652
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
652 points (99.5% liked)
News
30241 readers
3582 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Still seems like a bad idea to me. I honestly don't even know how they're appointed here in Australia, because this shit never, ever comes up.
AUS is a commonwealth country like Canada. Your judges are appointed by the attorney general. Who in turn is appointed by your governor general (the king's representative) but advised by your PM. Basically chosen by your PM as the 'ole GG is basically all pomp and circumstance only. A figurehead choosing not to use their actual power. Good faith and all that.
You have a new attorney general in 2025. You probably should check it out. It's a system that relies on everyone acting in good faith and is quite political. The reason why it never comes up is because it hasn't broken down yet.
Note: the GG is appointed by the king who has the ultimate decision making power but, good faith. He is also "advised" by the PM, by the way. Just to double down on your concerns.
The USA made it a long way without it being a serious issue, like 200 years. Like presidents would pick qualified federal court judges whose judicial philosophies tended to favor their side a bit more, but were generally good at being fair jurists, and cases decided along the lines of which party's president had appointed them were super rare.
Then in the 80s, Reagan started appointing more explicitly partisan judges, and a far right activist think tank started grooming ideologues who were law students as potential future justices, a few of whom Trump ended up appointing. Basically every appointment after 1982 either continued the trend, or worsened it, with the notable exception of Obama appointing Marrick Garland, though he knew there was a good chance the Senate wouldn't approve any nominee.
It's one of those systems that works fine if everybody is acting in good faith, and crumbles when someone tries to take advantage of it. Yeah it's probably a bad idea.
Any system that relies on everyone acting in good faith is flawed from the get go. You were just lucky until you weren't.
That's true, but it's very hard to come up with a system that can't be gamed. The fact that you're not aware of Australia's system works means it's probably even more vulnerable to exploitation because nobody in Australia is paying attention.
Really, all political systems are based to some extent on people acting honourably and acting in the best interest of the country rather than themselves or their political party. Eventually that always breaks down.
The main reason I'm unaware is because I couldn't be arsed looking it up when I posted that, but you make a good point. It's concerning that our conservative party was trying the same culture war bullshit that worked so well in America, but heartening that we collectively told them to knock that shit off in the last election, although I'm not sure the lesson stuck.
Ironically enough, the only reason I know politicians appoint judges in Queensland, is because of a rather infamous appointment we had.
TIL. At least there was significant push-back over it.