This is the Democratic Party.

[Gmoney4WW]

I care more about the Supreme Court being completely bogus.

(Also, that’s why criminal trials are done with juries)

Republicans likely thought the same thing until the balance shifted their way.

Just because you are incredibly biased, and only see things from your side doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The judge allows the evidence that convinces the jury one way or the other.(or doesn't allow it.) It matters a great deal that the law appears unbiased. That is what we are talking about.

The judge is going to have biases one way or the other. This is a matter of appearances and faith. That judge may be able to be a good and unbiased judge most days, or he may not. Appearances matter. It gives Trump grounds to ask he be thrown off the case.

The judge who might replace him could be a very biased judge, but not show it overtly, and then he would be the judge regardless. You already had a biased judge in Trumps favor, in Aileen Cannon. This judge may or may not have been biased, but now we might not ever know.

 

[HuffyCane]

Some scholars have opined that the Germans moved back towards a dictatorship/authoritarian style of governance because during the Weimar Republic left wing judges were unwilling to sentence left wing and right wing defendants consistently. This de-legitimized the courts resulting in both right wing judges rejecting punishing right wing defendants out of hand, as well as right wing extremists, and their main stream sympathizers amongst the population, simultaneously advocating for law and order and condoning political violence at the street level. Germany devolved from there until Hitler as a compromise candidate emerged and seized power.

 

[astonmartin708]

You are aware the effect a bias judge can have on a criminal jury trial…. Correct ?

I am. It’s still up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence though. Many, many, many judges throughout the country have political affiliations.

 

[astonmartin708]

Some scholars have opined that the Germans moved back towards a dictatorship/authoritarian style of governance because during the Weimar Republic left wing judges were unwilling to sentence left wing and right wing defendants consistently. This de-legitimized the courts resulting in both right wing judges rejecting punishing right wing defendants out of hand, as well as right wing extremists, and their main stream sympathizers amongst the population, simultaneously advocating for law and order and condoning political violence at the street level. Germany devolved from there until Hitler as a compromise candidate emerged and seized power.

Or it could be because right wing judges let people like Ludendorf, Hitler, and all their cronies get away with treason with minimal repercussion….

 

[lawpoke87]

I am. It’s still up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence though. Many, many, many judges throughout the country have political affiliations.

The judge decides what evidence that jury will see. What testimony that jury will hear. Even the exact wording of the law (jury instructions) that jury will apply. You’re either extremely naive here or lack a basic understanding of criminal procedure.

My comments here apply to both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[astonmartin708]

The judge decides what evidence that jury will see. What testimony that jury will hear. Even the exact wording of the law (jury instructions) that jury will apply. You’re either extremely naive here or lack a basic understanding of criminal procedure.

My comments here apply to both sides of the political spectrum.

I just think it’s impossible for any judge to be completely unbiased, especially when it comes to politics. (It’s the entire reason we have appellate courts with liberal or conservative leanings)

What they should not do is let that bias affect their rulings. You rulings should be based on the facts you have before you as well as your honest interpretation of the law. Just because you have biases doesn’t mean you can’t go out of your way to act impartially.

The problem comes when your conduct shows that you don’t act impartially…and you have known biases / conflicts of interest.

I would honestly rather have public knowledge of a judges‘ political leanings rather than them keep it a secret and it have an impact on their rulings.

 

[lawpoke87]

I just think it’s impossible for any judge to be completely unbiased, especially when it comes to politics. (It’s the entire reason we have appellate courts with liberal or conservative leanings)

What they should not do is let that bias affect their rulings. You rulings should be based on the facts you have before you as well as your honest interpretation of the law. Just because you have biases doesn’t mean you can’t go out of your way to act impartially.

The problem comes when your conduct shows that you don’t act impartially…and you have known biases / conflicts of interest.

I would honestly rather have public knowledge of a judges leanings rather than them keep it a secret and it have an impact on their rulings.

Absolutely agree. Which is why my rule of thumb is that judges should refrain from conduct which gives the perception of bias. Particularly those judges who presided over criminal proceedings.

You are also correct as to the Supreme Court. Presidents tend appoint judges who are on the political extreme of the spectrum. Such appointments greatly reduce the guesswork as to how that judge will rule once they receive their lifetime appointment. I’m afraid the days of moderate justices who objectively decide cases are in large part gone…unfortunately.

 

[aTUfan]

some judges are elected, so party politics can play a roll.

 

[astonmartin708]

Absolutely agree. Which is why my rule of thumb is that judges should refrain from conduct which gives the perception of bias. Particularly those judges who presided over criminal proceedings.

You are also correct as to the Supreme Court. Presidents tend appoint judges who are on the political extreme of the spectrum. Such appointments greatly reduce the guesswork as to how that judge will rule once they receive their lifetime appointment. I’m afraid the days of moderate justices who objectively decide cases are in large part gone…unfortunately.

