In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 09 2014 03:16 Simberto wrote: Is it not pretty much a known fact that the results of court cases in the US are highly dependent on how much money you can afford to spend on a lawyer? At least i thought that was the case and barely disputed by anyone, and it is pretty much the only way to explain the difference in costs of a better lawyer compared to a mediocre one. Because why would anyone pay for the better one if it only wins marginally more cases?
It is, JBNH is just being willfully ignorant and has very little credibility.
Oh, and being white and middle class also helps you in court. A lot.
On September 09 2014 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Haha I almost took that seriously for a second. Yeah I mean why not give her a worse punishment than the teenager who killed 4 people driving drunk? No one denying anyone justice around here.
Comparing one unrelated case to another doesn't carry a lot of value. Heck, you're talking about different laws in different jurisdictions.
What does it matter? Unless you are going to try to tell me that teen was how most teens get treated in similar circumstances?
If you really think that guy and some poor person who did the same exact thing would get remotely the same outcome you are completely delusional.
Rich guy Bernie Madoff got 150 years in jail for financial fraud. Real estate agent Yevgenity Charikov got zero time for mortgage fraud (source). Sometimes regular people get a better deal than the rich. That's just how these things go - every case is different.
Sometimes all sorts of things happen that don't at all reflect the common reality ... 'Sometimes' doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.
Yeah, no shit. That's my point...
Yeah but the inequity in legislation/enforcement/adjudications isn't a sometimes issue. But you already know that, so I don't get why (or what , for that matter) you are arguing?
I can't get any simpler than this:
Different crimes have different punishments. Breaking the law should result in punishment. You can't extrapolate patterns from anecdotal evidence.
You don't have to use anecdotal evidence. The patterns are clear as day.
Than why do you constantly rely on anecdotal evidence?
The dozens of studies done on the topic don't. On a systemic level, class matters with regards to the justice system (and so does race).
On September 09 2014 01:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Comparing one unrelated case to another doesn't carry a lot of value. Heck, you're talking about different laws in different jurisdictions.
What does it matter? Unless you are going to try to tell me that teen was how most teens get treated in similar circumstances?
If you really think that guy and some poor person who did the same exact thing would get remotely the same outcome you are completely delusional.
Rich guy Bernie Madoff got 150 years in jail for financial fraud. Real estate agent Yevgenity Charikov got zero time for mortgage fraud (source). Sometimes regular people get a better deal than the rich. That's just how these things go - every case is different.
Sometimes all sorts of things happen that don't at all reflect the common reality ... 'Sometimes' doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.
Yeah, no shit. That's my point...
Yeah but the inequity in legislation/enforcement/adjudications isn't a sometimes issue. But you already know that, so I don't get why (or what , for that matter) you are arguing?
I can't get any simpler than this:
Different crimes have different punishments. Breaking the law should result in punishment. You can't extrapolate patterns from anecdotal evidence.
You don't have to use anecdotal evidence. The patterns are clear as day.
Than why do you constantly rely on anecdotal evidence?
The dozens of studies done on the topic don't. On a systemic level, class matters with regards to the justice system (and so does race).
I have no problem with someone referring to actual data. My problem is with comparing the sentencing in the illegal abortion case to other random headlines.
A Democratic-led constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and subsequent rulings loosening restrictions on money in politics moved forward in the Senate on Monday evening.
The procedural vote was 79 in favor, 18 against.
The vote means the Senate can begin debate on the measure. But it is highly unlikely to ultimately pass the chamber as it faces fierce Republican opposition. It would need to clear another 60-vote threshold in order to end debate and come to a final vote. And that final vote would require the support of two-thirds of senators to succeed.
The measure, proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), would restore the legal right of Congress to establish campaign spending limits. Approved by committee on a party line basis in July, it is one of several pre-election votes Senate Democrats are planning in an attempt to highlight the contrast between the two parties before Americans head to the polls.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Republicans are happy to debate the measure, but "to be clear, there is zero support on our side for rewriting the First Amendment to restrict free speech."
Democrats chose to spotlight the issue because the public is on their side. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2010, which wiped out limits on independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections, thereby giving rise to super PACs. Earlier this year, the same five justices ruled to further loosen campaign finance restrictions on aggregate spending by an individual to political candidates and committees in a given cycle.
In both cases, all five Republican-appointed justices voted to remove restrictions, while all four Democratic-appointed justices voted to uphold them.
A Democratic-led constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and subsequent rulings loosening restrictions on money in politics moved forward in the Senate on Monday evening.
The procedural vote was 79 in favor, 18 against.
The vote means the Senate can begin debate on the measure. But it is highly unlikely to ultimately pass the chamber as it faces fierce Republican opposition. It would need to clear another 60-vote threshold in order to end debate and come to a final vote. And that final vote would require the support of two-thirds of senators to succeed.
The measure, proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), would restore the legal right of Congress to establish campaign spending limits. Approved by committee on a party line basis in July, it is one of several pre-election votes Senate Democrats are planning in an attempt to highlight the contrast between the two parties before Americans head to the polls.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Republicans are happy to debate the measure, but "to be clear, there is zero support on our side for rewriting the First Amendment to restrict free speech."
