US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9415

Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.

I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.

Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse.

On December 05 2017 06:16 zlefin wrote:
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not.

On December 05 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:


Your argument is driven by your fear, not by the merits of the dilemma presented.

I say your response to me can only be seen in light of your fear that I have a valid point. Tell me if I haven’t alleged you’re being driven by a phobia.

On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
Oh, this is kinda fun:



Source

On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:
You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS:



Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech.

On December 05 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:

If people attacked his arguments more and not the poster he would argue in better faith in return.

The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:

1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.

3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.

Building a Case

‌
Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.

Justice Department policy calls for ‌prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song.


The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence.

Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate.

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony.

The pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.

It’s Now an Obstruction Investigation

...

On December 05 2017 06:26 zlefin wrote:

people have, on many MANY occasions done so, he still argued in bad faith anyways. there comes a time when benefit of the doubt has been exceeded.

On December 05 2017 06:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Are you trying to be ironic? This isn't how irony operates. Or perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't humorous.

On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:

I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews.

Consistency, people.

Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

On December 05 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:

The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner.

On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:

Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes.

On December 05 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote:

This is absolutely not what the issue was. Whether the government agreed with the message is completely irrelevant.