|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 May 23 2017 10:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 09:54 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 09:49 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 23:03 Plansix wrote:On May 22 2017 22:55 farvacola wrote:I'll admit that I was not at all upset when I received denial letters from all the judges I applied to in Mississippi  If I had to guess which states had the most underfunded Courts, it would be New Hampshire and Mississippi in that order. NH is one of the best places and states to live in, in the country. I think they're doing just fine. As someone who lives south of them, I never said otherwise. But their sheriffs and judicial system are chronically underfunded and their docket shows that. It can take 2 months for a ruling on a district court motion the higher up in the state you go. One court gets a judge 7 buisness days out of the month. It's designed that way. The legislature only meets for like a month and they have one of the largest assemblies in the world (for instance). As well, NH has one of the lowest crime rates in the country so the need for funding large police presences is unwarranted (which will go lower once they legalize most drugs - which they will in time as the state becomes more and more libertarian). By the way, I wonder how you feel about the requirement to inform juries of jury nullification (a long held right of the jury that is suppressed everywhere else) in NH?
The sheriff's offices are not police. They effect civil process and handle other issues for the judicial branch. The court is fine as long as you don't want anything fast.
As for jury nullification. It has flaws and any case it happens on should be review by a higher court. Racist juries have acquitted people who have committed hate crimes and claimed nullification. But it is rare and should simply be reviewed and upheld or retried.
On May 23 2017 10:13 KwarK wrote:
Jury nullification takes power away from the judiciary and hands it to the man in the street. The normal system is that the jury decide if the accused is guilty and the judiciary, with guidance from the legislature, decide what the sentence must be. Jury nullification makes the entire affair into a lottery at best and a lynch mob at worst. And that's not hyperbole, it had a long history of use in the south when white juries would refuse to find lynchers guilty. Hell, as recently as 6 months ago it was used for exactly that in the Michael Slager case.
It should always be appealed. There is no question that it can be abused, but it also allows bullshit laws and charges to be challenged by the jury.
|
On May 23 2017 10:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 09:59 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:On May 23 2017 09:50 KwarK wrote:In a case talking about the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans that statement says more about the author than it does about the case. You seem to have missed the point, which involves the inconsistency of courts in this particular matter. And I think it's painfully obvious that Thomas is right, redistricting is about winning elections, for both parties. And he is telling the Republicans to find a better excuse that doesn't violate the 14th amendment. I don't see a problem here beyond the Republican hand wringing. For a party that has run on the "By any means necessary" platform, this is right in the wheel house. Losing is hard, but sometimes you need to be better at the game. NC needs to focus on repressing the votes of all democrats, not just the black democrats. Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:03 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:On May 23 2017 09:50 KwarK wrote:In a case talking about the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans that statement says more about the author than it does about the case. You seem to have missed the point, which involves the inconsistency of courts in this particular matter. And I think it's painfully obvious that Thomas is right, redistricting is about winning elections, for both parties. When one party says that they're redistricting to limit minority representation so that they can win elections it is impossible for the other party to take a moral stance against that kind of racist attack on the franchise without being accused of having an ulterior motive. It's a zero sum game, one side seeks to profit at the expense of the other, whatever the moral stance is, you'll just accuse whoever advocates the opposing side of being no better. Hell, if you're going to play this game you might as well take it to the logical conclusion and say that both a mugger and his victim are equally bad. The mugger is trying to take the property out of greed, the victim is trying to retain the property out of greed, they're both as bad as each other. The fact that Democrats would benefit if Republicans would let minorities vote does not mean that both parties are just in it to themselves. That is a morally and intellectually bankrupt argument. I would agree with the basic idea that districts should not be drawn based on race, but the sticky question is how race relates to political gerrymandering and how the courts decide what is and is not acceptable. I get the feeling no read it and they just found a quick sentence in the 3 minutes after I posted and went with it. Show nested quote +At the time, the Court’s liberal wing was very solicitous of protecting the Democrats’ right to pack District 12 with black voters for partisan purposes; today, it announces what in practice is a very different standard, jettisoning the requirement that the challenging party “must show” an alternative path to the same partisan ends in order to overturn a map on grounds that the partisan motive was really mainly about race:
'[I]t does not matter in this case, where the plaintiffs’ introduction of mostly direct and some circumstantial evidence—
documents issued in the redistricting process, testimony of government officials, expert analysis of demographic
patterns—gave the District Court a sufficient basis, sans any map, to resolve the race-or-politics question. A plaintiff ’s
task, in other words, is simply to persuade the trial court—without any special evidentiary prerequisite—that race (not
politics) was the “predominant consideration in deciding to place a significant number of voters within or without a
particular district.”…[A] plaintiff will sometimes need an alternative map, as a practical matter, to make his case. But in
no area of our equal protection law have we forced plaintiffs to submit one particular form of proof to prevail.'
