Genuinely asking, is having her as a federal judge better than having her continue to litigate cases? The article even says she's unlikely to see many of more important cases due to her representing a rather liberal district.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
138 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22311 readers
8 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Federal rulings set a legal precedent and can then be used in future rulings. So all of her court decisions can/will be used in the future to convince judges to make similar rulings.
Judges have way more power than lawyers. The more sane, liberal judges we have is very good for our democracy.
It depends. For example, depending on the situation, one could shop for them as a specific judge. That's a really unfair and immoral thing to do though, so nobody does that...
Wouldn't this at least advance her career for a possible SCOTUS nomination?
I forgot this was a thing! hope it doesn't happen.
Good
Fucking finally confirming judges again