Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Federal Judges are asking Congress to make it a crime for newspapers or websites to publish personal detail about them them, including their glaring conflicts of interest, or what wacky cults or hate groups they may belong to   (politico.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Judge, Supreme Court of the United States, Judiciary, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Separation of powers, Judge Barbara Lagoa, federal judges, personal information  
•       •       •

1686 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2020 at 10:50 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-24 10:18:20 AM  
Nope!
Get a different job if you don't like the scrutiny on the one you have.

/and f*ck off for even asking.
 
2020-09-24 10:19:50 AM  
That's why they call it private office when you get elected.
 
2020-09-24 10:21:03 AM  
Farking shiat bastards.  People have a right to know about who sits in judgement over them, you goddamn Nazis.
 
2020-09-24 10:22:33 AM  
Frigging lawyers...
 
2020-09-24 10:25:31 AM  
Easy solution to that... leave public office. See, problem solved!
 
2020-09-24 10:37:10 AM  
The only American thing to do is to target them for things they can't hide like their ethnicity.
 
2020-09-24 10:38:51 AM  
Yet these judges have no problem when the same level of personal data is published and distributed about doctors that perform abortions.

/ sounds legit
 
2020-09-24 10:51:45 AM  
Wooooow....
 
2020-09-24 10:52:05 AM  
If only we had an amendment that protected freedom of the press.
 
2020-09-24 10:52:14 AM  
Activist judges unite!
 
2020-09-24 10:52:31 AM  
Congress : "Ha-ha-ha. No."
 
2020-09-24 10:53:00 AM  
New judge's outfit:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 10:53:16 AM  
Sure, Congress can pass a law. And then the law will get in front of federal judges on a Constitutional challenge and...


...oh, wait...
 
2020-09-24 10:53:28 AM  
The only Liberty these guys really want is the liberty to screw you before you can screw them.
 
2020-09-24 10:53:54 AM  
In any case, if this was banned, they could just leak the details to social media, and job done.
 
2020-09-24 10:53:54 AM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 10:54:06 AM  

Russ1642: New judge's outfit:
[Fark user image 425x416]


They'll go for the white option, feels more at home for them.
 
2020-09-24 10:54:52 AM  

Russ1642: New judge's outfit:
[Fark user image 425x416]


that should be white, and the hood taller and pointier, if Trumpists have their way
 
2020-09-24 10:54:53 AM  
She looks like Valerie Bertinelli cosplaying as Dren from Splice.
 
2020-09-24 10:56:58 AM  
Aaawww... poor widdle snowflakes escared of the consequences of their actions? EABOD, jackasses.
 
2020-09-24 10:57:19 AM  
Free speech b*tch.

In honor of them trying that sh*t here's the link again about Trump's Supreme Court pick being in a cult that makes their members run all decisions about anything by them, assigns the women handmaids, and teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over them.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintelle​c​tualist/news/trump-s-leading-pick-to-r​eplace-rbg-believes-husbands-should-ru​le-over-wives-93462IjaBkKkd-p7tXZVCQ?u​tm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_​content=link&ICID=ref_fark
 
2020-09-24 10:58:58 AM  
Maybe before we restrict the first amendment rights of all Americans to discuss their judiciary, we should restrict the second amendment rights of those few Americans who threaten members of the judiciary.
 
2020-09-24 10:59:46 AM  
as the joke goes: 2 tears of Justice
 
2020-09-24 11:00:19 AM  
Proactively monitoring threats against them seems perfectly fine.

Contrariwise, making a class privileged against release of "personal information" seems rather more problematic. It might be justifiable to make the penalties harsher where release of the "personal information" is already criminal, as that would not deny to non-judges within the US jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Nohow, there seem to be some fundamental questions not merely of law but of political philosophy underlying the notion of "personal information", which are necessary to determining whether one course or another is "better", but which our society is too polarized to be able to address or resolve.
 
2020-09-24 11:00:27 AM  
House response:
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 11:02:54 AM  
Statement from U.S. District Judge Esther Salas
Youtube sLWJPlAIPvE
 
2020-09-24 11:03:56 AM  

educated: Nope!
Get a different job if you don't like the scrutiny on the one you have.

/and f*ck off for even asking.


When it comes to things like what groups they belong to, or if they publicly observe a particular religion, fine. I don't agree with releasing home addresses as an example. What you do in public is public. I can't hide the fact, from anyone if my name was googled, that I was very critical of the Chinese response to Tiananmen Square. Nor can I hide that I'm a pilot. You get the idea.
 
2020-09-24 11:04:09 AM  
When I worked for the Army, I had to hold a security clearance. That meant the federal government had access to a trough of information about me, including where I'd lived for the prior ten years, who I had worked for in that time, where I went to school, who my family members are, where and when I earned my citizenship, who I cohabited with or was married to, my history of illegal drug use, any and all foreign travel and personal contacts with foreigners, my virtually complete financial history, my mental health, and my history of membership in groups sworn to overthrow the federal government. That is a price you pay for serving the public with integrity.

