Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Gatorubet 30285]

You are gonna have to be more specific WC.   That is a very broad accusation.  Unless you reference “tort reform”. 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You are gonna have to be more specific WC.   That is a very broad accusation.  Unless you reference “tort reform”. 

Yes this begins at some level to resemble the whole dispute over frivolous lawsuits, especially the part where the notion of what exactly is frivolous is erroneous. 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The American legal system has effectively stolen that right from many other people (they probably number in the tens of millions) who have never abused legal process and have far more meritorious claims. 

And you don't fix that problem by denying rights to a broader class of people. As much fun as that might be, it probably wouldn't end well for the rest of us. 

 

[wildcat09 29372]

I don't think Donald Trump, Sr. is a broad class of people. Though to be fair, I'd happily deny that right to his shithead kids too. But that's still a pretty narrow class.

[TwiceHorn 31521]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think Donald Trump, Sr. is a broad class of people. Though to be fair, I'd happily deny that right to his shithead kids too. But that's still a pretty narrow class.

Well, the great disparity lies between the monied classes and the poor classes, by and large, as you note.

And I don't think we fix the disparity by denying the monied classes what is effectively denied the poorer classes.

Although I certainly get fighting the GQP type fascists with their own tactics, sometimes I worry that we just descend into a free-for-all with right and left traversing the flat circle into complete fascism.

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[safe sex 11742]

No no, TH, just the Trumps, not the monied class as a whole. Just this fucking cancerous mole on the body politic

[wildcat09 29372]

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

No no, TH, just the Trumps, not the monied class as a whole. Just this fucking cancerous mole on the body politic

I kind of want to include Elon too, just because it'd be funny.

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I kind of want to include Elon too, just because it'd be funny.

Dingleberries are easier to deal with than carcinoma. 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the great disparity lies between the monied classes and the poor classes, by and large, as you note.

And I don't think we fix the disparity by denying the monied classes what is effectively denied the poorer classes.

Although I certainly get fighting the GQP type fascists with their own tactics, sometimes I worry that we just descend into a free-for-all with right and left traversing the flat circle into complete fascism.

 

I think denying the rich what the poors have long been denied would fix the disparity.

 

 

 

 

[Beau Vine 54366]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes this begins at some level to resemble the whole dispute over frivolous lawsuits, especially the part where the notion of what exactly is frivolous is erroneous. 

Bob Lives! will be along shortly to tell us that there's no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit.

[NWBuck 8579]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I think Donald Trump, Sr. is a broad ass of people.

FIFM

[jimmyjazz 46063]

When money is what leads to access to quality representation, then the playing field is not level.  It will never happen, but the only way to fix it is to take money out of the equation.

SOCIALISM!

[Chewbacca 7782]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

the Powell disbarment

The what, now?

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

51 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When money is what leads to access to quality representation, then the playing field is not level.  It will never happen, but the only way to fix it is to take money out of the equation.

SOCIALISM!

What if there was a system, similar to what the health care industry has with expensive doctors, whereby you pay a small (relative) amount monthly and use the service when you need a lawyer?  If enough people pay in, it pays for itself!

it’s amazing that the free market hasn’t done this yet, what with the hugely successful healthcare insurance business as an analog. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Pato del Muerto

[TwiceHorn 31521]

28 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What if there was a system, similar to what the health care industry has with expensive doctors, whereby you pay a small (relative) amount monthly and use the service when you need a lawyer?  If enough people pay in, it pays for itself!

it’s amazing that the free market hasn’t done this yet, what with the hugely successful healthcare insurance business as an analog. 

There are private "insurers" that attempt to do this, mostly for non-litigation matters.  Including the one provided by the State Bar of Texas that hornian talks about at times. https://texaslegal.org/

For litigation, it's a tougher deal.  The Federal Public Defender is an outstanding criminal defense "firm," funded by taxpayer dollars.  Some state level public defenders are damned good.  The "court appointed" indigent defense system is very hit or miss.  And, of course, these are for the indigent, not the merely poor, so there's a gap there.

Contingent fee representation serves a lot of poorer folks quite well in civil claiming, but only when the damages are significant enough to merit it.  And a poor that gets sued is fucked.

[TwiceHorn 31521]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

When money is what leads to access to quality representation, then the playing field is not level.  It will never happen, but the only way to fix it is to take money out of the equation.

