The riot to reform police thread

[MakeItRain]

I did not know that about the Athenian system, but that sounds awesome. I would implement that tomorrow.

I wholeheartedly disagree with MIR's view regarding elected vs. appointed judges. I could not possibly disagree more with every single point he made in that regard. I don't even know where to start...

It's seems that in most cases the person on trial is not completely guilty or innocent.  I would think the prosecutor and defense attorney should set with the jury to determine the extent of guilt, as a set 1 to 10 for determining punishment if any.  I think this would be a closer accounting of the crime.     

No, you need to be completely guilty to be found guilty. Getting into degrees of guilt lowers the burden for proving guilt, that can't happen. Plea bargains shouldn't be used as a way for prosecutors to hedge their bets, they should be used for keeping people out of jail who may be guilty of a crime but who don't belong in jail.

Spracne, I'm not going to play the dax/tbt game with you. If you want to discuss something I've posted I'll be happy to do so, what I'm not going to do is engage in the pointless bullshit you pulled in your last reply to me. If you can't convey a coherent thought for me to address, I don't know why bother replying. If your point was simply that you disagree but can't tell us why, you have to know that literally no one cares who you disagree with. It's a message board, in which people give their opinions on various topics, it's a given that people will disagree, simply disagreeing with someone/anyone is in no way noteworthy. IMO.

In that case, I'm glad you asked. The people who founded this Country put at least a little thought into the new form of government they were creating from whole cloth. What we ended up with is now familiar, but at the time it was truly novel. Certain of these concepts were codified in our Constitution, and so they have endured.

The whole concept of a third branch of government was to act as a check on the more mercurial, political branches of government. To that end, it was decided that judges were to be appointed for life, pending good behavior (NB: this is the "check"; judicial officers may be impeached and removed for good cause).

Why would we appoint judges for life tenure, subject to good behavior? Because, that is the best way to promote impartiality and independence. Hopefully, only qualified jurists would be elevated to such a position, and they should be allowed to exercise their independent judgment without political pressure or perverse incentives. But in most state court systems, the judges who are actually incarcerating your run-of-the-mill "criminals" are elected officials. Their interests are often the same as the local D.A., i.e., to appear as "tough on crime" as the local voters prefer, even if the local sentiments are less than, uh, enlightened.

As catastrophe said, the electorate has proven themselves to be incompetent when it comes to this. Candidly, federal judges--who are appointed for life--are almost always far more competent than their state court peers.

In short, I believe wholeheartedly that, once appointed, judges should be removed from influence by political pressures.

So the only thing I said you disagreed with was lifetime appointments? Pretty dramatic for such a small disagreement. Unless I missed it in the cato article they did not distinguish between appointed federal judges and elected trial judges. Since they mentioned that they didn't feel judges should be elected, I'm guessing their focus was on locally elected judges. Nearly all of my previous post was discussing the perils of appointing local judges, I never advocated for electing federal judges.

I didn't need the civics lesson, appreciate it though. I do have a couple of questions though since you brought it up. How frequently has an appointed federal judges been remove for misconduct. In all of your vast legal knowledge is it more, less, or equally likely that an elected judge is recalled or a federal judge is removed?

[Spracne]

I did not know that about the Athenian system, but that sounds awesome. I would implement that tomorrow.

I wholeheartedly disagree with MIR's view regarding elected vs. appointed judges. I could not possibly disagree more with every single point he made in that regard. I don't even know where to start...

It's seems that in most cases the person on trial is not completely guilty or innocent.  I would think the prosecutor and defense attorney should set with the jury to determine the extent of guilt, as a set 1 to 10 for determining punishment if any.  I think this would be a closer accounting of the crime.     

No, you need to be completely guilty to be found guilty. Getting into degrees of guilt lowers the burden for proving guilt, that can't happen. Plea bargains shouldn't be used as a way for prosecutors to hedge their bets, they should be used for keeping people out of jail who may be guilty of a crime but who don't belong in jail.

