Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I still don't know why you'd want jurors rather than professional judges.

My usual response to this is Chesterson's The Twelve Men, which while somewhat culturally dated and religiously drifty (it's Chesterson) pretty succinctly makes the most important arguments for jury trials.

Why would judges be any more dickish than peers? Although you do elect your judges, which seems equally dumb to me.

See above, and as mentioned judges in the US can be appointed, elected non-partisanly, or elected partisanly.

Judges are appointed for 'life' (they are forced to retire at age 70, a few years later than official national retirement age). This benefits their impartiality, because they need not fear losing their job.

I don't see how that makes them any more impartial than the icy hand of death does.

To further protect the judges' impartiality, there are many grounds on which a judge can be forcibly substituted in a court case. For instance, if the defense has reasonable grounds that suggest the judge has a political or religious engagement that could influence his perception of the defendant's case, the defense can ask the court to substitute the judge with another judge. In fact, reasonable suspicion of any circumstances that could damage the judge's impartiality can be a ground for substitution.

This can be done in the US but is generally unnecessary, as an interested judge is expected to recuse themselves. They're motivated towards doing this because a failure to recuse is an incredibly strong argument in appellate courts and puts them at risk of review by the bar association or outright arrest if blatant.

So a situation like in the US, where there are genuine worries about the SCJ appointments for things like LGBT+ rights, will not easily occur here. A judge that has outspoken views on the topic would just be substituted by another judge in all cases concerning the topic.

That's not the nature of the Supreme Court. The justices generally do not interject their personal views, at least not directly. Even arch-conservative fortune cookie master Scalia unhesitatingly joined the majority in recognizing flag burning as symbolic speech as he publicly decried the practice and even said he thought it ought to be illegal, but was not.

Concern over the state of LGBT rights in the Supreme Court comes down not to personal bias but relevant Constitutional issues: the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment and the exact circumstances to extend protected class status. These sorts of things are very much what the court is for. It's also worth remembering that about half of all Supreme Court decisions are 9-0 or 8-1, those you tend to not hear about since they're less divisive.

[Culise]

This can be done in the US but is generally unnecessary, as an impartial judge is expected to recuse themselves. They're motivated towards doing this because a failure to recuse is an incredibly strong argument in appellate courts and puts them at risk of review by the bar association or outright arrest if blatant.

Just a minor note since I know what you meant, but it's amusing in an maybe-accidentally-accurate sense: "impartial" is the opposite of what you want.  An impartial judge is unbiased, and will express no partiality towards either side.  A partial judge is potentially biased, and thus expected to recuse themselves.  Amusing perhaps in a sad sense considering certain cynicism regarding the state of affairs in the judiciary, but amusing nonetheless.

[misko27]

Finally, some blood out in the water! Is it the end, though, or just the beginning?

None of it appears to be in the context of Trump's campaign though, I guess this is what Trump meant by that he was vindicated, for now at least.

How many times does Trump say this before he realizes it's annoying? And more importantly: Does he care?

[wierd]

I expect it to be quite frothy.  With politicians as openly corrupt as our current batch, you dont have to scratch deep to find the dirt. The question is if the corruption has seeped into the judiciary, and if the judiciary is willing to go after sitting officials. (It sets a dangerous precedent for more concealed (aka, popular), but equally dirty politicians being prosecuted. See for instance, the statements the FBI director made about prosecuting Clinton over her mishandling of state secrets.)

[smjjames]

Finally, some blood out in the water! Is it the end, though, or just the beginning?

None of it appears to be in the context of Trump's campaign though, I guess this is what Trump meant by that he was vindicated, for now at least.

How many times does Trump say this before he realizes it's annoying? And more importantly: Does he care?

He's going to push as hard as possible on the "THERE WAS NO COLLUSION" line until he literally can't push that line, even then, he'd still push that.

If impeachment does come up, it'll be a dillemma since Pence would be worse in many aspects (a puppet of the Koch brothers for one). As someone on the facebook feed of 538's liveblog said, it would be better if the Republicans faced their own mistakes and had Trump attempt a run in 2020 or try to primary him or force him to not run for another term.

[wierd]

I dont think the Republicans would "face up to their mistakes" even if a flaming hand of God descended upon capital hill, and emblazoned their sins in 40 foot radioactive letters that could be seen from space.

When your modus operandi is to deny any wrongdoing, and point fingers, doing what you suggest is antithetical.

[smjjames]

I think they'd have to be more than 40 foot tall or wide or otherwise to be seen from space..... and is that a long euphenism for getting nuked? heh.

I think that persons point was more that it should be resolved through election since there are a bunch of unsavory figures in the WH (that person didn't specify beyond Trump and Pence) and mainly that impeaching Trump and putting in Pence would amount to a 'get out of Trump free' card for the Republicans.