SOCIALISM!

Well, socialism tends to virtually eliminate access to the courts altogether, because a socialist society doesn't need them, dontcha know.  That's rather easily dismissed as an excess of Soviet and Chinese style communism, but it's actually something of a tenet of socialism.

Edited April 21, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

4 hours ago, safe sex said:

No no, TH, just the Trumps, not the monied class as a whole. Just this fucking cancerous mole on the body politic

Cancerous mole or raging metastatic tumors?

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There are private "insurers" that attempt to do this, mostly for non-litigation matters.  Including the one provided by the State Bar of Texas that hornian talks about at times. https://texaslegal.org/

For litigation, it's a tougher deal.  The Federal Public Defender is an outstanding criminal defense "firm," funded by taxpayer dollars.  Some state level public defenders are damned good.  The "court appointed" indigent defense system is very hit or miss.  And, of course, these are for the indigent, not the merely poor, so there's a gap there.

Contingent fee representation serves a lot of poorer folks quite well in civil claiming, but only when the damages are significant enough to merit it.  And a poor that gets sued is fucked.

I was quite kidding. I presume that if millions of people could pay say $500 a month for highly competent legal representation, everyone would be suing everyone they know and that might cause problems. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

12 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

The what, now?

I bet the Bar fucked up the numbering on purpose just to get this out of their hair.  If they were serious about disbarment they would have made the corrections but alas that was apparently too hard so why bother?

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

10 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I was quite kidding. I presume that if millions of people could pay say $500 a month for highly competent legal representation, everyone would be suing everyone they know and that might cause problems. 

$500 / month?  In a country where millions of people lost their shit because the price of eggs went up $3?

[TwiceHorn 31521]

On 4/20/2023 at 12:36 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Bragg is using the exact same kind of separation of powers arguments to resist Congressional inquiries that Trump did.  The same kind of things you call specious when employed by Trump.

When a person invokes judicial process, they get judicial process.  You can't, on a principled basis deny one party the ability to invoke the process just because you don't like them.  When their invocation is bullshit, the process sorts that out.

 

And, whoopsie-daisy, a lesbian Biden appointee judge didn't bite on Bragg's arguments, letting the subpoena of Pomerantz stand.

Specious?  Nah.

The Second Circuit issued a stay to prevent him from having to testify.

ETA:  the article I read put the trial judges name as the appellate judge who issued the stay.  The trial judge is a Trump appointee, the appellate judge is the lesbian Biden appointee.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27724]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, whoopsie-daisy, a lesbian Biden appointee judge didn't bite on Bragg's arguments, letting the subpoena of Pomerantz stand.

Specious?  Nah.

The Second Circuit issued a stay to prevent him from having to testify.

ETA:  the article I read put the trial judges name as the appellate judge who issued the stay.  The trial judge is a Trump appointee, the appellate judge is the lesbian Biden appointee.

Circling back on this just to make sure I got the score right: trump-appointed trial judge broke with previous convention (that of COURSE was sufficient to protect trump) to deny Bragg, and the appellate judge had to correct the trial judge? What a completely unforeseen act of intellectual dishonesty by the trump judge! And of course you picked up posrep from fatty for defending the fascist element in the judiciary lmfao.

To reflect on your comment: how is the court acting in a principled manner when it's protecting based on one element and then acting the opposite based on the same reasoning?

[TwiceHorn 31521]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Circling back on this just to make sure I got the score right: trump-appointed trial judge broke with previous convention (that of COURSE was sufficient to protect trump) to deny Bragg, and the appellate judge had to correct the trial judge? What a completely unforeseen act of intellectual dishonesty by the trump judge! And of course you picked up posrep from fatty for defending the fascist element in the judiciary lmfao.

To reflect on your comment: how is the court acting in a principled manner when it's protecting based on one element and then acting the opposite based on the same reasoning?

They're the same basic arguments with a slightly different spin.  Trump occupied a different federal branch of government, Bragg occupies a different level of government, entirely.  As occupants of different branches of government, they are somewhat similarly positioned as being nominally free from interference and investigation by Congress.

The arguments are relatively untested; they weren't a slam dunk for Trump, they won't be for Bragg, either.  There is no "convention."  

The Second Circuit hasn't made anything but a temporary decision. We'll see where it ends up.  It is kind of interesting that in the federal context, these always end up at the DC Circuit, but not this time.

