if you were unware that Term Limits did not exist for a President until after FDR then welcome to reality.
The democrats were the ones that abolished the filibuster for judicial appointees. Harry Reid invented the nuclear option and changed rules so that appointees needed 51 votes instead of 60. But please go on and pretend that Republicans cheat.
In theory the check on a bad-faith legislative body is in hands of people, in a democracy. If people keep supporting these senators and sending them back, one of two things is happening: either the election system is broken (suppression of voting rights, gerrymandering, etc) or the conservative regressive society is exactly what a majority of Americans really want.
15-20 year term limits on justices on all courts would keep the courts relevant to each generation
McMatthew99 Have you read Federalist 78?
That is a big problem for the independence of the judiciary if the judges have the possibility of reappointment. At least in most states that use a term limit like this, it is the voters themselves who decide whether to reelect or retain a judge, not politicians. But if a set term is used for other judges and they can be retained or rejected later by politicians, they will be making rulings friendly to politicians who can help them get reappointed. Independent officers need a non renewable term if they are appointed for fixed terms unless the basis for their reappointment is made independent.
A minimum age for judges and a retirement age such as 65 or 70 would be able to limit some of this problem, and non renewable terms for the highest court of a country is a widely used practice, from the 6 year term in South Korea, to 9 years in many European countries like France, to 12 years in places like Germany and South Africa (though the latter allows for terms up to 15 years if doing so would allow a judge to retire with 15 years total in their judicial service to get a pension) and their constitutional court, and they are well respected by judicial philosophers.
But would make lawsuits that we find easy to declare would be harder for the other generations
@@nothere.7588 What do you mean?
Why do judges need to be relevant to the generation? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? The purpose of a lifetime appointment is that judges can take the long view into account and not be pressured or influenced by the here and now flavor of the week crowd.
As a person who lives in a third world country, seeing a first world country without an independent Judicial Commitee is both pleasing and saddening
Wow vox. Giving me anxiety first thing in the morning lol
Good
This is all a good thing guys.
alyssa bing that’s how mainstream media works: fear = money
Seriously
@@shibavekreal Trust me, I've learned that through trumps entire fear based presidency lol
"Elections have consequences "
"
-Barry Obama
joe white him and the democrats are at fault
@@AliMohamed-yq4wn how so?
Honest_Bishop because Obama hardly put up a fight when mitch mcconnell started blocking judges, then with a year to go he gave up because he thought why not let Hillary pick the judges when she becomes president obviously it backfired, democrats are only here to keep the status quo going, they have no backbone, they thought its Hilary’s turn pass on the baton like it’s a relay, they are doing the same things they did in 2016 I won’t be surprised if trump gets a 2nd term.
@moo $9 trillion -yikes-
@moo They are the reactionaries. Or I would call them the modern Know Nothings. and some sentiments during the Gilded Age as well.
Love that Trump gets an orange line on the graph & orange squares!
Seriously though, thanks for highlighting what's going on.
Haha! I noticed that too. Classic!
Orange! Ha, he needs an orange jumpsuit to match. Scary, but good info.
@An untrue definition Orange man good k
Kids
@@unassumingaccount395 lol only in the glossy orange "alternative" universe is being a serial lying racist crook is good.
This is what happens when traditions aren’t law
Exactly. If traditions were law, we wouldn't be as free of a country as we are now.
It's okay to vote for Trump.
When do y’all finally see that the US is not democratic. Being able to vote between just 2 parties just isn’t enough
There are more parties, it's just they don't have enough supporters
John smith voting for those other parties is throwing your vote away. If you don’t vote for the 2 biggest parties, you might as well not vote.
Imagine being worried about 2 parties when one is trying to call a constitutional convention that will rock your world.
@@NaudJacob
Just because a party is small doesn't mean it can't grow.
The German green party had 9 % at the last federal election and now has an acceptance of 25 % which would make it the second largest party. And I think they will become more votes because climate change won't get better.
The "throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the 2 biggest parties" mentality is poison for democracy.
Pseudynom but also the us had the republican and democratic parties as the 2 mainstream options since the 1850s
🙆🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️ So much for the executive having to compromise with the judicial.