Then again, the Democrats aren't in great shape atm and may need more than three years to recover, plus they're fighting the historical incumbency advantage.

So, Trump has tweeted an old photo of him with Papadoopoulos in a large staff meeting. I guess he's trying to show support for him, but you'd think a politician would try to distance themselves from that staffer. Nvm, somehow missed the fact that the tweet itself is from 2016.

And yeah, the Papadopoulos thing is the clearest indication of collusion yet, just how far it goes remains to be seen.

[Egan_BW]

You'd be able to see 40-foot lettering from space of it were glowing bright enough. Wouldn't be able to read it, sure, but you'd see it. ;P

[Sheb]

I think they'd have to be more than 40 foot tall or wide or otherwise to be seen from space..... and is that a long euphenism for getting nuked? heh.

I think that persons point was more that it should be resolved through election since there are a bunch of unsavory figures in the WH (that person didn't specify beyond Trump and Pence) and mainly that impeaching Trump and putting in Pence would amount to a 'get out of Trump free' card for the Republicans.

Then again, the Democrats aren't in great shape atm and may need more than three years to recover, plus they're fighting the historical incumbency advantage.

So, Trump has tweeted an old photo of him with Papadoopoulos in a large staff meeting. I guess he's trying to show support for him, but you'd think a politician would try to distance themselves from that staffer. And yeah, the Papadopoulos thing is the clearest indication of collusion yet, just how far it goes remains to be seen.

That tweet is from 2016.

[smjjames]

Whoop, serves me right for reading a bit fast.

[wierd]

SMJJ-- you are forgetting just HOW MUCH said flaming hand of god would have to write!! (No, not a euphemism for nuking them exactly-- more that God is VERY much trying to get the point across.) See that ONE indictment for Papadapoulus? Yeah-- 40 foot letters.  You would be able to see the glowing document from space. Even if all the big G did was enumerate their sins, the list would be extensive enough to be clearly visible.

[redwallzyl]

I would just like to point out the massive problem the US has with incarceration as the majority of cases are settled with plea bargains which often screw over people. Its the carceral state, we very much still have a police to prison system.

[wierd]

That is the price you pay for being "Tough on crime." (searing hot sarcasm)

When you are willing to actually treat people like they are actually innocent, instead of "Our man!", you have to entertain (as a prosecutor), the notion that the defendant is not the person who committed the crime, and thus cannot try to create absurd confabulations in the courtroom in the attempt to dispel doubt. (Or use thug tactics to cudgel a defendant into a confession through "plea bargains", since the cudgel used-- namely, the hyper-aggressive nature of the prosecution, would not exist.)

That is to say, our prosecutors do not engage the process with professional distance; they approach it with vindiction-- which is a major factor in why things are the way they are.

[RedKing]

SMJJ-- you are forgetting just HOW MUCH said flaming hand of god would have to write!! (No, not a euphemism for nuking them exactly-- more that God is VERY much trying to get the point across.) See that ONE indictment for Papadapoulus? Yeah-- 40 foot letters.  You would be able to see the glowing document from space. Even if all the big G did was enumerate their sins, the list would be extensive enough to be clearly visible.

"We're going to need a bigger Earth."

EDIT: My gut instinct says Trump doesn't get impeached from this. Possibly not even implicated, though it may take down Kushner and Don Jr. Whom Trump will be clueless enough to pardon, which *might* rise to the level of impeachable.

But if the Dems are smart (and god knows the jury is still out on that), they won't impeach. Trump is a bigger liability to the GOP than he is a threat to the Democrats right now. Leave him in office as a giant orange-furred albatross and ride that metaphorical seabird all the way into a Congressional majority in 2018 and the White House in 2020. If they can get the former, they can mostly nullify his ability to do anything outside of executive orders which can be quickly overridden by the next President.

[smjjames]

EDIT: My gut instinct says Trump doesn't get impeached from this. Possibly not even implicated, though it may take down Kushner and Don Jr. Whom Trump will be clueless enough to pardon, which *might* rise to the level of impeachable.

But if the Dems are smart (and god knows the jury is still out on that), they won't impeach. Trump is a bigger liability to the GOP than he is a threat to the Democrats right now. Leave him in office as a giant orange-furred albatross and ride that metaphorical seabird all the way into a Congressional majority in 2018 and the White House in 2020. If they can get the former, they can mostly nullify his ability to do anything outside of executive orders which can be quickly overridden by the next President.

I think that's the point that person I mentioned was trying to make. Also, I'd really rather we not get into an escalating pendulum of D: Reverse his/her EOs! R: Reverse his/her EOs! D: Reverse his/her EOs! R: Reverse his/her EOs! D: Reverse his/her EOs! R: Reverse his/her EOs! ad infinitum. I know there are some things that are going to get reversed regardless, but it'd be dumb to get stuck in that pattern.