Spracne, I'm not going to play the dax/tbt game with you. If you want to discuss something I've posted I'll be happy to do so, what I'm not going to do is engage in the pointless bullshit you pulled in your last reply to me. If you can't convey a coherent thought for me to address, I don't know why bother replying. If your point was simply that you disagree but can't tell us why, you have to know that literally no one cares who you disagree with. It's a message board, in which people give their opinions on various topics, it's a given that people will disagree, simply disagreeing with someone/anyone is in no way noteworthy. IMO.

In that case, I'm glad you asked. The people who founded this Country put at least a little thought into the new form of government they were creating from whole cloth. What we ended up with is now familiar, but at the time it was truly novel. Certain of these concepts were codified in our Constitution, and so they have endured.

The whole concept of a third branch of government was to act as a check on the more mercurial, political branches of government. To that end, it was decided that judges were to be appointed for life, pending good behavior (NB: this is the "check"; judicial officers may be impeached and removed for good cause).

Why would we appoint judges for life tenure, subject to good behavior? Because, that is the best way to promote impartiality and independence. Hopefully, only qualified jurists would be elevated to such a position, and they should be allowed to exercise their independent judgment without political pressure or perverse incentives. But in most state court systems, the judges who are actually incarcerating your run-of-the-mill "criminals" are elected officials. Their interests are often the same as the local D.A., i.e., to appear as "tough on crime" as the local voters prefer, even if the local sentiments are less than, uh, enlightened.

As catastrophe said, the electorate has proven themselves to be incompetent when it comes to this. Candidly, federal judges--who are appointed for life--are almost always far more competent than their state court peers.

In short, I believe wholeheartedly that, once appointed, judges should be removed from influence by political pressures.

So the only thing I said you disagreed with was lifetime appointments? Pretty dramatic for such a small disagreement. Unless I missed it in the cato article they did not distinguish between appointed federal judges and elected trial judges. Since they mentioned that they didn't feel judges should be elected, I'm guessing their focus was on locally elected judges. Nearly all of my previous post was discussing the perils of appointing local judges, I never advocated for electing federal judges.

I didn't need the civics lesson, appreciate it though. I do have a couple of questions though since you brought it up. How frequently has an appointed federal judges been remove for misconduct. In all of your vast legal knowledge is it more, less, or equally likely that an elected judge is recalled or a federal judge is removed?

You said

The two components I disagree with is with the appointment of judges instead of electing them. Who is appointing them? The best way to keep judges in check is to hold them accountable to less people? Nah, that ain't it.

So, I guess I'll let you clarify. Do you think judges should be elected or appointed?

[MakeItRain]

Electing judges doesn’t make them accountable to the people, it makes them beholden to special interests. Which is fine IMO if we’re talking policy makers, but pretty mumped up when you’re talking about someone whose entire job is being impartial.

How would appointing judges make them any less potentially corruptable or impartial? First of all it's important to establish who exactly would be selecting these judges. Is it a government being in said jurisdictions? Do we really want small local governments selecting the police and the judges? Even on a state level, take states like Arkansas or Massachusetts, whose state power structure is completely centered around one party, are we letting these people select all judges? Again if you're involving our two party system in any of this, you're inviting potential corruption and definite partisanship.

The Cato article mentioned a nebulous, "like Europe does." What does that mean? All European countries have different ways of selecting judges. In England the queens selects judges based on advice of the PM who gets his/her info from a panel.

It's easy to disagree without offering anything even close to resembling a solution. The only issue with electing judges is that the electorate are far too disinterested in the process, and laziness isn't a good enough reason to disassemble an institution without a viable alternative.

There’s still the risk of partisanship among appointed judges, but not nearly as much as elected ones. The Supreme Court has had plenty of examples of appointed conservatives/liberals shifting to the other side. Regardless, you’re talking about an ideological problem, which is still way better than putting judges in a position where they might feel a personal stake in how a case is decided because of political consequences.