You do not understand the modes of argument, so you just gloss them over with "sound reasoning" when you agree with the person advocating, and intellectually dishonest fascism when you don't.

I didn't defend the "fascist element" in the judiciary.  But of course, to you, the judiciary is 100% fascist because  it doesn't give you the result you want every time you want it.

Because you clearly have reading comprehension problems, here is exactly what I said:

Quote

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Bragg is using the exact same kind of separation of powers arguments to resist Congressional inquiries that Trump did.  The same kind of things you call specious when employed by Trump.

When a person invokes judicial process, they get judicial process.  You can't, on a principled basis deny one party the ability to invoke the process just because you don't like them.  When their invocation is bullshit, the process sorts that out.

The judicial process is playing out.  It's not done yet.  But you wept like a pussy when Trump got to appeal, I hope you aren't weeping like a pussy now that Bragg gets to appeal.  What comes around goes around.

Personally, I would like to think that the separation of powers that is part of federalism (10th amendment, states have police power, feds don't, etc.) is a stronger bulwark against federal congressional interference than the legislative/executive separation of powers.  But I haven't studied the few precedents that exist to the extent I have the legislative/executive questions.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17646]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Circling back on this just to make sure I got the score right: trump-appointed trial judge broke with previous convention (that of COURSE was sufficient to protect trump) to deny Bragg, and the appellate judge had to correct the trial judge? What a completely unforeseen act of intellectual dishonesty by the trump judge! And of course you picked up posrep from fatty for defending the fascist element in the judiciary lmfao.

To reflect on your comment: how is the court acting in a principled manner when it's protecting based on one element and then acting the opposite based on the same reasoning?

I'm really tired of your constant attacks against Twice, who always provides very good legal analysis. The result of that analysis isn't based on what Twice wishes to be true. Your argument is exactly like when Trumpers condemn scientists for explaining how things like global warming and vaccines work. 

You're generally a good poster. You need to get over this stupid vendetta. Because, it is extremely stupid and unbecoming of you. 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Born to Run 6569]

I'm really tired of your constant attacks against Twice, who always provides very good legal analysis. The result of that analysis isn't based on what Twice wishes to be true. Your argument is exactly like when Trumpers condemn scientists for explaining how things like global warming and vaccines work. 
You're generally a good poster. You need to get over this stupid vendetta. Because, it is extremely stupid and unbecoming of you. 

Thanks for posting this. Agreed 100%. I'm also for any contrarian shit that is in good faith, which is in short supply supply these days. Especially the "good faith" portion of that.

Thanks again for all your patience, resilience, and honesty Twice. Sincerely. We need you; I know it's a lot of crimes to comment on.

Working in shifts etc....

[Bama Chick 28596]

What does the judge’s sexual orientation have to do with her judicial decisions?

[tx 3 putt 77299]

Hopefully this is significant …

 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm really tired of your constant attacks against Twice, who always provides very good legal analysis. The result of that analysis isn't based on what Twice wishes to be true. Your argument is exactly like when Trumpers condemn scientists for explaining how things like global warming and vaccines work. 

You're generally a good poster. You need to get over this stupid vendetta. Because, it is extremely stupid and unbecoming of you. 

Thanks, man.  I try.

And it infuriates me, because, like you, I think Captainant is a bright guy and a good poster.

[TwiceHorn 31521]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

What does the judge’s sexual orientation have to do with her judicial decisions?

Not a damn thing.  

And with some exceptions,** the president who appointed a district judge doesn't have much to do with it either.

But, if we're going to make dubious accusations based on things that are mostly irrelevant, we might as well throw in lesbian.

**Some of Trump's appointees, even to the district court, have been so transparently political, e.g. Kacsmaryk, as to start to turn that principle on its ear.  But, at the same time, tons of Trump appointees have stuffed Trump and his allies through the hoop, even at the appellate level, where things get more political.

I have now read the opinion ruling against Bragg by this Vyskocil woman.  In some ways (factual recitations), it's a bit of a screed, in others, it seems to be a pretty sound opinion and I can't say it's the product of Trumpism.  Will be most interesting to see what the Second Circuit does with it.  Vyskocil does not appear to be a Kacsmaryk type with lots of christofascist connections in her background, just a 30-year Manhattan litigator.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31521]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Hopefully this is significant …

 

That's interesting.  I think Epshteyn knows where a lot of the bodies are buried and could tie up a lot of these conspiracies tidily for the government.  He also seems to be kind of a dumbass.  I don't know whether the latter makes it more or less likely that he cooperates.

