Biden Ends Presidential Bid.

[Isaac]

the people in Congress don't want this fixed. It's too powerful of a tool to keep people on both sides of the aisle to pay attention the the issues that have more moderates solutions

I can agree with that.

 

[Isaac]

Prior bad acts and admissibility are litigated all the time, in nearly all criminal cases. In weinsteins case I believe there was testimony of uncharged acts wherein in trumps case the bad acts were all after a finding.

And he got a new trial because of it, too.

 

[moke123]

The porn star's testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with the accounting of her bribery payment. If the bribery payment was a crime, it was a crime regardless of what the porn star said regarding her relationship to Trump. Why must you play dumb? It really doesn't become you.

Guess it's better to play it than be it , but you be you.

I know the law isn't your strong suit so I'll spare you the details on foundation and motive, but even if Stormy's testimony was stricken your right that it was a crime regardless of her testimony and all the other evidence supports that.

And he got a new trial because of it, too.

yea for the serial rapist, I guess. He's being retried.

 

[Pat Hartman]

He's being retried.

What a waste of taxpayer money. All the original judge needed to do was to keep his finger off the scales and play fair. He played favorites and let the prosecution get away with presenting testimony that he should not have allowed and the taxpayers pay yet again.

There should be a way to sanction judges to stop them from playing favorites. Somebody should be keeping score. Three strikes and you're out. That would clean up the judicial system. But, instead, it is like the rest of the civil service. They have no problem whatsoever with wasting taxpayer money instead of running a clean ship.

 

[Isaac]

What a waste of taxpayer money. All the original judge needed to do was to keep his finger off the scales and play fair. He played favorites and let the prosecution get away with presenting testimony that he should not have allowed and the taxpayers pay yet again.

There should be a way to sanction judges to stop them from playing favorites. Somebody should be keeping score. Three strikes and you're out. That would clean up the judicial system. But, instead, it is like the rest of the civil service. They have no problem whatsoever with wasting taxpayer money instead of running a clean ship.

The problem comes in that even if you came up with a way to really educate voters and vote judges out, people wouldn't know what to do. Most people aren't educated in even the MOST BASIC aspect of legal proceedings - that is, that the judge is there to apply the law to a set of facts, while following any rules state/fed of criminal or civil procedure - and that's IT.

For example, to hear most / average person talk about recent Supreme Court decisions, including our more liberal friends on AWF, you would think the Supreme Court's job was to effect a certain common sense outcome. That's not the case. Their job is to apply the law (or constitution) to a set of facts. It is entirely possible, and in fact extremely common, that such a correct application occurs even with a regrettable outcome. The public doesn't get that.
They only look at the outcome and say "How could they do that? Don't they support [insert "abortion rights", "the EPA", etc]"

 

[moke123]

Most people aren't educated in even the MOST BASIC aspect of legal proceedings

That's often painfully obvious here.

 

[moke123]

The public doesn't get that.

But legal experts do as they understand the doctrine of stare decisis.

 

[Isaac]

I wasn't even talking about stare decisis, but ok.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Liberals are all jacked up, they get a little sugar high from Kamala and are off to the races. They deserve a little good news, it's been a rough couple of months.

 

[Thales750]

The problem comes in that even if you came up with a way to really educate voters and vote judges out, people wouldn't know what to do. Most people aren't educated in even the MOST BASIC aspect of legal proceedings - that is, that the judge is there to apply the law to a set of facts, while following any rules state/fed of criminal or civil procedure - and that's IT.

For example, to hear most / average person talk about recent Supreme Court decisions, including our more liberal friends on AWF, you would think the Supreme Court's job was to effect a certain common sense outcome. That's not the case. Their job is to apply the law (or constitution) to a set of facts. It is entirely possible, and in fact extremely common, that such a correct application occurs even with a regrettable outcome. The public doesn't get that.
They only look at the outcome and say "How could they do that? Don't they support [insert "abortion rights", "the EPA", etc]"

Completely full of errors there. Since MAGA took over the Court, their job has been most certainly to interpret based on ideology. The rulings they overturned stood the test of a half a century of American Supreme Court Jurisprudence. You can't just apply your world view to climate scientist's findings, then ignore it when it comes to Justices that happen share your world view.

 

[Isaac]

The rulings they overturned stood the test of a half a century of American Supreme Court Jurisprudence.

Right, but courts don't always follow the most recent precedent, sometimes they correct precedent by reaching even further back to a previous precedent, which is what they did in 90% of the stuff you're talking about. In many cases this has resulted in things everyone is happy with, i.e., civil rights. What they corrected are things that half of us have known all our lives were unconstitutional, and just waiting for a court to do the right thing

And no, not full of errors. Right on.

 

[Thales750]

Right, but courts don't always follow the most recent precedent, sometimes they correct precedent by reaching even further back to a previous precedent, which is what they did in 90% of the stuff you're talking about. In many cases this has resulted in things everyone is happy with, i.e., civil rights. What they corrected are things that half of us have known all our lives were unconstitutional, and just waiting for a court to do the right thing

And no, not full of errors. Right on.

Right. Funny how that happened now. This is the problem when the country is being wagged by a super minority.

 

[moke123]

Kamala's coming to town tomorrow. She'll be 2 blocks down from my office. I may go . Pat it's only an hour and a half away from you. Wanna come?
James Taylor is going to be there. 2 other locals, Yo Yo Ma and Emmanuel Axe, are playing too. Apparently JT cleared his schedule through November to be available to the campaign.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Kamala's coming to town tomorrow. She'll be 2 blocks down from my office. I may go . Pat it's only an hour and a half away from you. Wanna come?
James Taylor is going to be there. 2 other locals, Yo Yo Ma and Emmanuel Axe, are playing too. Apparently JT cleared his schedule through November to be available to the campaign.

I thought you were against the Californication of your state. Deep down inside you know she is a Socialist at best and a Marxist at worst and would destroy your state if given a chance, you know I'm right.

 

[Thales750]

Vance, the newest member of the choir.

Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’

A number of House Republicans are privately bashing former President Trump’s selection of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate, warning that the pick will not help — and could hurt — the…

thehill.com

 

[moke123]

I can picture John McCain sitting up in heaven, with a big smile on his face , relieved that somebody has finally made a worse pick than him.

 

[moke123]

you know I'm right.

There's always a first, but this ain't it.

 

[AccessBlaster]

There's always a first, but this ain't it.

it wasn't conservatism that ruined San Francisco and Los Angeles, it's hyper liberals like Gavin Newsom and Heels up Harris. They'll ruin your town too, If you let them.

 

[moke123]

They'll ruin your town too If you let them.

fear mongering.

 

[AccessBlaster]

fear mongering.

It's evidence