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

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does it matter, for now, if the outcome is the same?  Incompetence, if not cured, is a longer-term problem.  

One kind of interesting data point is that, like Kascmaryk, she's a "one man show" in her division, so a good place for forum-shopping for christofascist causes.

Yet, no one seems to be bringing cases to her, despite her seeming bias in favor of Trump, or conservative causes, or whatever it is.

Might be because she's a known incompetent.

[dcbc 14,248]

36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We go about fixing it by passing legislation

....

So we're all completely fucked until our democracy's fever breaks or our experiment comes to an end. Last time things were this dire socially it took a fucking surprise outside act of war to unify the nation.

As to my other question, not a shepherd.  Got it.

 

Some of us are doing our best to uphold the system from within.  Every fucking day.  For decades.

Edited June 25 by dcbc

[DDD Dad 14,062]

34 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

True, true.  There've been dozens of Federal Judges of myriad benches who've been impeached.  Most were discarded, never fully convitced, pardones, or simply lost to time.  Ricks of Ohio is about the closest parallel I've studied that comes closest to Cannon's situation.  But it's a far second place.  

But Aileen would do well to note that the odds of Trump winning a legit election in 2024 and upper her status to Courts of Appeal or SCOTUS are about the same as the Democrats taking back the House and retaining the Senate.  Which, even for those spineless folks, would spell out certain impeachment and conviction in both chambers for her.  Probably even loss of license.  Georgia is gonna carry their case through until the end.  Democrats may be forced to lay off the D.C. Inciting Insurrection case at some point to "work across the aisle."  But Aileen has to understand at some point between the 2024-2032 cycles, she will have to answer for her dodging of national security breaches.  Right now, she's trying to ass-kiss and delay for Trump.  But at some point in the next 8 years, she knows this will come back all on her because he'll be gone and she's left holding the bag.  She's naive, but she isn't stupid.  

No one's impeaching her for this.  She faces no consequences beyond whatever the Chief Judge of the Southern District or the Judicial Conference somehow takes action (a la John McBryde).

As of 2017, only 15 federal judges were ever impeached and only 8 convicted following impeachment.

[DDD Dad 14,062]

33 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the original gerrymander

Wut?

(Original gerrymander was done by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's administration in drawing up STATE senate districts.

33 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The fact that the senate was gerrymandered a long ass time ago doesn’t mean it’s not gerrymandered.

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

[Captainant 26,913]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

I may be misinterpreting, but I believe he means how Wyoming has the same power in the Senate as New York. In the Senate, land is what grants power - not the number of citizens behind you. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,613]

18 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Some of us are doing our best to uphold the system from within.  Every fucking day.  For decades.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,536]

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wut?

(Original gerrymander was done by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's administration in drawing up STATE senate districts.

 

its a quip, not an etymology lesson.

[DDD Dad 14,062]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I may be misinterpreting, but I believe he means how Wyoming has the same power in the Senate as New York. In the Senate, land is what grants power - not the number of citizens behind you. 

While that is certainly an undemocratic aspect of our system, it is not gerrymandering in the true sense of the term.

[dcbc 14,248]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Thanks.  I have a small role as a cog in a relatively small part of the system.  But I quickly took note of exactly what was a big problem in the system as a young lawyer, and instead of chasing the big bucks, I found something I enjoyed that put me in a position to do the right thing to correct the problem within the system when it arose.  So when people like Trump or Captainant make broad generalizations about whole-cloth unfairness of the system, not only do I recognize it as not a universal truth, but I also take personal offense on my behalf and on behalf of all the people I know within the system who are doing everything they can to do the right thing.  A great many of us take our role in the system seriously and with a great amount of pride in doing what's right.  It's also why I'm curious about the utopian industry in which he plies his trade. 

Edited June 25 by dcbc

[DDD Dad 14,062]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

its a quip, not an etymology lesson.

Excuse me, but this is Surly.  We are firmly dogmatic here.

[elfenix 34,109]

46 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wut?

(Original gerrymander was done by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's administration in drawing up STATE senate districts.