[TwiceHorn 31521]

9 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Thanks for posting this. Agreed 100%. I'm also for any contrarian shit that is in good faith, which is in short supply supply these days. Especially the "good faith" portion of that.

Thanks again for all your patience, resilience, and honesty Twice. Sincerely. We need you; I know it's a lot of crimes to comment on.

Working in shifts etc....

Also, thanks.

A lot of the job of a lawyer is to manage client expectations.  That means informing them what are the realistic possibilities in a given situation and not let clients get carried away with hopeless optimism.

I kind of treat the board as the client.  I'm interested in this shit and how it plays out so I follow it and then report back, partly in the nature of managing expectations.  It's not "contrarian," it's realistic.  It's here's what we're really looking at here.

One thing you learn as a lawdog, no matter how righteous your cause, almost nothing is a continuous, 100% slam dunk.  There's two sides to everything and you're going to hit snags and setbacks and you have to persevere to the end to get the desired result.

That perseverance also includes fairly interminable delays.  Lawdogs are just inured to it, so we tend to ignore it. All in the game, yo.

Reporting bad news and also explaining why it probably isn't the end of the world is a big part of the job.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31521]

Oof, fucking hell.

Bragg just dropped his appeal and Pomerantz will testify pursuant to the subpoena with a lawyer present from Bragg's office.

This is quite a bummer, both for the obvious reason that we'd all like to see Gym Jordan fuck his own face, but also because it's an interesting area.  Congress doesn't typically subpoena state officials in the midst of doing their jobs.  Sometimes they do go for the "post-mortem" investigation.

As said above, I think the notion that the feds need to stay out of state business, especially criminal matters, is at least as important as the idea that the legislative branch needs to stay out of executive and judicial business.  Then again, I can conjure scenarios where Congressional investigation of state law enforcement policies and practices is legitimate and desirable, say systematic denial of civil rights.

I'd like to see this get fleshed out.  But there's a risk it doesn't go according to plan, which is probably why Bragg capitulated.  The vast majority of legislative/executive disputes get resolved by negotiation, which is why there wasn't a lot of precedent for or against Trump and thus a fair amount of wiggle room for what appeared to be legal shenanigans.  This seems to be playing out the same way.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Hopefully this is significant …

 

 

[Captainant 27724]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oof, fucking hell.

Bragg just dropped his appeal and Pomerantz will testify pursuant to the subpoena with a lawyer present from Bragg's office.

This is quite a bummer, both for the obvious reason that we'd all like to see Gym Jordan fuck his own face, but also because it's an interesting area.  Congress doesn't typically subpoena state officials in the midst of doing their jobs.

THIS is my frustration. Gym is directly impeding the state investigation and counterpunching on behalf of trump. There is not some sort of broad general case happening that is a watershed in case law - this is one of the inciters of Jan6 working to obstruct the investigation of Jan6. 

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then again, I can conjure scenarios where Congressional investigation of state law enforcement policies and practices is legitimate and desirable, say systematic denial of civil rights.

Yeah on that note, it's strange that there's an ongoing and systematic denial of civil rights in this country right now in many state legislatures, and yet there's no congressional investigations or federal action on that. It's almost like we are seeing a pattern of republicans using a shield as a sword, over and over and over again. 

Im sorry to you and everyone else that I annoy with my never ending bullshit, but holy fucking shit, you need to recognize and internalize that the republicans defending trump aren't acting in good faith. I do not understand why your legal analysis starts from that tacit assumption, it puts you in a position to constantly be surprised by their predictable treachery. It's the same weakness that is exploited by trumpco to flood the airwaves and courts with specious cases that fuel grievances to motivate a mob to attack the democratic transfer of power - and face zero fucking consequences for any of it for two years and counting.

And before you say it yes I know there's many issues and cases in process right now, but I've watched enough Texas spring football to not hope for a miracle in the fall when we can't even reliably get a first down. 