Compromise? That's not a thing. The judicial branch has nothing to do with creating or enforcing laws. They just determine if a law is constitutional or not.
@@jimmykilcomons6438 the Republican senate said that in 2016 Obama couldn’t enact a Supreme Court Nomination and republicans ran on a platform of traditionalism
Well if you’re so TRADITIONAL
Follow your own TRADITIONS?
The most horrifying thing happening in our country right now and no one knows about it.
Horrible for some, good for others.
we know about it... it's the average joe with the 8th grade education who doesnt know about it
Yes...
Thank god for Trump
illdatmofo thank god for trump
‘S impeachment
marco polo yeah not happening because of the brain dead republicans in the senate who are putting party over country
Please do an updated version of this as many new judges have been appointed by Trump on all types of courts. Would be very interesting to see how the courts have changed under 4 years of Trump
Another reason to vote for trump
Gilad Bauman to not*
Winning
This video somehow neglects to mention that the old 9th circuit was routinely ruling in direct contradiction to SCOTUS precedent. I wonder why?
This channel presents interesting stuff.... But I definitely get the feel of a LEFT leaning bent in VOX's commentary.
@@johnjacobjinglehimerschmid3555
Its founder ezra acknowledges that in his podcasts
@@johnjacobjinglehimerschmid3555 thats why i watch them opposing veiwpoints are good for you
Trump has done what is needed. Create a non-bribabal court.
Todd Bacon evidence?
Who is a foreigner watching the chaos after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court? 🙋♂️
That was the most brain-dead decision ever, I’m convinced that the people who overturned that are actual labotomites.
It baffles me that a court is political. I understand that everyone has political ideas, but a court should be as neutral as possible, right?
"You have a republic,...if you can keep it..."
What a disaster for the America branches of government.....
The whole US political system is ridiculous. It's so easy to exploit.
That's the whole point. It's made to make the rich richer.
@@shoulders-of-giants Exactly!
DNC: Changes senate to only need 51 votes for judges
also DNC "ouR CouRTs ArE CompROmiSeD"
In the last you showed, it was almost an even split between the two parties. What wrong with that?
TheY aLL neeD tO bE deMOcraT nOt REpubLicAn raCiStS
I'm scared for you, America.
Best Wishes from Germany
Thank you, we will try our best.
2nd3rd1st worry about yourself
@@shayanshafiei321 Your last name is a first name
@@hectorvega621 ¡Buena suerte, amigo mío!
tre luglio they aren’t doing that bad actually
Perfectly balanced, as all things shou- wait
This is why we love Trump
This is why America is more conservative than all EU countries: judges appointed for life by partisan presidents who are being elected by either parties taking turn to take power. If judges were appointed by a panel for a limited terms, it would reflect the current trend of current generation in many aspects of social issues, America would be more like EU. The American system is stabler which is not a bad thing.
This is really SAD for US. II wonder when they will wake up.
Yeah... I'd be concerned about this. Kind of completely breaks the whole America's Courts thing.
Exactly, look at the House and The Senate since one party controls half of the Congress and the other one the other half they don’t get anything done.
@coffeeinthemorning Think about it. The majority of picks in the Supreme Court are Republican, the rest are Democrats. It's unbalanced and is always in the Republicans' favor. This is what I call not playing fair.
"He has the control of the senate *and* the courts, he's too dangerous to be kept alife!"
The gop has wrecked democratic norms...
democracy is over-rated anyway (a good antidote for believing in democracy is a 10 minute conversation with an average person about any topic other than reality TV or celebrity gossip)
We aren’t a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In fact, the word “democracy” never actually appears in the constitution. Additionally, Harry Reid, a Democrat Senator, is the one who got rid of the filibuster for lower level judges in 2013. Mitch McConnell said this would come back to bite the Democrats, and he was right. It was also Barack Obama who said that “elections have consequences”.
Why dont we the people have a say who gets a seat in the federal courts that govern us.
A judiciary must be independent. An elected judiciary means special interest groups or people who have the most money can "buy the vote".
This only speaks to how important it is that the left continue the mobilization that seen 40 seats taken in the house in 2018.