While there has been SCOTUS case law involving gerrymandering involving senate seats (how votes were counted in Georgia Democratic senate primary, Gray v. Sanders), U.S. Senate seats are specifically incapable of being gerrymandered so long as they are elected statewide and each vote counts.

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

[jimmyjazz 45,192]

"quip" is an underused word.  

 

 

Edited June 25 by jimmyjazz

[Js1 83,352]

8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

Yeah, 1889.  Omibus Bill that enabled the Dakotas to split and Montana and Washington to form states. 

[YGIFS 19,445]

It would have nice to have seen Montanington.  

[elfenix 34,109]

Make the Dakotas a state!

[dcbc 14,248]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

No one's impeaching her for this.  She faces no consequences beyond whatever the Chief Judge of the Southern District or the Judicial Conference somehow takes action (a la John McBryde).

As of 2017, only 15 federal judges were ever impeached and only 8 convicted following impeachment.

We were just discussing that mechanisms exist for removal.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that it might happen.  Quite the opposite, in fact. 

[DDD Dad 14,062]

33 minutes ago, elfenix said:

States were drawn and admitted specifically to balance first slaves vs free states, and later for partisan reasons. That's a gerrymander.

 

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, 1889.  Omibus Bill that enabled the Dakotas to split and Montana and Washington to form states. 

I believe the quote to which I responded contended that the ORIGINAL gerrymander was in the Senate.  The makeup of senate seats is in the Constitution, which predates the 1889 Omnibus bill by a few years, and I'm pretty sure (although I haven't done the research) that the original states and signatories to the Constitution weren't admitted to specifically to balance slaves versus free states but instead were all separate British colonies.  The ORIGINAL gerrymander got its name from Gov. Gerry, in a newspaper article that described the district that was drawn as looking like a salamander, and hence coined the term gerrymander.

I don't dispute that subsequent to the original gerrymander there have been political grounds for the drawing of state lines (all of which had nothing to do with providing representation in the senate to citizens based on the relative population of each state), but that's not gerrymandering.  Pedantic thread drift over.

[elfenix 34,109]

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I believe the quote to which I responded contended that the ORIGINAL gerrymander was in the Senate.  The makeup of senate seats is in the Constitution, which predates the 1889 Omnibus bill by a few years, and I'm pretty sure (although I haven't done the research) that the original states and signatories to the Constitution weren't admitted to specifically to balance slaves versus free states but instead were all separate British colonies.  The ORIGINAL gerrymander got its name from Gov. Gerry, in a newspaper article that described the district that was drawn as looking like a salamander, and hence coined the term gerrymander.

I don't dispute that subsequent to the original gerrymander there have been political grounds for the drawing of state lines (all of which had nothing to do with providing representation in the senate to citizens based on the relative population of each state), but that's not gerrymandering.  Pedantic thread drift over.

I responded to locodos, you responded to me (while also responding to the "original gerrymander" quote).

 

The original 13 weren't gerrymanders but many of the other 37 were. The term gerrymander has been around since ~1812, demonstrating that early on under this constitution politicians understood the power of carving electoral districts to benefit themselves or their colleagues  (and I very much doubt that Elbridge Gerry was the first politician to do so). Which is what a gerrymander, ultimately, is.

Edited June 25 by elfenix

[locodos 5,247]

31 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I responded to locodos, you responded to me (while also responding to the "original gerrymander" quote).

 

The original 13 weren't gerrymanders but many of the other 37 were. The term gerrymander has been around since ~1812, demonstrating that early on under this constitution politicians understood the power of carving electoral districts to benefit themselves or their colleagues  (and I very much doubt that Elbridge Gerry was the first politician to do so). Which is what a gerrymander, ultimately, is.

Yeah I got the point and concede that the states were admitted via a political process to balance various interests (most long since irrelevant)  But I was going more for a blame the red state morons approach.