 

I'll fuck off this thread for a while. Sorry for pointing my rage at our broken democracy at ya, twice. 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

41 minutes ago, Captainant said:

THIS is my frustration. Gym is directly impeding the state investigation and counterpunching on behalf of trump. There is not some sort of broad general case happening that is a watershed in case law - this is one of the inciters of Jan6 working to obstruct the investigation of Jan6. 

Yeah on that note, it's strange that there's an ongoing and systematic denial of civil rights in this country right now in many state legislatures, and yet there's no congressional investigations or federal action on that. It's almost like we are seeing a pattern of republicans using a shield as a sword, over and over and over again. 

Im sorry to you and everyone else that I annoy with my never ending bullshit, but holy fucking shit, you need to recognize and internalize that the republicans defending trump aren't acting in good faith. I do not understand why your legal analysis starts from that tacit assumption, it puts you in a position to constantly be surprised by their predictable treachery. It's the same weakness that is exploited by trumpco to flood the airwaves and courts with specious cases that fuel grievances to motivate a mob to attack the democratic transfer of power - and face zero fucking consequences for any of it for two years and counting.

And before you say it yes I know there's many issues and cases in process right now, but I've watched enough Texas spring football to not hope for a miracle in the fall when we can't even reliably get a first down. 

 

I'll fuck off this thread for a while. Sorry for pointing my rage at our broken democracy at ya, twice. 

Law dogs tend not to make assumptions about their opponents, because subjective good or bad faith doesn't really matter in the legal arena.  Or, if you're a particularly self-righteous law dog, you always assume your opponent is acting in bad faith, but still it doesn't really matter.

You can assume that I, like everyone else around here, presume that Trumpco's legal actions are not undertaken in good faith.  That's not really interesting to me anymore.  What is interesting to me is whether their legal actions work or not.

You look at the arguments and try to beat them, and sometimes you just can't, or sometimes the cards just don't fall in your favor, for whatever reason (sometimes it's a bad judge, sometimes shit just happens, sometimes the law or facts just aren't in your favor on a particular issue that maybe doesn't affect the long-term outcome).  You learn to accept some defeats on the road to victory.

When Trump was resisting congressional inquiry, everyone was all for an all-powerful Congress.  But that's a two-way street.  Now we don't like it so much.  

These things don't often go completely to the mat for judicial resolution because neither side can live with the outcome.  Other branches of government don't want rules freeing congress to investigate and congress doesn't want firm limits on their ability to do so.  Not so much for the dispute at bar, but for the ones coming in the future.

On this particular dispute, Jordan is nibbling at the edges by subpoenaing an ex-employee, rather than Bragg himself or his first assistant, etc.  Even Jordan knows, or his legal staff does, that that wouldn't end well for him.

So, this is probably ultimately going to be mostly a nothingburger.  Jordan will get his testimony, but we know he doesn't really have much ability to even conduct a rational hearing, much less do anything actually significant.  He'll just sling poo around the monkey house and that will be the end of it.

One kind of ominous thing is the "valid legislative purposes" of the subpoeana, which are consideration of laws immunizing ex-presidents from prosecution and consideration of restriction on use of federal funds.  The first one is pretty scary, but I don't see it getting anywhere in Congress.  I'm not so troubled about the latter, because I'd like to get federal money out of state law enforcement altogether.  It perverts things.

Edited April 22, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27583]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oof, fucking hell.

Bragg just dropped his appeal and Pomerantz will testify pursuant to the subpoena with a lawyer present from Bragg's office.

This is quite a bummer, both for the obvious reason that we'd all like to see Gym Jordan fuck his own face, but also because it's an interesting area.  Congress doesn't typically subpoena state officials in the midst of doing their jobs.  Sometimes they do go for the "post-mortem" investigation.

As said above, I think the notion that the feds need to stay out of state business, especially criminal matters, is at least as important as the idea that the legislative branch needs to stay out of executive and judicial business.  Then again, I can conjure scenarios where Congressional investigation of state law enforcement policies and practices is legitimate and desirable, say systematic denial of civil rights.

I'd like to see this get fleshed out.  But there's a risk it doesn't go according to plan, which is probably why Bragg capitulated.  The vast majority of legislative/executive disputes get resolved by negotiation, which is why there wasn't a lot of precedent for or against Trump and thus a fair amount of wiggle room for what appeared to be legal shenanigans.  This seems to be playing out the same way.

