ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
The thing about a hung jury is that it is very different than a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict. It is a no verdict result that either has to be retried or let go.
The other thing about hung juries is why they were hung. If there is only one person who was voting Not Guilty then it looks like it could easily be a Guilty verdict the next time around. Similarly if there is only one person who is voting Guilty then it looks like it could easily be a Not Guilty verdict the next time. If there are 4 or more people voting Not Guilty then even though there is no Not Guilty verdict it will be obvious to the prosecution that there is no point in retrying the case.
While it is true that a judge can overturn a jury's verdict, it rarely happens. The way judges typically voice their prejudices in trials is the sentencing.
In CA a young man basically raped a woman who had passed out outside in an alley. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a 6 month sentence (that I believe he didn't have to serve in jail). The same thing happens a lot in NY for white collar crimes. We will see at the sentencing where the NY judge stands on Trump. Because he is a first time offender for a crime like this often there will be no jail time. But the way Trump has come after the Judge's daughter I wouldn't be surprised if there was a short period of incarceration.
Did Trump do a crime? No, of course that could never be, it must be our entire conception of guilt and innocence needs to be overhauled.
today starts the super "rigged" trial of hunter biden. charged by a trump DA on a mission to go after political opponents with an obscure statute that isn't tried often, heard by a trumper judge that refused to take a perfectly reasonable plea deal in order to try and make a political name for themselves...
i assume everyone will on the right will be talking about how insane this is..
today starts the super "rigged" trial of hunter biden. charged by a trump DA on a mission to go after political opponents with an obscure statute that isn't tried often, heard by a trumper judge that refused to take a perfectly reasonable plea deal in order to try and make a political name for themselves...
i assume everyone will on the right will be talking about how insane this is..
You joke about it and I agree Trump's rhetoric about the judge and the legal system is bad. But lets not forget how the left talks about the Supreme Court which is just as bad
Its sad that we now always say a Biden/Obama appointed judge or a Trump appointed judge
It will all be good when we get 4 more years pause of Biden
today starts the super "rigged" trial of hunter biden. charged by a trump DA on a mission to go after political opponents with an obscure statute that isn't tried often, heard by a trumper judge that refused to take a perfectly reasonable plea deal in order to try and make a political name for themselves...
i assume everyone will on the right will be talking about how insane this is..
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trial-of...
This headline is fire!
You joke about it and I agree Trump's rhetoric about the judge and the legal system is bad. But lets not forget how the left talks about the Supreme Court which is just as bad
Its sad that we now always say a Biden/Obama appointed judge or a Trump appointed judge
It will all be good when we get 4 more years pause of Biden
the talk about the supreme court isn't that they are catering to trump, it's that they are corrupt unqualified individuals on their own. it isn't analogous at all. i understand that the right thinks being appointed by a democratic president is the same as being an unqualified stooge who takes bribes, but that doesn't make it so in reality.
Donald Trump found guilty of all 34 charges in hush money trial.
Now that's a headline.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trial-of...
This headline is fire!
You are one of those who think the judicial system is rigged to go after trump for « small alleged crimes ».
U don’t think it’s the same thing here except by your side ?
the talk about the supreme court isn't that they are catering to trump, it's that they are corrupt unqualified individuals on their own. it isn't analogous at all. i understand that the right thinks being appointed by a democratic president is the same as being an unqualified stooge who takes bribes, but that doesn't make it so in reality.
No doubt some crazy people claims that on the left but unqualified roflmao?
the talk about the supreme court isn't that they are catering to trump, it's that they are corrupt unqualified individuals on their own. it isn't analogous at all. i understand that the right thinks being appointed by a democratic president is the same as being an unqualified stooge who takes bribes, but that doesn't make it so in reality.
That is why you and the left are hypocrites . You only respect judges appointed by the left. Please feel free to list Supreme Court members that have taken bribes . Ill start off the list with RBG
Unqualified may not be the correct word. I was thinking more corrupt
Marchan is being called on to recuse himself by the right cuz some $20 donation to the DNC makes him wholly unqualified to be unbiased.
Meanwhile
Cannon won’t recuse herself from a case where the defendant is literally the president who appointed her (with predictable results)
Samuel Jackson in Django won’t recuse himself from 1/6 cases or Trump cases despite his wife openly advocating overturning the election results by any means needed (not even mentioning any of the cases he’s sat on which people who gave him money or paid him for **** had a vested interest)
Alito: See: Thomas
That is why you and the left are hypocrites . You only respect judges appointed by the left. Please feel free to list Supreme Court members that have taken bribes . Ill start off the list with RBG
I don't know what incident you're referring to, but there is no RBG on the SC. There is however a Clarence Thomas, who has been shown to have accepted gifts from people with business in the court.