Which I think everybody got...  but if not read on

My comment was meant to convey

1. There are effective controls on the courts  (despite hyperbolic posts to the contrary)
2. Those controls are largely wielded by the senate in the form of approval/consent (I know the house is needed for impeachment)
3. The fact that the senate has not wisely used (or used at all) those controls is an indictment of their constituents because...
4.  Senators are sent via a state wide election so that local level fuckery is not an excuse for shitty, unethical, hacks diddling the levers of power instead of wielding them

[tx 3 putt 75,475]

 

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

8 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Why does it matter?  Really?

Okay, let's say the Red Sox and the Yankees are playing, and they get notoriously awful umpire Angel Hernandez.  Let's say ol' Angel misses 30% of his ball/strike calls overall.

Now, in this game, Angel misses his usual 30% of calls in ways that hurt the Red Sox, because he's incompetent, but he misses 100% of his calls in ways that hurt the Yankees, because the Red Sox paid him to...  If he were just being his usual incompetent self, it would be hurting both teams more or less equally...

Now, this isn't a baseball game.  It's a judge who keeps fucking up in ways that benefit the completely corrupt side over and over again, and by the way, the defendent gave her the job.  Yeah, that matters a little more than the fact that she's inexperienced.

She's a judge.  Her job is to try cases, or at least ride herd over them until they settle.  Bias, as much as it gores your ox right now, affects only one party to one or more cases, or perhaps a class of parties to a class of cases (conservatives/christofascists pushing their cause).

In other words, bias affects a relatively small percentage of her cases.  Incompetence affects all of them.

And, kind of like jurors, it's impossible to entirely eliminate bias.  It often operates subconsciously.  Lawdogs encounter judges who may be biased against the defense, or the government fairly routinely.  There's a predictability to it.  Incompetence is random error.

Edited June 26 by TwiceHorn

[BamaATL 16,209]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She's a judge.  Her job is to try cases, or at least ride herd over them until they settle.  Bias, as much as it gores your ox right now, affects only one party to one or more cases, or perhaps a class of parties to a class of cases (conservatives/christofascists pushing their cause).

In other words, bias affects a relatively small percentage of her cases.  Incompetence affects all of them.

I figured it out, you work at the DOT.  

[Sawbonz 26,871]

7 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Excuse me, but this is Surly.  We are firmly dogmatic here.

*Pedantic 

[Brisketexan 103,602]

True, true.  There've been dozens of Federal Judges of myriad benches who've been impeached.  Most were discarded, never fully convitced, pardones, or simply lost to time.  Ricks of Ohio is about the closest parallel I've studied that comes closest to Cannon's situation.  But it's a far second place.  
  

“Ricks of Ohio” sounds like a strip joint so shitty that if I signed up for a shift, I’d be the prettiest gal dancing there.

[Captainant 26,913]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Incompetence is random error.

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

8 hours ago, Captainant said:

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

I'm not even talking about Cannon.  I'm talking about bias vs. incompetence in a general case.

All she's really done so far is delay things.  I can't think of a single substantive ruling, final, that actually favors Trumpco in a serious way.

Of course, delay is what Trump wants, but delay alone is not meaningful evidence of bias.

ETA:  There are at this point two pending decisions that she could really fuck up (she came close on the PRA/Espionage Act non-intersection, but appeared to recover the fumble).  The first is the piercing of Corcoran's privilege under the crime-fraud exception.  That has been ruled upon by a judge I trust, Beryl Howell, and affirmed on the "Shadow docket" of the DC Circuit.  If she undoes that, that will be a big sign.  The second is the Appointments Clause challenge to Smith's appointment.  That's been rejected by numerous courts, although some of the spins here are slightly different.  These were the hearings conducted Friday and Monday.  She really shouldn't have had hearings on either of these issues.  The prior opinions give plenty of guidance along with the briefing of the parties.  Her attempt to rehear these issues in this fashion I think demonstrates her desire to play court of appeals at the trial court.

Edited June 26 by TwiceHorn

[YGIFS 19,445]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

“Ricks of Ohio” sounds like a strip joint so shitty that if I signed up for a shift, I’d be the prettiest gal dancing there.

 

Welcome to stage 2, Ricks of Ohio.  Ricks of Ohio on Stage 2.  Take care of your waitresses, here we go with some Def Leppard. 

