As a NYer who voted for Mamdani, I'm thrilled. However we have a home in a red area (yes they exist here) and the haters are hating coz they hate to be wrong. "Short term results, not long term", "bean-counting sleight of hand", "just wait till this backfires" and so on. Meanwhile they benefit from this. Hmmm, where have we heard all this before? Bidenomics? Sigh...
Yeah, I know. But with all the shiza going on with our Constitution right now, a *notable exception* to Article II, Section 1 for a limited timeframe could be feasible. OK, so President Buttigieg and VP Mamdani!
Perhaps at some point he could serve in the cabinet; but I’d like to see him continue doing great things for NYC. He can only have 2 consecutive terms; but can run again after 4 years.
This is reminiscent of the scenes in the movie, "Dave" with the actor Kevin Kline as the President working in a Cabinet Meeting to reduce wasteful spending in order to fund legislation to assist the homeless population. Great movie! Great leadership by Mayor Mamdani!
My outcome for a government is to ensure at least a neutral environment for citizens and business and at best be a provider of the things of life that are very difficult or impossible to do on our own: highways, health care, police, military, education K through college, and senior care. This is popularly known as Democratic Socialism or the US economy in1950 – 1979 and is being popularized by Senator Sanders, AOC, and NYC Mayor Mamdani.
Hallelujah! 🥳 Praise be to God, Jesus and Allah! This is incredible news. Bravo, Mayor Mamdani and staff!!!!! Wake up, America: “Socialism” is a good thing!
P.S. My favorite line: The Left was Right. Yesssss! 🎯
Since this is something GOOD that WORKED, I had to sit down for a minute and do a BigFatSmile, while looking out onto the Manhattan skyline from my desk at work!
Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a Supreme Court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are ranked as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by a high degree of independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of each. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government. ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards cases to them from the lower courts.
3.) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70.
4.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
5.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
6.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
7.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
This would make a great substack thread on its own. I’m wondering if you might have intended it to be one, and accidentally posted it in a thread where it lacks relevance to the topic.
This is what happens when an elected official puts people before politics. He is showing up in a big way for New York. More leaders like this, please.
Mamdani loving New Yorker here. Thanks for highlighting this, God! I love his constant updates and youtube videos. We could use a world full of him =)
"How are we supposed to survive when you tax our SECOND homes?" Wah wah wah f*ck you!!
Yes - call the waaaambulence for these self-centered babies. And let them leave en masse...oh wait, they aren't going anywhere. Lol.
As a NYer who voted for Mamdani, I'm thrilled. However we have a home in a red area (yes they exist here) and the haters are hating coz they hate to be wrong. "Short term results, not long term", "bean-counting sleight of hand", "just wait till this backfires" and so on. Meanwhile they benefit from this. Hmmm, where have we heard all this before? Bidenomics? Sigh...
President Mamdani has a nice ring...
Sadly he is ineligible. Born in Uganda.
Yeah, I know. But with all the shiza going on with our Constitution right now, a *notable exception* to Article II, Section 1 for a limited timeframe could be feasible. OK, so President Buttigieg and VP Mamdani!
Perhaps at some point he could serve in the cabinet; but I’d like to see him continue doing great things for NYC. He can only have 2 consecutive terms; but can run again after 4 years.
This is reminiscent of the scenes in the movie, "Dave" with the actor Kevin Kline as the President working in a Cabinet Meeting to reduce wasteful spending in order to fund legislation to assist the homeless population. Great movie! Great leadership by Mayor Mamdani!
If we had more Mamdanis, this country would be much improved, instead of wallowing in Donny the Hutt’s filth.
My outcome for a government is to ensure at least a neutral environment for citizens and business and at best be a provider of the things of life that are very difficult or impossible to do on our own: highways, health care, police, military, education K through college, and senior care. This is popularly known as Democratic Socialism or the US economy in1950 – 1979 and is being popularized by Senator Sanders, AOC, and NYC Mayor Mamdani.