If these federal judges don't want the public to know they haven't been serving with integrity, they have a choice: they can resign their position and let the president and the Senate replace them with someone who is willing to prove they'll serve with integrity.
 
2020-09-24 11:06:51 AM  
What about submission fetishists?
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size



There's more. It's worth a read if you need a laugh.
 
2020-09-24 11:07:27 AM  

abb3w: Proactively monitoring threats against them seems perfectly fine.

Contrariwise, making a class privileged against release of "personal information" seems rather more problematic. It might be justifiable to make the penalties harsher where release of the "personal information" is already criminal, as that would not deny to non-judges within the US jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Nohow, there seem to be some fundamental questions not merely of law but of political philosophy underlying the notion of "personal information", which are necessary to determining whether one course or another is "better", but which our society is too polarized to be able to address or resolve.


Just to save other farkers some clicks:

PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION of judicial
officers and their immediate family members, to include but not be limited to the primary
home address; date of birth; social security number; driver's license number; voter
registration information that includes a home address; bank account and credit or debit card
information; property tax records and any property ownership records, including a secondary
residence and any investment property
; birth and marriage records; marital status; personal
email addresses; home or mobile phone number; vehicle registration information; family
member's employer, daycare, or school; personal photographs or photographs of a judicial
officer's home; religious, organization, club, or association memberships; identification of
children under the age of 18; and any other unique biometric data or piece of information that
can be used to identify an individual.


Just off the cuff, I don't guess I have too much heartburn about the idea of prohibiting the publishing of most stuff on this list. I bolded the ones that I think should absolutely be public knowledge. Judges have immense power, and I think we should absolutely have visibility into their religious and political leanings that might lead to bias, and to any money trails they might be leaving behind.

You're absolutely right that making these prohibitions a privilege reserved only for judges, who are also going to be the ones judging the constitutionality of such prohibitions, is a huge damn red flag. I mean, what the fark.
 
2020-09-24 11:08:08 AM  
CSB: Long time ago, I was a reporter in a tiny little town in Rhode Island. During one town council meeting, they interviewed a candidate for Town Planner. Keep in mind, this was in open session, so everything was public.
So, I published the dude's name and his biography, all the info that had been discussed -- again -- in open session.
Next council meeting, he very loudly complained that his privacy had been violated and demanded that the town council "sanction" me and my newspaper. The council president very calmly explained that he'd had the chance to request a closed session but declined.
After the meeting, he confronted me about it. I simply repeated what the council prez had said, and he stormed out.
I later found him broken down at the side of the road, 1/2 mile from town hall.
I pulled over and gave him a lift back to the police department so he could call a tow truck (cell phones weren't as common as they are today).
Once I was sure he was all set, I turned to leave.
"You're a decent person, doing that even after I went after you at the meeting," he said. "I won't forget that."
"I'm an even better journalist," arrogant 22-year-old me replied. "Don't forget that, either."

/end CSB
 
2020-09-24 11:09:59 AM  
You sought public office, cocksuckers. Accept responsibility.
 
2020-09-24 11:10:22 AM  

PanicAttack: What about submission fetishists?
[Fark user image 590x647]
[Fark user image 398x750]
[Fark user image 423x750]


There's more. It's worth a read if you need a laugh.


Wow. That's a corner of the internet that I never thought I'd see...
 
2020-09-24 11:12:57 AM  

PanicAttack: What about submission fetishists?
[Fark user image image 590x647]
[Fark user image image 398x750]
[Fark user image image 423x750]


There's more. It's worth a read if you need a laugh.


That made me so goddamn happy when it popped up on my feed last night. And today Trump gets jeered at RBG's ceremony. It puts a smile on my face.
 
2020-09-24 11:14:07 AM  
They can ask Congress all they like.  I imagine the official congressional response will be to tell them to play a rousing game of "Hide and go fark yourselves", but they can sure ask!
 
2020-09-24 11:15:30 AM  
Basically this new fangled interwebs thing has made it so much harder to hide their good ol boy  corruption, so they want to make it illegal to expose it. Fortunately they don't make the laws, but they get to decide if it's constitutional to hold themselves to a different standard than everyone else.
 
2020-09-24 11:21:30 AM  
I can see restricting things like home addresses and car tags.  There's way too many crazy people out there.

Memberships and organizations and so forth?  Yeah, that's fair game.
 
2020-09-24 11:23:45 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: I bolded the ones that I think should absolutely be public knowledge.


I think there's at least three categories: stuff that should be "public record", available to anyone who asks; stuff that should be "private/privileged record", that anyone who holds the information is bound to hold as confidential (barring other legally specified duty to disclose it); and... other stuff which is something in-between.

That said, without getting agreement as to what categories result, and more importantly what the underlying basis is that gives rise to the results, trying to hash out what goes in which category seems a waste of time
 
2020-09-24 11:24:46 AM  
Should probably make a list of those judges and have them removed on the grounds that they don't understand what the farking First Amendment means.

It was the first one for a reason.
 
2020-09-24 11:38:10 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: I can see restricting things like home addresses and car tags. There's way too many crazy people out there.