[Captainant 26,913]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All she's really done so far is delay things.  I can't think of a single substantive ruling, final, that actually favors Trumpco in a serious way.

All trump really did was pay a pornstar. I can't think of a single substantive way that favors him in any way with an election mere months away. 

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course, delay is what Trump wants, but delay alone is not meaningful evidence of bias.

If you ignore the outcome that's being driven though this totes-not-spiking-it-for-trump that cannon has been up to, then sure it's just mere delay. But delaying past the election and allowing these issues of SELLING OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS AND HUMINT SOURCES to remain unresolved is just plainly and loudly stating to the world that we don't give a shit and our laws are inadequate to handle an existential threat

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

All trump really did was pay a pornstar. I can't think of a single substantive way that favors him in any way with an election mere months away. 

If you ignore the outcome that's being driven though this totes-not-spiking-it-for-trump that cannon has been up to, then sure it's just mere delay. But delaying past the election and allowing these issues of SELLING OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS AND HUMINT SOURCES to remain unresolved is just plainly and loudly stating to the world that we don't give a shit and our laws are inadequate to handle an existential threat

He's not even charged with the caps.

[Dahobbs 17,227]

29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

He isn't defending Cannon. He isn't approving of her rulings. What the fuck is your problem? 

[Captainant 26,913]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

He's not even charged with the caps.

We know those were in the documents recovered from mar a Lago. We've literally seen the fuckin cover sheets from the binders recovered from the shitter. We had a huge spree of humint sources get killed abroad in the timeframe trump was running his classified blockbuster 

I guess since Smith didn't bring the charges, trump didn't actually do that either?

Just now, Dahobbs said:

He isn't defending Cannon. He isn't approving of her rulings. What the fuck is your problem? 

My problem is people acting like the justice system isn't irreparably distorted in favor of the wealthy and politically connected, and continuing to insist that what is occuring is the correct and right thing, since like, I mean, we can always appeal or something right? Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned

[Dahobbs 17,227]

Just now, Captainant said:

My problem is people acting like the justice system isn't irreparably distorted in favor of the wealthy and politically connected, and continuing to insist that what is occuring is the correct and right thing, since like, I mean, we can always appeal or something right? Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned

I can guarantee you that @TwiceHorn will agree our justice system favors the wealthy. I really don't know what you're expecting him to do about it or how being an asshole to him helps anything. Our justice system isn't perfect. It definitely has flaws. One of those flaws is that if someone wishes to delay things, generally they can. And it doesn't have to be a wealthy individual. Just do a quick search on YouTube and you'll find plenty of sovereign citizen wackadoos gumming up the legal system. They don't win. But they do delay things by forcing rulings on their bullshit. It isn't much different with Trump. He has lost every case. His tactics slow things down, but so far they still just result in adverse outcomes for him. 

I mean fuck, you're bitching that the legal system as irredeemable because it hasn't punished Trump. But it has. He has been found liable for millions. He been convicted of 34 felonies. His election suits have been thrown out. His businesses and foundations have been found to be fraudulent. Yet, in your mind, the legal system has done nothing to him. Frankly, it is the only part of our system that has contained him at all. 

What I'm saying here is that maybe yelling at @TwiceHorn isn't the productive activity that you think it is. 

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I guess since Smith didn't bring the charges, trump didn't actually do that either?

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, I tend to kind of assume that Smith investigated the shit out of this case and, had there been evidence that he sold secrets to a foreign entity, he would have been duly charged with it.

But I guess we can make shit up too.  Works for Trump.

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I can guarantee you that @TwiceHorn will agree our justice system favors the wealthy. I really don't know what you're expecting him to do about it or how being an asshole to him helps anything. Our justice system isn't perfect. It definitely has flaws. One of those flaws is that if someone wishes to delay things, generally they can. And it doesn't have to be a wealthy individual. Just do a quick search on YouTube and you'll find plenty of sovereign citizen wackadoos gumming up the legal system. They don't win. But they do delay things by forcing rulings on their bullshit. It isn't much different with Trump. He has lost every case. His tactics slow things down, but so far they still just result in adverse outcomes for him. 