Which goes to your last point. An interested electorate wouldn’t fix the issue. It could make it worse if you had factions trying to intervene during cases to influence the outcomes.

When I talk about an interested and informed electorate, I meant having a knowledge base on how judges rule from the bench. I attributed our lack of info about judges to laziness but that isn't fair, I really don't even know how one would know how an incumbent treats their role as a judge when compared to an opponent, unless that judge has done something very wrong, again Aaron Persky.

As long as they are putting political parties on judges on ballots, there isn't any way voting on judges could be more partisan. Insane that is done, btw.

[MakeItRain]

I did not know that about the Athenian system, but that sounds awesome. I would implement that tomorrow.

I wholeheartedly disagree with MIR's view regarding elected vs. appointed judges. I could not possibly disagree more with every single point he made in that regard. I don't even know where to start...

It's seems that in most cases the person on trial is not completely guilty or innocent.  I would think the prosecutor and defense attorney should set with the jury to determine the extent of guilt, as a set 1 to 10 for determining punishment if any.  I think this would be a closer accounting of the crime.     

No, you need to be completely guilty to be found guilty. Getting into degrees of guilt lowers the burden for proving guilt, that can't happen. Plea bargains shouldn't be used as a way for prosecutors to hedge their bets, they should be used for keeping people out of jail who may be guilty of a crime but who don't belong in jail.

Spracne, I'm not going to play the dax/tbt game with you. If you want to discuss something I've posted I'll be happy to do so, what I'm not going to do is engage in the pointless bullshit you pulled in your last reply to me. If you can't convey a coherent thought for me to address, I don't know why bother replying. If your point was simply that you disagree but can't tell us why, you have to know that literally no one cares who you disagree with. It's a message board, in which people give their opinions on various topics, it's a given that people will disagree, simply disagreeing with someone/anyone is in no way noteworthy. IMO.

In that case, I'm glad you asked. The people who founded this Country put at least a little thought into the new form of government they were creating from whole cloth. What we ended up with is now familiar, but at the time it was truly novel. Certain of these concepts were codified in our Constitution, and so they have endured.

The whole concept of a third branch of government was to act as a check on the more mercurial, political branches of government. To that end, it was decided that judges were to be appointed for life, pending good behavior (NB: this is the "check"; judicial officers may be impeached and removed for good cause).

Why would we appoint judges for life tenure, subject to good behavior? Because, that is the best way to promote impartiality and independence. Hopefully, only qualified jurists would be elevated to such a position, and they should be allowed to exercise their independent judgment without political pressure or perverse incentives. But in most state court systems, the judges who are actually incarcerating your run-of-the-mill "criminals" are elected officials. Their interests are often the same as the local D.A., i.e., to appear as "tough on crime" as the local voters prefer, even if the local sentiments are less than, uh, enlightened.

As catastrophe said, the electorate has proven themselves to be incompetent when it comes to this. Candidly, federal judges--who are appointed for life--are almost always far more competent than their state court peers.

In short, I believe wholeheartedly that, once appointed, judges should be removed from influence by political pressures.

So the only thing I said you disagreed with was lifetime appointments? Pretty dramatic for such a small disagreement. Unless I missed it in the cato article they did not distinguish between appointed federal judges and elected trial judges. Since they mentioned that they didn't feel judges should be elected, I'm guessing their focus was on locally elected judges. Nearly all of my previous post was discussing the perils of appointing local judges, I never advocated for electing federal judges.

I didn't need the civics lesson, appreciate it though. I do have a couple of questions though since you brought it up. How frequently has an appointed federal judges been remove for misconduct. In all of your vast legal knowledge is it more, less, or equally likely that an elected judge is recalled or a federal judge is removed?

