>

The first anti choice Latino judge elected, wow what are celebrating?
This is what AOC meant when talking about how in other countries she wouldn't be in the 'same party' as many other Democrats. They'd have their smaller 'progressive party' and then they'd form a coalition with the "Moderate/Center Dem Party' and that would be a power structure.
Which kinda happened behind the scenes to help Pelosi secure the leadership previously when there were enough Progressive votes to block her.
Same as the GOP you wouldn't have everyone under the same umbrella... but America is and will likely continue to remain for a long time a two-party system because it's become far too established and financially secure in that model. >


continue to remain for a long time a two-party system because it's become far too established and financially secure in that model.

While the money is a big part of it, the two party system is caused by our electoral system. "First past the post" style voting (like the US has, where you win 50.1% of the vote you win everything) discourages the creation of smaller, niche parties in favor of having just two opposing parties (think about it, if you have a party that is supported by 20% of all voters you will likely never be able win by yourself, but join forces with another party that has 30% support and you kinda agree on things and boom, you've got a chance).
In order to get rid of the two-party system we need to completely overhaul our electoral system. And there's basically no chance of that because the current electoral system is REALLY good at catering to the established powers and their money >

I don't think this is true, at least not fully. Canada is First Past the Post and we have many parties as well. There's some other part of the electoral system that seems to break the US into a two party system, but it's not just First Past the Post. >

Oh, there's definitely more minutia to it, but it's more true than I think you realize. 
A quick glance through some information on your House of Commons reveals that over 80% of the seats belong to just two parties (Lib and CPC). There are 3 other parties (plus a couple independents), true, however one of those parties doesn't have enough representation to be recognized for legislative purposes (just quoting what I read, idk if that's functionally meaningful), and one of the other parties (NDP) is just Lib but further left (again, I'm basing this on pretty quick searches, so please feel free to correct me if I'm totally off base). So, from the outsider's perspective it seems like you only really have a choice between left, Left, right, and Quebec. I'm not sure I would call it many parties, but it's definitely more than are in the US government.
It's worth mentioning that the US does actually have more than two parties that appear on our ballots. Democrat and Republican are the only two that generally matter, being so significantly bigger than the others, but very occasionally a Libertarian or Green Party candidate will manage to get elected
Edit: to add context, I wanted to show the number of parties in some countries that don't do first past the post (for 10 or more seats, I'm only counting House of Commons/Representatives equivalent):

Spain: 17 parties (6 with 10 or more seats)
UK: 11 parties (4 with 10 or more seats)
Netherlands: 21 parties (4 with 10 or more seats)
Italy: 31 parties (6 with 10 or more seats) >

All the downvotes I got for saying he was a terrible choice... and here we go. >

I'd never heard of him before. Now it sounds like I'll always wish I hadnt. >

It's the epitome of everything that's wrong with the democratic party. All identity and no substance. >

Or depending on who you ask, the most progressive person to ever lead the party and the culmination of the highest virtues of liberal democracy up unto this moment. >

FDR would like a word with those people. >

Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt would like a word. >

People are surprised by this?  LaSalle is a pro-corporate judged and Jeffries is as pro-corporate as it gets >

Yeah, legitimately surprised.  There are plenty of "pro-corporate" Dems who are against LaSalle for all of his other horrible positions.
IMO, Jeffries is legitimately endangering his House leadership position with this endorsement. >

He absolutely isn’t. It sucks but his position is secured >

If the status quo holds, sure.  But if LaSalle ends up getting confirmed, Jeffries is now a co-owner all of his decisions -- which could absolutely trigger a challenge in the 2024 leadership election. >

Just a reminder that Hakeem Jeffries is a neoliberal shill out of the swamp of failure that is New York corporate politics (take a look at the last election, where conservadems in NY alone cost the Dems the House of Representatives).  He was shoved into place in a move that progressives know well in order to keep Barbara Lee from getting into the leadership.
Think how much better off we'd be if Barbara Lee was in Hakeem Jeffries' place. >

She has been and remains a hero of mine, because she was the lone vote against the use of force authorization that would be and has been used to justify war fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, sub-Sahara Africa, and infinite covert operations.  
Here is a good article that talks about her vote that day.  
It seems fairly obvious to any casual observer that the death merchants run this country. >

Definitely a good article.  The link also provides her speech about voting no at the time.  Only a couple minutes and worth a watch! >

Anti choice judge. >

You're making a lot out of a unanimous decision that Lasalle didn't even write that upheld the subpoena but just narrowed it a bit.  
I don't think that's enough to call him anti-abortion or supportive of CPCs >