I mean fuck, you're bitching that the legal system as irredeemable because it hasn't punished Trump. But it has. He has been found liable for millions. He been convicted of 34 felonies. His election suits have been thrown out. His businesses and foundations have been found to be fraudulent. Yet, in your mind, the legal system has done nothing to him. Frankly, it is the only part of our system that has contained him at all. 

What I'm saying here is that maybe yelling at @TwiceHorn isn't the productive activity that you think it is. 

Explanations are easily interpreted as defenses.  I'm just trying to explain.

Reporting of legal matters is so shitty that it often makes matters worse as far as clarifying what's really going on.  And, I think a lot of the commentators just say what people want to hear because they're selected for that by the media or they want to drive clicks.

[scottsins 1,928]

Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned

Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?

[DDD Dad 14,062]

2 hours ago, scottsins said:

 

Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?

 

Perhaps a rule similar to the one in most federal courts limiting parties to a single summary judgment motion?

Maybe something along the lines of a local or F. R. Crim. P.  rule requiring all motions of a particular type (suppress., e.g.),. be brought in a single motion X days before trial.

The difficulty with anything along these lines in the criminal context (as opposed to civil) is the constitutional limitations and requirements for fair trial, etc.

[C-Man 26,696]

Judge Aileen Cannon pushes back on idea that more hearings will delay Trump classified documents case

Fuck this cunt judge: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-hearing/index.html

[Gatorubet 29,665]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:28 PM, dcbc said:

.A great many of us take our role in the system seriously and with a great amount of pride in doing what's right.  It's also why I'm curious about the utopian industry in which he plies his trade. 

Well, while Ant may live in his mom’s basement and not be “employed”, like your job shaming implies, you do not see him just giving up when there’s a problem - like she didn’t make meatloaf.  He put an app on her jitterbug phone that delivers food from her grocery store, completely eliminating the no meatloaf problem.  

He just wants to know why we refuse to correct our problems. 

[dcbc 14,248]

6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Well, while Ant may live in his mom’s basement and not be “employed”, like your job shaming implies, you do not see him just giving up when there’s a problem - like she didn’t make meatloaf.  He put an app on her jitterbug phone that delivers food from her grocery store, completely eliminating the no meatloaf problem.  

He just wants to know why we refuse to correct our problems. 

Let's be clear, I'm not shaming him if he lives in his mom's basement and demands meatloaf whilst unemployed.  I'm just curious what utopian profession he is in that he can shit on mine like he's trying to win best colonoscopy prep.  Because it must be a model of perfection.  And I'm guessing it isn't since he's dodged the question so thoroughly.

[Captainant 26,913]

12 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let's be clear, I'm not shaming him if he lives in his mom's basement and demands meatloaf whilst unemployed.  I'm just curious what utopian profession he is in that he can shit on mine like he's trying to win best colonoscopy prep.  Because it must be a model of perfection.  And I'm guessing it isn't since he's dodged the question so thoroughly.

Lulz not unemployed, I'm in tech which is a never ending stream of problems and issues to be solved. Fortunately, it's typically a clear up/down as to if something will work or not and there's less of the aw-shucks-ing when there's an obvious fucking cancer eating at a system

And I'm more shitting on corrupt judges and the busted judicial system than I am on lawyers. It's just that shitty trumpco lawyers are the ones bringing the garbage to the courts and turning the crank

So like are you a trump lawyer or a judge or something? 

[dcbc 14,248]

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lulz not unemployed, I'm in tech which is a never ending stream of problems and issues to be solved. Fortunately, it's typically a clear up/down as to if something will work or not and there's less of the aw-shucks-ing when there's an obvious fucking cancer eating at a system

And I'm more shitting on corrupt judges and the busted judicial system than I am on lawyers. It's just that shitty trumpco lawyers are the ones bringing the garbage to the courts and turning the crank

So like are you a trump lawyer or a judge or something? 

