The judge issue is understated. Local judges who can throw out this evidence get elected without challenge and often by relatively small numbers of voters. Judges are often voted in during an off season so voter turnout is tiny. But i used to joke that if about 50 percent of a local university turned up to vote for a judge they could easily de facto make marijuana legal in their area.
Ann Arbor Michigan had the most liberal cannabis laws in the United States for a couple decades running, it was a $5 fine for personal use quantities.
In the late 80s (IIRC) a Republican on the city council tried to change this, campaign promise or something. The council said "hmm, yeah, it costs us more to process this paperwork than we get in fines" and raised it to $20 or $25.
In the UK we seem to have similar problems where what is considered personal use and not worth enforcing seems to be suspiciously dependant on the users societal class. I know people literally growing the stuff next to their house, but because they have a nice big garden and some local stature they'd face no consequences, whereas in the same county I'd never get away with that because I live in a suburb.
Ok I am on the wrong side of HN on this, but question - are drug laws more harmful because they exist or harmful because of the unequal and discriminatory enforcement?
If a law is used to systematically keep a section of society in its place (poverty, race, class whatever) then it kind of does not matter if the laws are repealed - the systemic abuse will continue some other way.
If those in society who are not systematically on the wrong side of the law, but are otherwise inconvenienced by access to drugs, then they see only upside.
If however we work to enforce the law equally, whatever the law is, we see all sorts of benefits. Kick down doors in penthouses in manhatten using ten SWAT officers and two helicopters, and we shall see re-evaluation of those tactics and those laws, but only if we apply the law equally.
The single most important issue in the US is getting our elections to be on the same date for all levels.
The nonsense that is "democratically" voted for in elections where a handful of interested parties vote for it and no one else knows it happens is astonishing. Especially for judges and infrastructure bonds.
Why should elected officials have any say who is in judiciary branch any attempt should be shotdown and maybe get attempters shot. It's clear way to corruption.
I don't know, in most countries judges are appointed by the government after advise from independent advisory boards. Then again, in most countries judges have a lot less power than what it seems like they do in the US and the legal system is not a political battleground.
The US has a really quite unique judicial system, and in many ways ultimate sovereignty of the USA resides in the Supreme court. That power has filtered down to lower courts who make various rulings that will shape what things the higher courts consider on appeal.
Every time an executive defies the courts they erode the basis of their own power, and their public image as a legitimate executive.
Look at what actually happens to executives who defy the courts. The level and types of protest people feel are legitimate increases dramatically. Once the court said that "well technically the emergency order only lasts for 30 days" the anti-mask brigade was much more vocal and flagrant about it.
Free and fair elections are the ultimate source of legitimacy. The courts have maintained good publicity in our rigged system, but they don’t have any inherent legitimacy of their own.
Its a double edged sword. Do you think the people of say Atlanta want all their judges appointed for them by the party that controls Georgia legislature?
Of course you don't want the legislative or executive branch to appoint members of the judicial branch. All three branches are supposed to be strictly separate from each other.
If you did allow the other branches to appoint judges, the bench would obviously become stuffed based on who's currently in power.
Often the Party and the electorate have differing goals. As a general rule the Republican Party didn't particularly like Trump, but the Republican electorate adores him. Likewise the Democratic Party really likes Biden, but my general feeling from Democratic voter was, "we'd rather Bernie or Yang, but have have to dump Trump."
It seems like it should be a requirement and very easy for state and local governments to publish calendars. I did a quick search and was excited that Chicago published an iCal until I looked and saw that there were zero items on the calendar going forward or backward six months