I think I like it better knowing if a judge is a biased SOB like Clarence Thomas…. Than him being able to point to not having donated… then privately hanging out in very biased circles and receiving kickbacks and making repeated biased and impartial rulings…. It lets me know who needs to be removed from office. (Or that their power be limited through other means)

Now if we hadn’t found out about Thomas‘ proclivities as well as those of his wife… and they had just remained private I would have needed to assume his flawed interpretations of the constitution were actually done in good faith. Now I’m fairly sure they weren’t lol.

That being said, one ruling does prove any conflict of interest. I think it takes quite a few before you can alledge impropriety.

 

[lawpoke87]

I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Thomas uses a conservative foundation to guide his rulings. Same for Soto on the liberal side. Neither have the intellect and impartiality to be justices imo. Both checked multiple political boxes thus ending with a predictable result.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The judge allows the evidence that convinces the jury one way or the other.(or doesn't allow it.)

The judge decides what evidence that jury will see. What testimony that jury will hear. Even the exact wording of the law (jury instructions) that jury will apply. You’re either extremely naive here or lack a basic understanding of criminal procedure.

My comments here apply to both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[astonmartin708]

I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Thomas uses a conservative foundation to guide his rulings. Same for Soto on the liberal side. Neither have the intellect and impartiality to be justices imo. Both checked multiple political boxes thus ending with a predictable result.

There is a difference between political idealism and your wife working to further election fallacies and taking many kickback vacations with interested parties over the years.

 

[lawpoke87]

There is a difference between political idealism and your wife working to further election fallacies and taking many kickback vacations with interested parties over the years.

Neither have a place on the highest court in the land. Cases should be decided by an objective view of the application of law. When you’re deciding cases based on extreme biases (whether bought or from one’s personal beliefs or both), the result is the same.

A similar argument can also be made to DAs who accept large contributions from political groups to get elected. Quid pro quo

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Ocasio Cortez wants to ignore a presidentially appointed judges ruling on an abortion pill. Slippery slope she wants us barreling down. Another reason I don't like Ocasio Cortez or her beliefs. You resolve government problems from within, not by ignoring a judge. You protect the office of the judge just like the office of the president.

 

[HuffyCane]

The problem is that the Congress is divided and weak. There is no incentive towards bipartisanship. So both sides, unable to deliver solutions to their base, turn towards the courts to expand the meaning of laws, or flat make up a law, because they know they don’t have the votes to get a major question through Congress. Or litigation in a hand picked forum is cheaper than spreading the love amongst 535 members of Congress in a post Obamacare world.

Does anyone really think when the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960’s that Congress purposefully passed a law that they intended to prohibit gender discrimination including on the basis of gender identity? Does anyone think that Congress would or could pass such a bill today? So the left runs to a sympathetic life term federal judge to change the law for them. That’s been going on since the 1960’s on the Left. Now that the right has begun to do the same, it’s the end of the Republic.*

Or maybe it actually is the end of the Republic …

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Or maybe it actually is the end of the Republic …

That's what worries me. It could be a slowish death, but pretty rapid in historical terms. Making it to 275 years is not a given. 300 is even less of a given. A slow death starting around 235 years is not long for a republic to stay together.

 

[astonmartin708]

That's what worries me. It could be a slowish death, but pretty rapid in historical terms. Making it to 275 years is not a given. 300 is even less of a given. A slow death starting around 235 years is not long for a republic to stay together.

We’d be worse than the Dutch or the Venetian Republic.

The Roman Republic last a bit less than 500 years (the empire obviously continued on for quite sometime)

 

[lawpoke87]

What a weird story especially considering all the leaks of late.

Police document detailing President Biden's security information found on Belfast street

The incident comes amid increased concerns over Biden's security in Northern Ireland after authorities foiled an IRA bomb plot over the weekend.

www.usatoday.com

 

[aTUfan]

What a weird story especially considering all the leaks of late.

Police document detailing President Biden's security information found on Belfast street

The incident comes amid increased concerns over Biden's security in Northern Ireland after authorities foiled an IRA bomb plot over the weekend.

www.usatoday.com

where is the investigation, impeachment, enditements, ...?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

where is the investigation, impeachment, enditements, ...?

No President had control over that document, how would impeachment happen? Yeah that would serve whatever President well. Have someone drop a piece of top secret paper in the street,(that helped keep him safe) get shot over it, and then get impeached over it. It's too bad Trump didn't get caught with a foreign officer dropping papers in the street. He'd be going to jail for sure. There will be an investigation, but only to help avoid the situation the next time. Loon alert should be your signature.

 

[watu05]

Ocasio Cortez wants to ignore a presidentially appointed judges ruling on an abortion pill. Slippery slope she wants us barreling down. Another reason I don't like Ocasio Cortez or her beliefs. You resolve government problems from within, not by ignoring a judge. You protect the office of the judge just like the office of the president.

Republican legislators have said the same. Abortion is a losing association for the party outside of some core states.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Republican legislators have said the same. Abortion is a losing association for the party outside of some core states.

I don't care about the issue here. The problem is where she said to ignore a judge. The issue could be whether you have the right to wear a top hat while driving, and you don't say ignore a federal judges ruling. Protect the office not the judge.