No.  I'm not a Trump lawyer or a judge.  And politically, you and I align.  I've worked in the judiciary for more than two decades, and in my little swath of the world, it is not corrupt and it is not political when it comes down to brass tacks.  If it were, I wouldn't have made a career as a civil-servant attorney in that branch of government.

 

It's not that I don't agree that parts of the system are fucked up and need fixing.  But the notions you espouse so often involve the entirety of the judicial system's being fucked up and corrupt.  And that broad, false generality is, whether intentional, a direct attack on me and people like me who do what I do, are in this for the right reasons, and work hard to make sure things are done fairly and impartially.  And there are a lot of us with the same motivations.  That's not to say we always get it right.  But that's the goal 100% of the time where I am.  And the reason I do what I do is because I saw parts of the system that didn't seem fair and found a way to put myself in a position to, in some small part, make sure things are fair.

 

TLDR, we might agree on quite a few things.  But every time you paint your diatribes with such broad strokes, it just comes off as noise---all zeros; no ones.

 

And thanks for ruining Austin, Tech Bro!   See?  Generalities, right?  You probably didn't ruin all of Austin. 

 

Edited June 28 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

16 hours ago, C-Man said:

Judge Aileen Cannon pushes back on idea that more hearings will delay Trump classified documents case

Fuck this cunt judge: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-hearing/index.html

I think that shows that she's feeling some heat.  Whether that makes any difference or not is a different question.

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

8 hours ago, dcbc said:

No.  I'm not a Trump lawyer or a judge.  And politically, you and I align.  I've worked in the judiciary for more than two decades, and in my little swath of the world, it is not corrupt and it is not political when it comes down to brass tacks.  If it were, I wouldn't have made a career as a civil-servant attorney in that branch of government.

 

It's not that I don't agree that parts of the system are fucked up and need fixing.  But the notions you espouse so often involve the entirety of the judicial system's being fucked up and corrupt.  And that broad, false generality is, whether intentional, a direct attack on me and people like me who do what I do, are in this for the right reasons, and work hard to make sure things are done fairly and impartially.  And there are a lot of us with the same motivations.  That's not to say we always get it right.  But that's the goal 100% of the time where I am.  And the reason I do what I do is because I saw parts of the system that didn't seem fair and found a way to put myself in a position to, in some small part, make sure things are fair.

 

TLDR, we might agree on quite a few things.  But every time you paint your diatribes with such broad strokes, it just comes off as noise---all zeros; no ones.

 

And thanks for ruining Austin, Tech Bro!   See?  Generalities, right?  You probably didn't ruin all of Austin. 

 

There may be kind of a subtle thing going on here.  As an engineer, I have a strong technocrat streak.  And that tends to mean that I see things rather in black and white, that is, there is a right answer.

I was warned and intellectually knew that the "right answer" thing didn't fly in law school. Still, knowing that didn't really help with the adjustment to dealing with shades of gray.

For example, in response to essay questions, I made reasonable assumptions like any good engineer, and tended to focus on what in all likelihood was the right answer.  But that only gets you halfway there in law school.  You have to pay equal or near-equal attention to what is in all likelihood the wrong answer, or several rightish and wrongish answers.

I eventually "caught on" and made great grades second and third year, but was pretty meadoker first year.

I think that experience made me even more "fair minded" or willing to give equal attention to both sides of any issue even than the usual lawdog.

Also, I'm not sure where this came from in my background, if it was engineering or personal predisposition or what, but I tended to write at least (if not analyze) from a deductive standpoint, whereas inductive reasoning tends to be the order of the day.  That is, don't start with the outcome.

Anyway, I think technocratic types tend to recoil more from matters legal than even just ordinary laypeople, for some of the reasons mentioned above.

[jimmyjazz 45,192]

Point of order:  not all engineers are black or white when it comes to the "correct" position.  Complex systems (which comprise most of the real world) demand a collection of tradeoffs, many of which aren't particularly right or wrong on their face.  A Volvo ain't a BMW but they're both decent cars.

[Captainant 26,913]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that experience made me even more "fair minded" or willing to give equal attention to both sides of any issue even than the usual lawdog.

