LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 48
0 members and 48 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-10-2018, 11:40 AM   #3481
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 84,752
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
The only standard is a political one, and it's within the discretion of the Senate to define it.
I get that- contrast when you/I was evaluated to be a lawyer- our past was compared to some objective standard- of course this senate wouldn't do anything but if we ever get to a functioning government again I would like to see some set panel (non-senators) that reviews non-legal character and gives a thumbs up or down that the senate can follow or ignore. given the political nature this whole issue was never about "did he?" or "does it matter?" it has always been "can we get away with him still?" and "can we win this one by killing him?" Way too important a position for that to be the test.
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:40 AM   #3482
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,541
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
You can't just run around throwing grievous indictments at people without significant proof.
She said he held her down, put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams and tried to take her clothes off, while Judge turned up to music so others would not hear. That's a credible basis for an investigation into attempted rape. It is an allegation of attempted rape. To the extent the distinction matters, it is not merely an allegation of sexual battery (if you want to make the distinction, "sexual assault" is the wrong term to use).

And again, we're not at the proof stage. We haven't even had a real investigation yet.

Mind you, he could respond with, "I wasn't really going to rape her, I was just copping a feel," but he did not. Which is another reason your parsing is absurd.

Last edited by Adder; 10-10-2018 at 11:44 AM..
Adder is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:44 AM   #3483
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,541
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
They don't matter to you because you've no issue with abandoning notions of due process here.
The process due was for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and vote, and then for the Senate to vote. That's it.

When you insist that something akin to criminal process is due here (or in campus discipline cases), you're not being honest with yourself about your own biases.

And, of course, which side of this discussion was calling for more process (more witnesses, more investigation)? Oh, right, not the side your advocating for.

Last edited by Adder; 10-10-2018 at 12:02 PM..
Adder is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:58 AM   #3484
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,069
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Rarely. Politic narratives (generally progressive, economically neoliberal) are baseline. Those who disagree or are skeptics offer criticisms and thus begins a series of concessions about the parts of the narrative that do not survive scrutiny. This veers from lawyerly (trying to preserve dubious claims via semantic gamesmanship) . . .
Interesting. I think I understand what you are saying here, but let me see if I can use a hypothetical example and you can tell me if I am tracking you. Suppose someone makes a statement that is demonstrably false. Something like: "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill." Then, suppose someone else does a simple Google search and finds dozens of article discussing the phenomenon of Hillary being branded as shrill. If the first person were to, in your words, try to preserve his original dubious claim via semantic gamesmanship, he might say something completely off the wall like:

"I can cross reference two of just about any words and give you three pages of google links (most of which are regurgitations of the same text from aggregators). 'Ernest Borgnine nude' and 'jalapeno cheesecake' each deliver ten pages of links."

And then he might try to further distract with some childish sign off like: "Try again."

Is this a good illustration of what you are talking about? Instead of admitting he is wrong, the first person digs in and tries to preserve his dubious claim (here, that "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill") by ignoring the substance of the internet search (which is dozens of articles discussing how Hillary was branded as shrill). Instead, he engages in semantic gamesmanship, and tries to reframe the argument to be about something completely unrelated (whether you can generate lots of search hits with with random search terms). This person is not engaging in honest argumentation, because that would require him to admit he was wrong, which he is incapable of doing. So, instead, he tries to "win" the argument using distraction and semantic games so he does not have to admit that his original incorrect assertion was based not on any actual facts, but rather on his own deep-seated (albeit vehemently denied) biases.
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:11 PM   #3485
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28,129
Conservative Tears

I wonder how prevalent this sentiment is with conservatives who have traditionally not given a fuck about anything or anyone other than themselves--read: taxes, and abortion, and who now have exactly what they've always wanted in both instances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.5ea7fb78ba20