[RomaVicta 29967]

On 4/20/2023 at 12:12 PM, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂

 

Delicious:

[RomaVicta 29967]

 

I'm sorry, did you have something to say about my purple outfit?

Yea. Just walk away.

[tx 3 putt 77299]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's interesting.  I think Epshteyn knows where a lot of the bodies are buried and could tie up a lot of these conspiracies tidily for the government.  He also seems to be kind of a dumbass.  I don't know whether the latter makes it more or less likely that he cooperates.

he knows he better save his ass because trump doesn’t give a fuck what happens to him

 

[nbmishoid 962]

On 4/20/2023 at 5:27 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, socialism tends to virtually eliminate access to the courts altogether, because a socialist society doesn't need them, dontcha know.  That's rather easily dismissed as an excess of Soviet and Chinese style communism, but it's actually something of a tenet of socialism.

Are there no courts in Norway?   Why bring up so called communist fascist dictatorial asshole state examples as the total and true exemplar of socialism?

[tx 3 putt 77299]

 

[tx 3 putt 77299]

Those dumb asses did all trumps dirty work and will take the fall for it all 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

3 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Are there no courts in Norway?   Why bring up so called communist fascist dictatorial asshole state examples as the total and true exemplar of socialism?

Norway is socialistIC, not socialist outright in the sense of the state controlling the means of production and the distribution of resources.  It is generally true that a fully socialist country will have minimal courts because there are few private property rights to enforce and no entities other than the state "doing unto others."  Criminal courts seem to be unavoidable, though.

The question was, how do you make courts less "pay to play"?    Norway's civil courts are, as far as I know (which does extend to inter-business disputes), fully pay to play.  I don't know how much access to civil courts little people in Norway have or need and how or whether those needs are addressed.

Of course, in keeping with their strong social welfare system, little people seem to be well-protected from the excesses of their criminal justice system, but I don't know any specifics.

 

[nbmishoid 962]

Thanks.  I was reacting to the supposed choice or comparison between our society norms and awful examples of socialism.  No one here or anywhere is proposing such as an alternative, so observing our awful system is not that awful is cold comfort. 

[nbmishoid 962]

And, about the ic vs ism, sounds kind of like the gun nut taking umbrage at use of the word “clip”.   Don’t be that guy. 

[TwiceHorn 31521]

4 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

And, about the ic vs ism, sounds kind of like the gun nut taking umbrage at use of the word “clip”.   Don’t be that guy. 

Well, there is a difference, a material one, between societies with a strong social welfare system and societies that are actually socialist.

My original comment was directed at fully socialist societies, which have been comparatively few and most or all of which were Soviet/Chinese communist.  The whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek as evidenced by the use of "dontcha know."

You're actually using the GQP definition of sOcIaLiSm.  I was using the real one.

[tx 3 putt 77299]

 

[nbmishoid 962]

Sorry for my snark.  Poor sleep.  I was also thinking of the repub definition.    

[atomheartbevo 89776]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

he knows he better save his ass because trump doesn’t give a fuck what happens to him

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Those dumb asses did all trumps dirty work and will take the fall for it all 

And they documented it themselves.  Lifetime members of the Leopards Eating Faces club.

The crazy thing is, they've all seen Trump turn on people close to him and doing his dirty work time, and time again.  They've even participated in attacking people who were formerly helping/supporting Trump.

[TwiceHorn 31521]

Bit off-topic, but hey it's surly.

I was pondering the Federal Public Defender, which is an organization under the federal government that defends the indigent.  It pays the same scale as its usual opponent, the US Attorney.  In a poll of the federal judiciary by Richard Posner in 2011, the FPD was regarded as providing more effective counsel than private lawyers and by court-appointed lawyers.

It occurs to me that the single best reform we could make to the criminal justice system is to create a defender organization in every jurisdiction everywhere and pay them the same as the DA.  With a small expansion of the definition of indigent, we could make those organizations the default representative of defendants everywhere, meaningfully discharging the Sixth Amendment obligation and insuring a level of competence in defense.  Only those that truly can afford private counsel would be forced to hire private counsel, or compensate the public defender.

And, in the sense of iron sharpening iron, that would cut down on a lot of bullshit from prosecutors and law enforcement, in and of itself.  Judges as well.

Would it be initially costly, betchur fur.  But in the long run, I bet it would save money and society would be far better off.