Hallelujah! 🥳 Praise be to God, Jesus and Allah! This is incredible news. Bravo, Mayor Mamdani and staff!!!!! Wake up, America: “Socialism” is a good thing!
P.S. My favorite line: The Left was Right. Yesssss! 🎯
Love this!!! Wow, what a concept, a balanced budget.
Since this is something GOOD that WORKED, I had to sit down for a minute and do a BigFatSmile, while looking out onto the Manhattan skyline from my desk at work!
Wooohooo. Of course doing something decent always pisses people off.
DO WE REALLY NEED THE SUPREME COURT?
Trump, McConnell, the Republican Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society have corrupted and taken control of our Supreme Court; it is beyond repair. But do we need it? Consider that two senior judges will retire in the next three years, and Trump and the Federalist Society will appoint two new, conforming judges. Nearly half of the world's countries have a supreme court, but very few resemble ours. Our Supreme Court was established when our Constitution was ratified, and its structure and procedures have not changed; nine judges use the inquisitorial method to determine which of the two presenters is correct. I have yet to find this approach used in another country, but I must stress that I am not a scholar of judicial systems or their occurrence in other countries. Comparative Law examines the differences and similarities among the laws and legal systems of different countries.
This is my attempt to outline and highlight the qualities of exceptional countries’ judicial systems and to show how they differ from ours, including the presence or absence of a Supreme Court. For instance, Germany has 16 Supreme Court judges, and Denmark has 18.
Five countries are ranked as having the best judicial systems, and we are not among them. The rankings are Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.
1.) They all use or resemble the Nordic judicial system, which operates as a hybrid of civil law and unique, independent legal approaches characterized by a high degree of independence.
2.) These systems prioritize rehabilitation, human rights, and social welfare over punitive measures, resulting in low incarceration rates. Each country has its own peculiarities in its judicial system, but I have tried to outline the major aspects of each. All these countries have a three-tier government system. Their judicial system is a civil law system rather than a common law system, meaning it is often based on legal codes rather than precedent. Their constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers, and every effort was made to ensure that the courts would be independent of the government. ) In some of these countries, there is a Judicial Appointments Council, an independent body that makes recommendations for judicial appointments. A Danish court administration was also established and is responsible for the proper administration of the courts. In this system, lay judges are used, and the Supreme Court, which reviews only the legal structure of the case, forwards cases to them from the lower courts.
3.) Qualifications for judges include a law degree, first- or second-place standing in their class, and strong professional skills and experience. In Germany, there is an additional course requirement, and one must serve as a probationary judge. In every country, judges retire at age 70.
4.) The court system is administered by a separate administration independent of any political interference. In all countries, there is a supervisory committee for judges that examines judges' misconduct.
5.) The Supreme Court never decides whether a person is guilty or not; it decides if there was an erroneous interpretation of a statutory provision. The sole task of this court is judicial review.
6.) Their system is a three-tiered system having three levels of courts that stresses judicial independence, lay judges, and adversarial examination (except Germany, which uses an inquisitorial system where judges question and participate in the proceedings), and all countries emphasize rehabilitation.
7.) In these countries, they have recently modified and updated their judicial systems, as opposed to the stagnation of our judicial system.
Our legal system now shows all the signs of belonging to an authoritarian country, controlled by oligarchs and dictators, rather than a democratic one. The idea of adding a few more judges to the court does not fix our judicial nightmare; the possibility of correcting this system will never materialize, given that we are a divided country, divided since our inception. We are a paralyzed country, divided since 1779. We cannot change the movement of our courts toward a non-democratic system because major portions of our country prefer a dictatorial ruler and being controlled by some other force. We need massive, fundamental structural changes, but we have no way to change the direction our country is going.
This would make a great substack thread on its own. I’m wondering if you might have intended it to be one, and accidentally posted it in a thread where it lacks relevance to the topic.
Now if Tom Steyer can lead by this example, California would be in a better position.
Absolutely amazing! A role model for all!
I loved Andor as well, but we need to get you a few gifs from The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett as well, just to mix things up a bit......😉