You said

The two components I disagree with is with the appointment of judges instead of electing them. Who is appointing them? The best way to keep judges in check is to hold them accountable to less people? Nah, that ain't it.

So, I guess I'll let you clarify. Do you think judges should be elected or appointed?

Federal or district? I've made the distinction several times. I took exception to district judges being appointed and said why. I'm okay with federal judges continuing to be appointed, I've never said otherwise. The context of that quote was the cato article stating that judges should no longer be elected.

I certainly don't have the level of faith in federal judges that you do. The current state of the judicial branch is not exactly operating exactly like the founding fathers had in mind. We've spoke before litmus tests with the SCOTUS. The litmus tests and political favor trading is much worse with federal court appointees, and this is in no way limited to one party.

[Trim]

This is by far the most interesting downtown Portland has ever been at night.





https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/07/18/federal-officers-and-portland-police-simultaneously-dispersed-protesters-last-night/

[michigancat]

It's not easy to research local judges imo

[sys]

It's not easy to research local judges imo

yeah, i've tried and it's pretty close to a brick wall.  voting on judges feels like throwing darts.


i don't think facing an electorate is needed for judges, but if it is felt to be necessary, i think you might be able to get better results by having an elected official, or a panel of elected officials, whose only job is to appoint judges.  then those appointers can be held responsible for their appointees.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think assigning a single 10 year term to judges would keep them removed from political pressure and also drastically lower the stakes of any appointment. It also prevents someone from holding onto their seat after losing cognitive capacity.

[MakeItRain]

I think assigning a single 10 year term to judges would keep them removed from political pressure and also drastically lower the stakes of any appointment. It also prevents someone from holding onto their seat after losing cognitive capacity.

10 years! There has to be a mechanism for removal in this instance.

[sonofdaxjones]

Corwin Porter, interim public health director for San Bernardino County, said he believes the county is seeing more cases because of “an increase in private gatherings brought on by recent holidays and the onset of summer, the reopening of businesses, protests during June, and less vigilance by individuals and businesses in physical distancing and wearing of face coverings.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-17/coronavirus-is-now-spreading-faster-in-the-suburbs-than-in-la-county

Should probably cross post.

[sonofdaxjones]

For instance, black Americans whom I’ve spoken to on the street across America in randomly-selected encounters were almost unanimous in their approval of the National Guard deployments to their neighborhood during the riots. If anything, their main criticism was that these deployments came too late to prevent the destruction.

https://unherd.com/2020/07/the-ugly-truth-about-the-blm-protests/

Tracey also wrote a story for the WSJ that sits behind a pay wall.  In it he describes one African American woman whose hair salon was burnt to the ground, she lost everything.   The white liberal Governor and  Amy "completely worthless" Klobuchar met with her and other minority business owners who were burned out in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant after it happened and in the interim have done exactly jack crap to assist those business owners.    Which is too be expected.

[MakeItRain]

For instance, black Americans whom I’ve spoken to on the street across America in randomly-selected encounters were almost unanimous in their approval of the National Guard deployments to their neighborhood during the riots. If anything, their main criticism was that these deployments came too late to prevent the destruction.

https://unherd.com/2020/07/the-ugly-truth-about-the-blm-protests/

Tracey also wrote a story for the WSJ that sits behind a pay wall.  In it he describes one African American woman whose hair salon was burnt to the ground, she lost everything.   The white liberal Governor and  Amy "completely worthless" Klobuchar met with her and other minority business owners who were burned out in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant after it happened and in the interim have done exactly jack crap to assist those business owners.    Which is too be expected.

That headline, woof.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yep, headline.  #eyeroll

[sonofdaxjones]

Apparently Bill “playground welder” DeBlasio is tired of those damn protestors outside his office.

[sonofdaxjones]

The exodus from city living in the NE and MW has begun.

New home sales, predominately burb living was up 111% off the recent bottom in the NE and is nearing a 13 year pre mortgage bubble high.