They are all also citing that same unanimous opinion (that LaSalle did not write). Are you saying it’s unconscionable that a bunch of similarly minded organizations with outspoken policy goals could all be led (erringly) in the same direction based on one flimsy piece of evidence? Because that sounds completely believable to me. >

That’s a lot of words to say that you agree with me. Both of those organizations both cited the same decision. The decision he didn’t write. And also a decision that is only tangentially related to abortion. In other words, organizations that want to pursue their policy goals through the courts are incorrectly saying this judge is anti-abortion based on a flawed analysis of one opinion.
Are they publishing false information willfully? Maybe not. They may truly not understand. It appears you don’t either. The more likely answer is they would mislead the public in pursuit of their policy goals. >

Some states are beginning to use ranked choice voting. This should give more voice to smaller parties. >

Disappointing but not surprising that the House Dems picked yet another center-conservative as their leader. >

They had Republican Lite Mayor Adams give a speech on messaging before the last election cycle. So that’s why multi-millionaire leadership is provably never going to reflect the people’s interest as much as the interest accruing on their investments. >

WTF, Hakeem?

In 2017, LaSalle ruled that a so-called "crisis pregnancy center"—where people are pressured into carrying unwanted pregnancies instead of obtaining abortion care—should be shielded from the state attorney general's investigation into whether the facility was practicing medicine without a license. The judge invoked the First Amendment when he ruled that "advertisements and promotional literature, brochures, and pamphlets that the [center] provided or disseminated to the public" should not be investigated.
He also joined other judges in 2015 in handing down a "shocking" opinion, Sammon and Stern wrote, that allowed Cablevision to sue union leaders for criticizing the company's response to Hurricane Sandy... >

People are now getting to know the real Hakeem Jeffries, hopefully he won’t last long as speaker. >

He's... not the speaker... >

Jeffries has long been one of the biggest moneymakers for the Dems. Pretty much the only reason he was put in charge. It’s the only thing the corporate dems care about. He’s a hack. >

Moderates gonna moderate. >

This happens every time Dems start celebrating the latest figurehead in the party without really knowing anything about them. He's Pelosi's hand-picked successor. He's not some radical progressive. He is a middle of the road corporate Dem. >

He's actually even more conservative than pelosi. >

Yeah, I was holding out for a bit of hope that he wasn't going to be a jackass but here we are yet again.
Just fortifies my decision to continue to not donate to the Democratic party and keep on donating to progressives until this kind of bullshit finally changes. >

Looks like we have another manchin, sinema situation in the Democratic Party sick of all these assholes >

New York Democrats deserve all the shit they get. It's a crooked party that cost Dems the House this time around. >

Well now I guess it’s time to vote for only independents who are extreme left. It’s not important to vote for democrats if they are putting up the same type of people as the republicans do. >

Just like Pelosi stumped for Cuellar in Texas. Both parties suck! >

Follow the money >

Jesus, read the room Dems! Do better! >

People are excited about him but he’s just another bought out by corporations centrist Democrat. Nothing exciting about that. >

What's it going to take to admit this clown was a mistake? >

Hakeem Jeffries speedrunning to become a worse House dem leader than Pelosi >

More proof, in case you needed it, that money trumps ideology. >

I really don’t want to leave my country, but it’s coming to that being the only option. >

This seems incredibly histrionic. It's a judge ruling about the ability of the state to investigate a center, and all their fellow judges concurred. 
If you think that means he's unleashing a wave of handmaiden restrictions, then common dreams has achieved its goal, to scare the shit out of you. >

The fact that the shit judge was in shit company that made the same shit ruling is not a comfort.  
What I think it means is that the Democratic Party is continuing its rightward shift and that siding with anti-abortion is going to be seen as preferable to siding with progressives. >


siding with anti-abortion is going to be seen as preferable to siding with progressives.

right after declaring themselves the abortion party in the midterms! can't even keep a promise for a month. >

Maybe people should have looked into who he was before they were praising the living shiz out of him just because pelosi picked him?
Maybe people should also question why pelosi picked him, and what exactly that says about her? >

And there goes what little good will I had for him in the first place. >

Y’all’s panties are getting twisted real quick here. 
Hakeem Jeffries is not in the NY State Senate. He does NOT have a vote on this nominee. He is supporting his Governor who may or may not have made a political error in choosing this judge to be the Chief Judge of the NY Court of Appeals. This particular judge would be the first Latino to serve on that court. His ‘anti-abortion’ ruling was about limiting discovery in a case, which very well indicate that he is impartial when applying the law to litigants (generally considered a good thing).
If you are an ardent, bleeding heart liberal you never liked Jeffries anyway so the withdrawal of your support is negligible. He just got 212 votes to be Minority Leader 15 times. 
Try to relax, take some deep breaths and enjoy life.