I think the openness to drinking poison and lies from our enemies under the guise of #bothsides and a false notion of "the truth is ALWAYS in the middle" can lead to you getting taken for a ride by fascists. It's that good faith and tolerance for their intolerance and deceit that instigates the power imbalance and is a major contributing factor to why the justice system is so biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 

Because they'll always be able to throw out more grist for your intellectual mill than you can process. They'll drown you in a firehose of falsehoods if you give them the mic, you spend all your time debunking their lies so your message doesn't get out. 

We see it in action with how trump campaigns, and how cannon defends her client from the bench. 

But if you have brain worms that compell you to believe that everything is always done in good faith and there's always some reasonable middle ground, then you're gonna get taken for a fuckin ride. 

[Captainant 26,913]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Point of order:  not all engineers are black or white when it comes to the "correct" position.  Complex systems (which comprise most of the real world) demand a collection of tradeoffs, many of which aren't particularly right or wrong on their face.  A Volvo ain't a BMW but they're both decent cars.

It's often the case that there's no "right" answer when picking a set of tradeoffs, but rather which set of constraints incurred leave you the most design space available, or are most palatable to the stakeholders. However, there's absolutely cases where something is the "WRONG!!!" answer even when there isnt a single "right" answer. 

[jimmyjazz 45,192]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It's often the case that there's no "right" answer when picking a set of tradeoffs, but rather which set of constraints incurred leave you the most design space available, or are most palatable to the stakeholders. However, there's absolutely cases where something is the "WRONG!!!" answer even when there isnt a single "right" answer. 

No argument there. 

[dcbc 14,248]

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tended to write at least (if not analyze) from a deductive standpoint, whereas inductive reasoning tends to be the order of the day.  That is, don't start with the outcome.

I really don't tend to approach any two cases in exactly the same way.  I mean, I have, but my process is extremely flexible.  Ultimately, there's that time-honored, syllogistic formula.  But within it, it's somewhere between dancing and a Swiss watch mechanism. 

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

10 hours ago, dcbc said:

I really don't tend to approach any two cases in exactly the same way.  I mean, I have, but my process is extremely flexible.  Ultimately, there's that time-honored, syllogistic formula.  But within it, it's somewhere between dancing and a Swiss watch mechanism. 

All of the above is something of a generality.  But the broad strokes apply in general terms of thinking about things.

And, don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating engineers at all.  Sometimes I wish I had stayed one.  But the thinking tends to be very different, indeed, with engineering tending more toward objectivity and outcome, and law more toward subjectivity and process.

Edited June 28 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 30,850]

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

I think the openness to drinking poison and lies from our enemies under the guise of #bothsides and a false notion of "the truth is ALWAYS in the middle" can lead to you getting taken for a ride by fascists. It's that good faith and tolerance for their intolerance and deceit that instigates the power imbalance and is a major contributing factor to why the justice system is so biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 

Because they'll always be able to throw out more grist for your intellectual mill than you can process. They'll drown you in a firehose of falsehoods if you give them the mic, you spend all your time debunking their lies so your message doesn't get out. 

We see it in action with how trump campaigns, and how cannon defends her client from the bench. 

But if you have brain worms that compell you to believe that everything is always done in good faith and there's always some reasonable middle ground, then you're gonna get taken for a fuckin ride. 

Well, Trump is always spewing horseshit, of course.  And his lawyers too.  But his lawyers horseshit is considerably more grounded in some form of reality than Trump's.

Campaign rhetoric and legal rhetoric are not the same, or even all that similar.  Trump's lawyers do a pretty decent job of taking the outlandish and starting to make it seem almost somewhat reasonable.  It takes a strong and experienced judge to cut through that horseshit.

I think someone upthread mentioned how hard it can be to deal with pro se litigants.  They, like Trump, spew unvarnished horseshit most of the time.  It can be pretty tough for a judge to cut through that while still giving the litigant something like due process.  When the litigant has lawyers that can varnish the horseshit, it becomes that much more difficult.