Democrats chose to spotlight the issue because the public is on their side. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2010, which wiped out limits on independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections, thereby giving rise to super PACs. Earlier this year, the same five justices ruled to further loosen campaign finance restrictions on aggregate spending by an individual to political candidates and committees in a given cycle.
In both cases, all five Republican-appointed justices voted to remove restrictions, while all four Democratic-appointed justices voted to uphold them.
Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
The idea behind the status quo is that it gets politicians elected and makes them money.
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
Corporations are just groups of citizens, and just like a corporate tax rate can't be paid by a brownstone building, so also individuals have rights functioning alone or in groups. Your use of "special class" takes some explanation, since even on paper a tiny LLC, big C-Corp, or sole proprietorship does not on its face create something special for one denied to other. Also, an "extreme imbalance of power" takes further explanation as well, since I don't take you for some braindead leftist college student that goes up to me saying, "Dude, the whole country's run by the corporations." How have you been oppressed, or what do you see?
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
Sounds like some productive changes are coming to Ferguson:
Ferguson city council to establish police department review board
FERGUSON, Mo. – The Ferguson City Council, set to meet Tuesday for the first time since the fatal shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old by a white police officer one month ago, said it plans to establish a review board to help guide the police department and make other changes aimed at improving community relations.
Those would include reducing the revenue from court fines that are used for general city operations in the St. Louis suburb and reforming court procedures, according to a statement from a public relations firm hired by Ferguson. Critics say reliance on court revenue and traffic fines to fund city services more heavily penalizes low-income defendants who can't afford private attorneys, and who are often jailed for not promptly paying those fines.
Michael Brown's fatal shooting Aug. 9 by Ferguson officer Darren Wilson sparked sometimes-violent protests that led to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon summoning the state Highway Patrol and National Guard to keep order. It also exposed an undercurrent of racial unrest in Ferguson and other nearby suburbs in mostly black communities of north St. Louis County.
City leaders vowed after Brown's death to boost minority recruiting and outreach efforts at City Hall and throughout the community.
"The overall goal of these changes is to improve trust within the community and increase transparency, particularly within Ferguson's courts and police department," Councilman Mark Byrne said in the statement. "We want to demonstrate to residents that we take their concerns extremely seriously."
Ferguson, a city of 21,000, is about 70 percent black. Its 53-member police department has just three black officers. The mayor and five of the six City Council members are white.
A 2013 report by the Missouri attorney general's office found that Ferguson police stopped and arrested black drivers nearly twice as often as white motorists, but were also less likely to find contraband among the black drivers.
In Ferguson, court fines and fees accounted for $2.6 million in the last fiscal year, or nearly one-fifth of the city budget. That's nearly twice as much as the city collected just two years earlier.
Of the 90 municipal governments in St. Louis County, 22 depend on such fines for at least one-fifth of their revenue. An Associated Press analysis shows that 38 towns or villages depend on municipal fines from minor traffic violations for at least one-tenth of their annual revenue. Three cities with 1,000 or fewer people rely on municipal fines for the majority of their yearly income.
That doesn't hold true for the county as a whole, which collects just a fraction of 1 percent of its revenue from court fines and fees.
A St. Louis legal group that represents indigent defendants recently singled out the courts in Bel-Ridge, Ferguson and Florissant as "chronic offenders" among a group of 30 municipal courts where problems were documented.
The report by the nonprofit ArchCity Defenders found dozens of cases where children and members of the public were improperly banned from attending open court session. In Ferguson, defendants described a system so overwhelmed by crowds that bailiffs would lock the door five minutes after the scheduled start time -- and then issue failure to appear warrants for those who arrived late and were locked out. In Bel-Ridge, multiple defendants were in court to contest citations for not registering with the city garbage collection service.
"These policies unintentionally push the poor further into poverty, prevent the homeless from accessing the housing, treatment and jobs they so desperately need to regain stability in their lives, and violate the Constitution," the report concluded.
Those widespread practices led the St. Louis County circuit judge who oversees local courts to send a written warning to municipal judges and clerks to keep their courtrooms open to the public.
The U.S. Justice Department announced last week that it was launching a broad investigation into the Ferguson police department, looking for patterns of discrimination. The police department said it supported the investigation and was working to earn back "the trust of our residents and our neighbors."
That inquiry is separate from a federal probe into Brown's death, which a local grand jury is also investigating.
Police have said the shooting came after a scuffle that broke out after Wilson told Brown and a friend to move out of the street and onto a sidewalk. Police say Wilson was pushed into his squad car and physically assaulted. Some witnesses have reported seeing Brown's arms in the air before the shooting in an act of surrender. An autopsy paid for by Brown's family concluded that he was shot six times, twice in the head.
On Tuesday morning, Brown's parents joined about 20 supporters and community activists at a press conference outside Ferguson police headquarters to reiterate their calls for Wilson's immediate arrest, rather than wait for the grand jury to conclude its review. The gathering occurred on the one-month anniversary of Brown's death.
A Ferguson city council meeting that had been scheduled for late August was canceled shortly beforehand after city officials said they were unable to find a location that would accommodate the large crowd expected. Tuesday's meeting has been moved from Ferguson City Hall to a nearby church that was the site of a Brown memorial service shortly after his death.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
EPT