TM

Last edited by ThurgreedMarshall; 10-10-2018 at 12:14 PM..
ThurgreedMarshall is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:41 PM   #3486
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,355
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF View Post
In a futile effort, I have been trying to show my "friends" that they may have "my side bias." Ilya Somin wrote about it well re Kavanaugh at https://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/25...asoning-and-th
That's a very strong post. And I guess I'll just go back to the point that Republicans in the Senate who voted for Kavanaugh could surely have confirmed another nominee with similarly conservative views. And yet it seems like the sorts of biases Somin describes drove them to pick Kavanaugh because they were defending him from Democrats.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:56 PM   #3487
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,355
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
If you do not see how this differs from the accusation that someone forcibly groped and attempted to disrobe someone, I'm wondering where you were during Crim Law class.
I absolutely see why it might matter in a Crim Law class. This isn't Crim Law. It's Con Law. And you aren't in any danger of passing.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:01 PM   #3488
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,355
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
I get that- contrast when you/I was evaluated to be a lawyer- our past was compared to some objective standard- of course this senate wouldn't do anything but if we ever get to a functioning government again I would like to see some set panel (non-senators) that reviews non-legal character and gives a thumbs up or down that the senate can follow or ignore. given the political nature this whole issue was never about "did he?" or "does it matter?" it has always been "can we get away with him still?" and "can we win this one by killing him?" Way too important a position for that to be the test.
The ABA used to do this, and the GOP stopped giving weight to what it said because it was politically inconvenient.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:06 PM   #3489
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 84,752
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
The ABA used to do this, and the GOP stopped giving weight to what it said because it was politically inconvenient.
No. ABA is a politically biased organization, I meant something with no tie. A stand alone committee. Or even a staffed congressional office.
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:07 PM   #3490
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,541
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
No. ABA is a politically biased organization, I meant something with no tie. A stand alone committee. Or even a staffed congressional office.
How would it not have the same or similar bias issues?
Adder is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:08 PM   #3491
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 84,752
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
How would it not have the same or similar bias issues?
It can’t with congress as it now is, but aren’t there staffed offices not politically appointed? What is CBO?
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:33 PM   #3492
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,423
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
When you insist that something akin to criminal process is due here (or in campus discipline cases), you're not being honest with yourself about your own biases.
No. I said "notions of due process," which unless you're intentionally obtuse, means a relaxed standard, but one that recognizes we in America afford the accused - in every forum - a presumption of innocence.

Do you really wish to live in a world where, outside a court of law, guilty until proven otherwise is a standard? That's demented.

Quote:
And, of course, which side of this discussion was calling for more process (more witnesses, more investigation)? Oh, right, not the side your advocating for.
I'm not advocating for anyone. I'd have dinged Kavanaugh for involvement with Starr.

I'm pointing out where your thinking is flawed, a bit scary, and politically detrimental to your "team."

I don't like that Kavanaugh wound up on the court. I think he's damaged goods now, and so too is the court. And once more, if you worked for Starr, I wouldn't even shake your hand.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:38 PM   #3493
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,423
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I absolutely see why it might matter in a Crim Law class. This isn't Crim Law. It's Con Law. And you aren't in any danger of passing.
This isn't con law. Con law has definable standards. Adder's right about 15% of the time. Today's 15% was his assessment that this process was entirely political. That it occurred in perverted version of a process held pursuant to con law doesn't mean it's con law. It was a free for all, an abuse of a loophole in con law that provided for hearing but failed to provide adequate rules for the hearing.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:55 PM   #3494
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,541
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I'm pointing out where your thinking is flawed, a bit scary, and politically detrimental to your "team."
He was credibly accused. Having been so, an actual investigation should have ensued. We did not get one. We got a blanket denial from him, along with lying on collateral issues as to his credibility. That's more than enough for a no vote based on the allegations.

But you don't need that either, because his demonstrated temperament and lies to the committee are also more than sufficient reason to vote no.

Weirdly, I do not think having worked for Starr is disqualifying, but hey, each Senator gets to decide, so whatever.

Quote:
And once more, if you worked for Starr, I wouldn't even shake your hand.
I don't recall for certain whether I shook his hand when I met him, but I'd assume so.
Adder is offline  
Old 10-10-2018, 02:09 PM   #3495
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,423
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
He was credibly accused. Having been so, an actual investigation should have ensued.
Agreed.

Quote:
We did not get one.
Agreed.

Quote:
We got a blanket denial from him, along with lying on collateral issues as to his credibility. That's more than enough for a no vote based on the allegations.
Agreed on lies, not on blanket denial. I personally think the denial was a lie. But I'm speculating. I'd want more investigation before I made a decision if I were a senator.

I would not - ever - decide she was entirely truthful and he was not based solely on her testimony. I do not think a credible accusation alone shifts the burden of proof in any forum, including any truly logical person's mind.

You are right to rip the GOP for avoiding a real investigation. You are dead wrong if you believe based on a credible accusation alone, and a blanket denial, a nominee should be dinged. That's dangerous thinking.

Quote:
But you don't need that either, because his demonstrated temperament and lies to the committee are also more than sufficient reason to vote no.
Agreed on lies, not on temperament.

Quote:
Weirdly, I do not think having worked for Starr is disqualifying, but hey, each Senator gets to decide, so whatever.
Non-negotiable from my end. Total disqualification. Do not pass go.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 10-10-2018 at 02:11 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 PM.