this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
477 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2302 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's almost like the gratuities are what drive the decisions by Republican appiontees.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Enkers 106 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Cannon had filed the Sage Lodge trips with the federal judiciary’s administrative office but had “inadvertently” not taken the second step of posting them on the court’s website. [The clerk] explained that “Judges often do not realize they must input the information twice."

Seems like a bad system. Why not just have it be done automatically, or have the clerk do it. Presumably the judge's time is going to be more costly than the clerk's.

It almost seems intentionally bad so these little oopsies can keep happening.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It almost seems intentionally bad so these little oopsies can keep happening.

That's like... our entire fucking government.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Eh… large swaths of government try to be efficient… it just keeps tripping over its own feet and all the red tape lying around.

Seems to me like the majority of this nonsense is more typical of the portion of the government that employs by appointment.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Valid take, and I appreciate it in response to my cynicism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Holy shit… totally not the response I expected either.

But to my point, I know a handful of career civil servants and they’re pretty passionate about their roles and try to do a good job… unlike fucking lunatics like Canon who are supposed to be apolitical but politics dictate every action they take…

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Something something ignorance of the law is no excuse

[–] Enkers 1 points 2 months ago

Just to be clear, this is a matter of workplace policy, so relating to the law, but not of the law. But yes, it would be prudent to know the policies of your workplace, and doubly so if you're a goddamned judge.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like a bad judgment call to not ensure you understand the rules of your job.

One might even say if you don't care about doing your job correctly that it shows a lack of proper judgment.

But what do I know, I'm just a worthless factory schmuck.

[–] Enkers 6 points 2 months ago

I feel like there's something peculiar about those slanty words you used, but who am I to judge?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As someone in the industry, every organization has to balance cost to benefits. If it costs $10k to intercomnect two low priority systems vs having each person have to double enter, they're gonna prioritize higher priority things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Truth, even though it still doesn't make sense.

A while back, another team asked us to clean up some noisy logs, because it cost us $3k a year with our new logging provider. As we discussed it on a call, my boss pointed out that with the people we had on, that meeting cost more than $3k.