 

[watu05]

Understood but it’s not a suggestion unique to OC. Also not long before Trump most appointed judges were confirmed by bipartisan majorities indicating political moderation. Those days are gone thanks in large part to the Federalist Society, McConnell and Trump.

 

[lawpoke87]

Understood but it’s not a suggestion unique to OC. Also not long before Trump most appointed judges were confirmed by bipartisan majorities indicating political moderation. Those days are gone thanks in large part to the Federalist Society, McConnell and Trump.

Isn’t Harry Reid to blame for majority confirmations?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Isn’t Harry Reid to blame for majority confirmations?

It bit them in the a$$, and they knew full well it would. Dumb. They decided it would be better to put their judges in, and let the republicans put their judges in. Playing into the present republican parties hands, at letting all semblance of partisanship disappear. And they complain about said loss of partisanship. Both parties responsible for this situation.

 

[watu05]

Both parties have gone down the path, but Federalists made it their stated goal, Trump made it an election issue, and McConnell claims it was his highest achievement.

 

[lawpoke87]

Both parties have gone down the path, but Federalists made it their stated goal, Trump made it an election issue, and McConnell claims it was his highest achievement.

True. However the practice started with Reid with the full support of Obama who was frustrated with the pace of confirmation of his judicial nominations. This occurred well before Trump btw. Both parties have and will continue to take full advantage of majority conformations.

 

[aTUfan]

term limits would help break the party voting logjam

 

[lawpoke87]

How can our choices be this and Trump?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

How can our choices be this and Trump?

View embedded media

We need a fresh can of worms. This one is really stale.

 

[Clong83a]

Isn’t Harry Reid to blame for majority confirmations?

As an aside, when Trump go elected I was really really hoping that we would get at least one thing out of his presidency. It seemed like a reasonable thing given how petty and vindictive he is, but it didn't happen:

I wanted him reopen the Yucca Mountain facility at the NNSS in Nevada, and rename it "The Harry Reid Memorial Nuclear Waste Dump".

I would have settled for him merely reopening it, but that didn't happen either. So much for silver linings.


As a further aside, the Nevada test site is a really interesting place. If anyone ever gets the chance to go there on a tour or something, you should absolutely make it happen. It isn't regularly open to the public, but I believe there are occasionally tours of some of the above ground sites, like the surviving Apple-2 Houses and Sedan crater. Worth your time.

 

[918Golden]

How can our choices be this and Trump?

View embedded media

These two shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car let alone run the country. Why is politics full of so many old people?

 

[TU 1978]

How can our choices be this and Trump?

View embedded media

We don’t know that Trump will even be a choice - it all depends on if he hasn’t kicked the bucket or is in prison.

 

[noble cane]

We don’t know that Trump will even be a choice - it all depends on if he hasn’t kicked the bucket or is in prison.

He will be... the Dems and the press will do all they can to keep him under siege and in the news.. that will keep his base enraged and his donors engaged, which will suck the air out of his primary challengers..

 

[Gmoney4WW]

He will be... the Dems and the press will do all they can to keep him under siege and in the news.. that will keep his base enraged and his donors engaged, which will suck the air out of his primary challengers..

The media and I assume the Democratic leadership think they have a better chance of beating them/him again if nothing changes as far as candidacy. I think it's stupid, unjustifiable, & lacking in foresight and ingenuity for them to make that decision. But that's both parties for you.

They thought they would beat him the first time and failed. They tried again and succeeded. I'm not so sure they found the winning formula.

 

[noble cane]

The media and I assume the Democratic leadership think they have a better chance of beating them/him again if nothing changes as far as candidacy. I think it's stupid, unjustifiable, & lacking in foresight and ingenuity for them to make that decision. But that's both parties for you.

They thought they would beat him the first time and failed. They tried again and succeeded. I'm not so sure they found the winning formula.

It really depends on whether or not the 'Pubs get into ballot harvest mode... the party has always shied away from the practice, but after its effect on the 2020 election, it will be hard for them to ignore..

 

[aTUfan]

Happy Mothers Day, or as democrats say it "Happy Person, who produces eggs, Day

 

[URedskin54]

“The media will say the next Republican is even worse than Trump” is the easiest call anyone has ever had to make. There will be hundreds of takes like this, but no, no matter how bad you don’t like the guy he is not worse than Trump.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Side Note:

I am so tired at parties protecting their position instead of getting rid of congress members that are not fit for office. Feinstein should have been forced out a long time ago, and so should have Santos. This extended period they have been generally supported by their parties is bs.

 

[noble cane]

“The media will say the next Republican is even worse than Trump” is the easiest call anyone has ever had to make. There will be hundreds of takes like this, but no, no matter how bad you don’t like the guy he is not worse than Trump.

View embedded media

The media has a problem... they have said Trump is worse than the worst person in human history... (liver health deems it necessary not to name him).. so who can they compare Desantis to?.. Mao? Stalin?.. the left loves those guys so how can they compare him to their heroes?