Justice Alito’s dissent on this point called this “a stunning about-face” and fumed, “[a] precedent of this Court should not be treated like a disposable household item—say, a paper plate or napkin— to be used once and then tossed in the trash. But that is what the Court does today…”
Your beef is with congress, not the court. If the Republicans focused on governing, rather than writing trash laws they know are going to be challenged to the Supreme court, we might have addressed this issue. There is only one party actively trying to repress votes of the opposing party.
|
Has anyone told Trump that he does not need to fire these people personally? He can just have his chief of staff do it like a normal president.
|
Can we hold national parades for these people when Trump ousts them?
|
He needs to properly make examples of them.
|
United States24692 Posts
On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them.
What does that even mean? If it was anyone else posting I'd think this was a joke but I think you are serious.
|
|
|
On May 23 2017 10:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. What does that even mean? If it was anyone else posting I'd think this was a joke but I think you are serious.
It means exactly what you think it means. Retribution is a great deterrent.
|
On May 23 2017 10:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:36 micronesia wrote:On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. What does that even mean? If it was anyone else posting I'd think this was a joke but I think you are serious. It means exactly what you think it means. Retribution is a great deterrent.
Unless they leaked classified information, there is fuck all he can do to them. He can fire them and then do literally nothing else because they didn't commit a crime.
|
Actually it usually just creates more problems, especially something like this with a person who becomes more and more paranoid.
|
On May 23 2017 10:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 10:36 micronesia wrote:On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. What does that even mean? If it was anyone else posting I'd think this was a joke but I think you are serious. It means exactly what you think it means. Retribution is a great deterrent. Unless they leaked classified information, there is fuck all he can do to them. He can fire them and then do literally nothing else because they didn't commit a crime.
Even if they did not release classified info, Trump can still humiliate the hell out of them by making a big show of their canning.
|
In which case they don't hold back and possibly release even more along with those that never leaked in the first place.
|
On May 23 2017 10:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:42 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 10:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 10:36 micronesia wrote:On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. What does that even mean? If it was anyone else posting I'd think this was a joke but I think you are serious. It means exactly what you think it means. Retribution is a great deterrent. Unless they leaked classified information, there is fuck all he can do to them. He can fire them and then do literally nothing else because they didn't commit a crime. Even if they did not release classified info, Trump can still humiliate the hell out of them by making a big show of their canning.
And then they will go on TV and talk about him being a petty bitch, which will be 100% accurate because they decided to spend his time humiliating his staff. Or worse, they just start talking to the press about what a nightmare the White House is.
On May 23 2017 10:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In which case they don't hold back and possibly release even more along with those that never leaked in the first place.
Pretty much. People didn't do this in the past because they hoped to use the place as a reference. But this White House is going to be begging staffers not to tell their version of "My life in the dumpster fire you voted for".
|
On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them.
Thanks, Nixon. Great advice.
|
On May 23 2017 10:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In which case they don't hold back and possibly release even more along with those that never leaked in the first place.
Nah. Negotiating with the leakers is the worst thing that he can do. He needs to flatten then.
Edit: And I would be shocked if Trump didn't have them sign some paperwork upon hiring them that imposes civil liability of them for leaks even if criminal liability does not apply.
|
On May 23 2017 10:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In which case they don't hold back and possibly release even more along with those that never leaked in the first place. Nah. Negotiating with the leakers is the worst thing that he can do. He needs to flatten then.
And how does he do that? Does he yell at them and call them names? He can't do much to "flatten them" that's legal and really he can't do anything that won't make him look even worse. I think if he follows the xDaunt advice thr only thing flattened will be his already abysmally low approval ratings.
|
xDaunt, you're assuming that they actually have the correct 3 people and aren't firing people based on the hearsay of an idiot.
And I'm still not sure what anyone means by "setting an example".
Making this a public spectacle is, politically, an astronomically terrible idea.
I hope he does it.
|
I love the Xdaunt is saying Trump needs crush them when he has literally zero tools to do this. He can't gag them and threats will do nothing. The man has literally zero powers to control what his staff says out of the White House.
But I'm sure the FBI will play ball and keep tabs on these three staffers.
On May 23 2017 10:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. Thanks, Nixon. Great advice.
Xdaunt would have been a huge fan of Nixon.
On May 23 2017 10:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In which case they don't hold back and possibly release even more along with those that never leaked in the first place. Edit: And I would be shocked if Trump didn't have them sign some paperwork upon hiring them that imposes civil liability of them for leaks even if criminal liability does not apply.
That isn't how government employment works. These people work for the executive branch, not for Trump personally. The Federal government cuts their paycheck, not Trump.
|
On May 23 2017 10:55 Plansix wrote:I love the Xdaunt is saying Trump needs crush them when he has literally zero tools to do this. He can't gag them and threats will do nothing. The man has literally zero powers to control what his staff says out of the White House. But I'm sure the FBI will play ball and keep tabs on these three staffers. Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 10:50 Leporello wrote:On May 23 2017 10:34 xDaunt wrote:He needs to properly make examples of them. Thanks, Nixon. Great advice. Xdaunt would have been a huge fan of Nixon.
See my post above. I bet Trump does have the tools to do it.
|
Impose civil liability? If they open a go fund me page saying trumps suing them for leaking about bis dumpster fire administration they will have enough money to out lawyer him within days lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