The inner city living exodus has also begun in the MW, with new home sales, again, predominately in the burbs up 33% off the recent lows. 

In total, overall new home sales have now rebounded completely across the country to being up 6.6% YOY.

Prediction:  The New Downtown's springing up in cornfields and grazing pastures will explode in the coming years.

Sodsoppa, only with cows

[michigancat]

The exodus from city living in the NE and MW has begun.

New home sales, predominately burb living was up 111% off the recent bottom in the NE and is nearing a 13 year pre mortgage bubble high.

The inner city living exodus has also begun in the MW, with new home sales, again, predominately in the burbs up 33% off the recent lows. 

In total, overall new home sales have now rebounded completely across the country to being up 6.6% YOY.

Prediction:  The New Downtown's springing up in cornfields and grazing pastures will explode in the coming years.

Sodsoppa, only with cows

^belongs in coronabros thread

[sonofdaxjones]

Belongs in both . . . . thanks for your input, contributor

[steve dave]

The exodus from city living in the NE and MW has begun.

New home sales, predominately burb living was up 111% off the recent bottom in the NE and is nearing a 13 year pre mortgage bubble high.

The inner city living exodus has also begun in the MW, with new home sales, again, predominately in the burbs up 33% off the recent lows. 

In total, overall new home sales have now rebounded completely across the country to being up 6.6% YOY.

Prediction:  The New Downtown's springing up in cornfields and grazing pastures will explode in the coming years.

Sodsoppa, only with cows

lmao, gonna turn Texas blue AF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tobias]

alabaman's already lining up at the border to neutralize the threat

[sonofdaxjones]

The 4 pre-dominate urban core's in AL . . . blue AF. 

Even the near burb white flight upper middle/upper class enclaves of BHAM are blue AF.

Demographic and urban development/planning observer genius - Me: 

Classifications

Inner/Core City, Near Burbs, Middle Burbs, and The Burbs/Pretend Ranchers/Pretend Farmers

[sonofdaxjones]

Based on last nights videos, I amend my world wide pandemic proclamation in the CoronaBro thread to once again congratulate Portland for beating the virus.

Shoulder to Shoulder Strong, the (white middle/upper middle class) ProgFacists and their mommies march the streets.

[Dugout DickStone]

The 4 pre-dominate urban core's in AL . . . blue AF. 

Even the near burb white flight upper middle/upper class enclaves of BHAM are blue AF.

Demographic and urban development/planning observer genius - Me: 

Classifications

Inner/Core City, Near Burbs, Middle Burbs, and The Burbs/Pretend Ranchers/Pretend Farmers

AL will still be red AF because the poor/fat magas will turn out for trump

[sonofdaxjones]

The 4 pre-dominate urban core's in AL . . . blue AF. 

Even the near burb white flight upper middle/upper class enclaves of BHAM are blue AF.

Demographic and urban development/planning observer genius - Me: 

Classifications

Inner/Core City, Near Burbs, Middle Burbs, and The Burbs/Pretend Ranchers/Pretend Farmers

AL will still be red AF because the poor/fat magas will turn out for trump

Hopefully for your party's sake the nearly 800,000 more fat MAGA's in Missouri won't turn out for Trump.

[Dugout DickStone]

The 4 pre-dominate urban core's in AL . . . blue AF. 

Even the near burb white flight upper middle/upper class enclaves of BHAM are blue AF.

Demographic and urban development/planning observer genius - Me: 

Classifications

Inner/Core City, Near Burbs, Middle Burbs, and The Burbs/Pretend Ranchers/Pretend Farmers

AL will still be red AF because the poor/fat magas will turn out for trump

Hopefully for your party's sake the nearly 800,000 more fat MAGA's in Missouri won't turn out for Trump.

meh, I don't think MO will swing this election so the always obese magas can stay home.

[star seed 7]

Is dax calling Alabama for Biden?