And of course he wasn't qualified to begin with. The only reason he got confirmed was because Senate Democrats didn't want the optics of rejecting a black nominee. And the only reason he got into college and law school was because of affirmative action racial preferences which he believes are unconstitutional.
We could also put his name down to start a list of the SC members who were known to be likely sexual harassers, or worse, before joining the court.
Certainly. there are two or three lacking the moral and ethical qualifications to be Supreme Court justices even if they have the requisite educational qualifications and prior judicial experience.
im pretty sure i have more trial experience than comey barrett had when nominated..
when it comes to federal judges trump appointed a handful that were so poorly qualified that the American Bar Association listed them as "unqualified".
I don't know what incident you're referring to, but there is no RBG on the SC. There is however a Clarence Thomas, who has been shown to have accepted gifts from people with business in the court.
And of course he wasn't qualified to begin with. The only reason he got confirmed was because Senate Democrats didn't want the optics of rejecting a black nominee. And the only reason he got into college and law school was because of affirmative a
She was on the SC
im pretty sure i have more trial experience than comey barrett had when nominated..
when it comes to federal judges trump appointed a handful that were so poorly qualified that the American Bar Association listed them as "unqualified".
I thought we were talking SCOTUS.
ACB graduated first of her class and was editor of her college law review. That's qualification, that's being objectively far smarter than the vast majority of humans that ever lived, like in the top 0.05% or better.
She is measurably better than most people who ever spent their lives on legal topics. Better hardware measurably. That's enough for me coupled with proper value alignment
Certainly. there are two or three lacking the moral and ethical qualifications to be Supreme Court justices even if they have the requisite educational qualifications and prior judicial experience.
Ethical considerations are purely subjective and we don't share even a shred of a value system so your ethical considerations are worthless to me (and I think the opposite is true).
I am actually inclined to think that if you deeply despise someone for ethics that very probably means he or she is a very good person for my value system.
Same for morals ofc. And btw, anything that isn't objective and shared by the vast majority of adults as a measurement can't be considered a qualification by normal people.
Even saying "ethical and moral qualification" is an oxymoron. For ex for me anyone on the left should be morally disqualified to ever hold public office.
But I don't use that as a claim that say Garland isn't qualified.
He was for SCOTUS when Obama nominated him even if I am disgusted by the value system he represents
Some very powerful people, among them some of the most successful self made people in american history, are backing Trump with renewed interest now after the conviction, including some that had previously distanced themselves from him
Source is BBC not Infowars
RBG took free trips from folks she had cases pending
I don't see any evidence of that in the link you provided. Can you show us?
RBG was a freaking legal genius , ultra qualified.
The left is going to nominate leftists, that's something we can't avoid, but if they are all obscenely intelligent like her it's still far better than if they aren't.
RBG is close to the best possible judge we can hope for when the left gets the pick. It's absurd to take on her negatively.
Btw a lot of the law isn't partisan, and you need ultra sharp minds to carefully craft jurisprudence at the very top in a ton of cases where political values don't matter too much, and you really want leftist judges to think like RBG did when that's the case.
Kagan is very decent as well and way above average for a leftist.
We have a problem when people like Sotomayor get on the court, like with Kavanaugh.
Those are like local kindergarten fastest student vs an actual pro athlete, kinda embarrassing for the actual pros to sit near them, but at least is 1-1 currently on the court
RBG was a freaking legal genius , ultra qualified.
The left is going to nominate leftists, that's something we can't avoid, but if they are all obscenely intelligent like her it's still far better than if they aren't.
RBG is close to the best possible judge we can hope for when the left gets the pick. It's absurd to take on her negatively.
Btw a lot of the law isn't partisan, and you need ultra sharp minds to carefully craft jurisprudence at t
Oh of course she was a great judge one of the best one of her failures was not knowing when to retire
who wasn't on law review. even i was on a law review.
sotomayor was an editor of the YALE law review vs barrett's notre dame. and sotomayor was published in the yale law review.. idk if it's just the racism showing but comparing some religious school called rhodes college in memphis/notre dame to princeton/yale and deciding the former is unquestionably qualified as a top .05% mind and the later as a failure of the court is crazy talk..
edit- also to add. "editor" of a law review is one of those phrases that gets thrown around without context. all positions on the law review are likely titled "editor" becaue you edit articles going into the review.. was acb or sotomayor the "editor in chief" or was she just AN editor. idk the answer to that. but i was "an editor" of a law review, i certainly wasn't THE "articles editor", THE "notes and comments editor", nor was i "the editor in chief"
edit to the edit- just wikipedia'd. acb was "an executive editor". not sure how their structure works, but that seems to preclude that she was "THE" editor. sotomayor listed as "an editor"