Yeah, we need the house, senate, and presidency next year. It's the only way we'll be able to pass reforms that can fix what he's broken. We might even be able to remove judges that were added in bad faith (not approved by their home state)
If we don't win by a landslide in 2020, it's all over, we'll be losing rights for women, lgbt, and minorities for decades.
We might even be able to impeach Kavanaugh or however tf you spell that pig's name
@@BothHands1 What has he currently broken though? I'm just curious as to what laws he has done that has broken this country.
Danielle Spargo what rights has anyone lost?
What also troubles me is the longevity of McConnell’s species - up to 250 years! With time on his side he diligently and patiently keeps pushing ever further to the right.
I see what you did there.
Make America great again.. Who else agrees
Me
Nice @justin lokere
Trump is truly making America great again.
Thank God for President Trump
The 9th circuit is a joke
The joke will circuit all around the world 9 times before it ends.
Basing judge’s political beliefs based on how much money they’ve given to people is maybe the worst way to find out political leanings.
I hate Mitch.
VOX THIS NEEDS AN UPDATE!
The 9th is the most overturned in the country. So trump should apoint better judges. Why did you not complain when obama got elected and fired all political appointees and replaced them with his people?
Shows you once again how broken the American Political System is. However, 3:27 I find it weird trying to compare liberalness to conservativeness
leofreaking
Why’s that?
@@codekillerz5392 Maybe the answer is in your profile picture.
@@codekillerz5392 Well, how can you define how liberal or conservative someone really is. As long as the judges didn't fill out some kind of form specifing their political agenda on a scale from 0 (very liberal) to 10 (very conservative), I don't see a way of fairly comparing these parameters.
leofreaking
That’s a good point.
@@alexv2738 Yes, sure, but imo that's rather vague to put in a graph. If you'd just say, those judges are more liberal and those more conservative, ok, but the graph implicates more detailed data. I'm not saying you couldn't compare it, I just wouldn't do it in the way Vox did.
This is amazing, Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do during his presidential campaign. Soon America will truly be great again!
Is this sarcasm, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Finally taking the courts back.
Isn't joke this guy who will Make America great again
Who else is watching this after Trump is having a meltdown in approval ratings and polls?
hes gonna win lol
Not like it matters. I don't support him, but remember that the electoral college exists.
I think trumps presidency has been really important. It's shown the world how easy it is for a government to be changed so drastically. Hopefully this will lead to more reform and strengthening of international and national law.
That is the shittest graph I've ever seen. A graph for how "conservative" or "liberal" judges are. Doesn't even make sense. What is currently conservative? Tariffs? censorship? - seems to change every 15 years.
1:06 Vox is playing the instrumental from "N.Y. State of Mind - Nas"
Lol I caught that too, Illmatic is a great album.
This video is so dishonest senatorial consent only applies to federal district courts not the federal circuit courts. Senators can reject appointments from the president for District courts because they apply to only their state. They can’t reject appointments from the president for circuit courts because it applies to more than one state. In other words senatorial consent does not apply to circuit courts because you can’t have a senator from another state rejecting an appointment for the circuit because it covers a multitude of states.
We the people should be voting for these judges
Really? The same people that vote for Trump electing judges? I don't think that it is a good idea.
Roms Jr I agree but we are a democracy, so we should be able to choose who balance the president.
Amir Hagit Einav We aren’t a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In fact, the word “democracy” never actually appears in the constitution.
Justin Lokere ok mr technical, ik that but still, we should have to the power to elect our judges
This video was so well made that I have to say thank you Vox for making it for us.
Just to be fair you should bring up that Obama also appointed more liberal judges than previous democratic presidents like Clinton based on your graph.
They did. 3:20
yeah but the main point is that he was robbed of his right to appoint any judges at all in his second term because of Mitch
POTUS: "judges, totally out of control" about whom is he talking? Projecting his own behavior?
Yes, Trump and the republicans are engineering a very dangerous judicial situation. And democrats and independents need to view and understand this video presentation. It is an important factor in the coming Nov/20 elections.
Vox crying because DemocRATS hold majority of the judges and a republican might fill empty seats. Wow vox!!! By the way what’s your references for your charts or did you make it up like usual?
Trump pick judges that are constitutional judges they follow the rule of the Constitution
Thanks for the great news!