Memberships and organizations and so forth?  Yeah, that's fair game.


I am good with this if it is across the board not just reserved for elected or appointed officials.

No more publishing the home address of anyone including "suspects" of "alleged" crimes.

When crimes or other news stories are reported by the press there is no reason to include house numbers of the people involved.

No need to know anything more than the town/city they are residing in.
 
2020-09-24 11:43:07 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: abb3w: Proactively monitoring threats against them seems perfectly fine.

Contrariwise, making a class privileged against release of "personal information" seems rather more problematic. It might be justifiable to make the penalties harsher where release of the "personal information" is already criminal, as that would not deny to non-judges within the US jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Nohow, there seem to be some fundamental questions not merely of law but of political philosophy underlying the notion of "personal information", which are necessary to determining whether one course or another is "better", but which our society is too polarized to be able to address or resolve.

Just to save other farkers some clicks:

PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION of judicial
officers and their immediate family members, to include but not be limited to the primary
home address; date of birth; social security number; driver's license number; voter
registration information that includes a home address; bank account and credit or debit card
information; property tax records and any property ownership records, including a secondary
residence and any investment property; birth and marriage records; marital status; personal
email addresses; home or mobile phone number; vehicle registration information; family
member's employer, daycare, or school; personal photographs or photographs of a judicial
officer's home; religious, organization, club, or association memberships; identification of
children under the age of 18; and any other unique biometric data or piece of information that
can be used to identify an individual.

Just off the cuff, I don't guess I have too much heartburn about the idea of prohibiting the publishing of most stuff on this list. I bolded the ones that I think should absolutely be public knowledge. Judges have immense power, and I think we should absolutely have visibility into their religious and political leanings that might lead to bi ...


THIS.

Fully agree with the bolded ones. Crazy lady being nominated is not just a Catholic. She's a farking whackadoo Catholic and that is relevant info. Basically she looked at all the crazy shiat all Catholics believe and said, "I don't think you guys have gone far enough". So she goes to a stupid prayer meeting where they pretend that the holy spirit is inhabiting them and they miraculously speak in other languages. Except, objectively, these aren't other languages. Every single researcher and anthropologist that has recorded these kinds of idiots has proven that there is no grammar or syntax to the gibberish from these loons. Calling what they do a miracle is offensive to people of reason. It should also be offensive to people of faith, since they cheapen the concept of miracles more than an image of Jesus on toast. At least the people that find Jesus on toast, or a tortilla, only claim to have run into a miracle, these blasphemous, prideful asses claim they can summon miracles in their stupid gibberish meeting. I don't really want any of them anywhere near a federal court.

Plus, their ritual is not so much different from some animist or Afro Caribbean faiths were spirits come into people and they go in a trance and do/say weird shiat. But these ahole Christians don't even take good drugs or dance to achieve it. So it is entirely lame.
 
2020-09-24 11:45:25 AM  
1st Amendment obviously, leak to social media and/or print it and have it submitted
 
2020-09-24 11:51:53 AM  

PanicAttack: What about submission fetishists?
[Fark user image image 590x647]
[Fark user image image 398x750]
[Fark user image image 423x750]


There's more. It's worth a read if you need a laugh.


The Simpternationale
 
2020-09-24 12:09:48 PM  
Everyone or no-one.  Same rules for all.  If I have to deal with personal information being spread all over the place, they damn well can too.  I want there to be strong privacy protections, but until there is protection for everyone, giving it to a select few powerful people simply makes it less likely that proper protections for all will ever be passed.

It's bad that a judge lost her family because of information available to all. Also bad is the innocent people accused of severe crimes who end up either dead or severely harmed by vigilantes or lynch mobs due to the exact same thing.  The difference is that the judge opted in to being in that position. The falsely accused did not.
 
2020-09-24 12:14:41 PM  

Someone Else's Alt: When crimes or other news stories are reported by the press there is no reason to include house numbers of the people involved.

No need to know anything more than the town/city they are residing in.


But to that point, why should allegations be published at all? It taints every potential juror who reads the news, and it can have personal and/or professional repercussions even if found not guilty or if charges are dropped (even if the case is dismissed with prejudice).
 
2020-09-24 12:18:19 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


lol
 
2020-09-24 12:18:46 PM  
Republicans shoot & threaten judges, & then offer the "solution"...  make it illegal to publish anything unflattering about Trump judges.

You know the law won't apply to Obama appointees.
 
2020-09-24 12:21:26 PM  
So with pacs we can't really tell who is bribing our representatives, and now we are going to approve secret judges?
 
2020-09-24 12:21:50 PM  
It's illegal in most states to file a complaint against a lawyer and tell anyone about it.  Most states will not allow 'civilians' to see what's in a cop's 'personnel folder'.   Most states will not provide info regarding private cars registered to cops.   Most states allow cops, judges and the like to hide real estate ownership records.   Been that way for a long time.

Welcome to AmeriKKKa.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 12:35:55 PM  
No and get farked for asking.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.