In Trump’s defense, the 9th Circuit gets overturned 4 out of 5 times in the Supreme Court. So he has a point with the 9th Circuit
It seems to me that the president has way too much power.
and the solution is to give the state total power over healthcare, education, guns, etc, etc, right? got it.
@@ruiarruda7807 Isn't president part of the state?
@@jholotanbest2688 yup, i was being ironic. the people complaining about Trump's power are also the ones wanting to give total power to the government
Arrest the president. Impeach.
On what grounds? Disagreeing with the ideologies of his court picks does not mean he committed a “high crime or misdemeanor”
Okay I see how this works Trump doesn’t do something you like so you call him out for taking advantage of something someone else did. When trump nominated those 2 men for the state of California and the state didn’t like them it wasn’t up to trump to diced if Congress will let those 2 into the court. Stop blaming trump for everything
Why do they have to be anti-labor though :(
This whole video just seems to be a way to convey that conservatives are bad, like this seems a little one sided.
It’s Vox, what do you expect?
Justin Lokere honestly not too much
Here are graphs, look at the pretty colors, don't think and forget about any statistical proof.
or any rigorous explanation of how political donations are a solid proxy for ideological tilt or any discussion on how Trump SCOTUS judges don't agree with each other...
”When trump topk office most of the judges had been appointed by democratic presidents” how then is it weird that trump to is appointing his own judges? If democrats did it and it was good why is it “bad” when trump does it?
Because Vox has Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Justin Lokere true
“He has control of the Senate and the courts!!! He’s too dangerous to be left alive!”
excuse me while I go cry into a corner
I like that you cry, you and all the other hillary supporters were crying on 11/9/16. We saw. We did it to you. We loved it. P.S. We've never been so weak as to cry when we lose an election.
@@Averyofthemain this aged like spoiled milk
@@michaelpeterson2441 What are you talking about, we didn't cry. You talking about that capitol in vasion, I heard about that secondhand and there was antifa involved, we don't cry, we're cool as a cucumber, in fact it was frustrating for the left at how quiet we were.
But all of these moves are legal, right?
All of them are legal, each and every one, but do you know what's not? *YOU GUESSED IT* Abolishing the Electoral College
@@beef-jerky he's not the one who invented the electoral system
@@timurabakarov You're right, Trump didn't our founding fathers did and it's in the Constitution. There is a reason why we didn't have to make a lot of revisions to the Constitution and that's because they had a brain to look for the future not the present
You conveniently did not mention who broke the “tradition” on how to confirm judges? Let me help you Harry Reid.
Thank you President Trump!!
Politicians criticising judges? How is he allowed to do that? In India no one is allowed to criticise judges only their judgement. Also politician don’t appoint judges in India.
This should have been a no brainier for an advanced democracy like US for independence of judiciary.
Please make video on America's economy under trump vs former presidents...
The economy is doing so well, they can't or else it would go against their agenda
I give a pass to Clinton though. Horrible guy, but great economy. He actually got us out of debt
Thanks for fixing our broken economy, Obama!
Dillon Blair lol. He inherited the economy in its worst possible shape and completely turned it around. But keep believing it was all Trump
Me: hears the words Mitch McConnell
My body: shivers
Florian Held I don’t doubt it
Finally someone is making a good reporting on this. Trump's judicial agenda has been the most concerning issue since he took office.
... this is absolutely horrible news.
I don’t understand. How did trump come in and all those seats were empty? Why didn’t Obama appoint them
The video literally explains McConnel did not allow him
If you know how this whole thing works, or if you just watch the video
You would know
God Bless President Trump 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Remember when politicians were country first? Why are politicians now party first?
"progress". or you wanna go back to the age of widespread homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, fatphobia, ...?
I learn more on vox than I did at school.
Scary, however, if Mitch McConnel blocked the Executive Branch's right to appoint judges for 2yrs and this Administration has thrown out long-standing histories of tradition and past practice regarding balance, what's to stop somebody from saying since the playbook has been burned how 'bout we 'retire' them all? What would be the motivation of a Democratic super-majority such as Trump had to leave it as is?
People please go support Mitch McConnell's Democratic opponent in the 2020 elections
Unless you plan on moving to Kentucky, this seems unlikely to do much.