U.S. Politics: Here At the End of All Things

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did Johnnie Cochran do a bad job in defending OJ?  Was he also honest? The answer to both questions is no. You know this. And that is your fucking job. To win. Morality takes a back seat. Come on now man. 

And it's every bit as true when putting people on the bench. They've always been politicians. Deep down you must understand this. The literal thing we're discussing here, the willingness to say what you thick, or more specifically the refusal to do so, is 100% political. Everyone with a brain knows how Barrett feels about abortion, and how she'll act given the chance. Her only defense is to say that she can't tell you how she will, while winking at every conservative on the committee. 

I’m not just my client’s lawyer I’m also an officer of the court with a duty of frankness and forthrightness to the court. If you think my unwillingness to lie to further my client’s case makes me a bad lawyer, I don’t give a shit.  

I... do... not... lie... for... my... clients.  Nor will I ever do so.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Also, to get back to the 12 hour lines being fine argument -

I would have thought you'd be pro-12 hour lines, give that your guide on cunnilingus took 74 hours to read...

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I would have thought you'd be pro-12 hour lines, give that your guide on cunnilingus took 74 hours to read...

74 hours to read, but only about 10 minutes to get results

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did Johnnie Cochran do a bad job in defending OJ?  Was he also honest? The answer to both questions is no. You know this. And that is your fucking job. To win. Morality takes a back seat. Come on now man. 

And it's every bit as true when putting people on the bench. They've always been politicians. Deep down you must understand this. The literal thing we're discussing here, the willingness to say what you thick, or more specifically the refusal to do so, is 100% political. Everyone with a brain knows how Barrett feels about abortion, and how she'll act given the chance. Her only defense is to say that she can't tell you how she will, while winking at every conservative on the committee. 

You know what It’s entirely possible I lost the best paying job I ever had back in February because of another attorney who is willing to lie.  

I still will not lie for my client.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

74 hours to read, but only about 10 minutes to get results

Perhaps you missed a spot.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not just my client’s lawyer I’m also an officer of the court with a duty of frankness and forthrightness to the court. If you think my unwillingness to lie to further my client’s case makes me a bad lawyer, I don’t give a shit.  

I... do... not... lie... for... my... clients.  Nor will I ever do so.

I don't. Hell, getting caught lying for your clients is a sure-fire way at least in New York to get disbarred in a hot minute. Lawyers need to provide a capable defense for their clients and put their clients self-interest above their own. That's it. Go too far beyond that and you start running afoul of the professional code of conduct. Source; There's a shitload of lawyers in my family.

 

Anyway, here's a new one in polling highs; Opinium with the +17 for Biden nationally, 57-40. Up from +9 in September. Trump's number is a little bit worse than the averages, but the big thing about this poll is almost all the undecideds breaking for Biden. No other polling backs up a margin quite this big (except maybe the Q polls), but most polls have had more undecideds still. I'd be surprised if the margin was this big, but it's not an impossible number at this point. The average is Biden up 52-42, and its not unheard of for most undecideds to break one way or the other; though its likely that at least some of them just won't vote in the end too.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

You might not be cheap, but the US government is, and state governments are.

That is another problem, by the way - we don't have federal election systems, we have state run election systems. 50 different systems to engineer for is a fucking nightmare of testing and methodology. And states by themselves (with maybe the exceptions of California, New York and Texas) don't have the money to do this at the scale it needs to be done at. 

So why not be brave and appropriate the funds to do it? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You know what It’s entirely possible I lost the best paying job I ever had back in February because of another attorney who is willing to lie.  

I still will not lie for my client.

Quit bringing your ethics into this. The topic is will a judge be dishonest to obtain a lifetime appointment. Barrett is very clearly lying. You're defending her rational for lying. I'm saying it proves the whole process is a farce.

Try arguing against that. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So why not be brave and appropriate the funds to do it? 

Because it's not very popular to do? And it requires massive support from states, which also is likely going to fail? 
It's better to encourage states to try experiments and expand them and maybe give them funds. Washington state actually did have a small experiment in online voting and that's the right way to start - do it in elections that don't get a lot of traffic to begin with and aren't super consequential and learn from it. The fact is that it will take time to do it right this way, but that's the right way to go.

The other issue is that unlike mail ballots and dropboxes the internet is not available to literally everyone, and you have to be real careful about that being an effective poll tax. That also requires a lot of design to make it accessible to all, but it's certainly doable. Mostly, there's just not the political will to do it - especially when so many states are still struggling with hiring enough poll workers and opening enough polls, which is by comparison absurdly cheap. 

 

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Anyway, here's a new one in polling highs; Opinium with the +17 for Biden nationally, 57-40. Up from +9 in September. Trump's number is a little bit worse than the averages, but the big thing about this poll is almost all the undecideds breaking for Biden. No other polling backs up a margin quite this big (except maybe the Q polls), but most polls have had more undecideds still. I'd be surprised if the margin was this big, but it's not an impossible number at this point. The average is Biden up 52-42, and its not unheard of for most undecideds to break one way or the other; though its likely that at least some of them just won't vote in the end too.

I'm not counting on it, but it does seem plausible that if there's a portion of the populace that are very turned off by how omnipresent politics is in daily life.  And we can be sure the "volume" of politics will only get louder and louder in the next 3 weeks.  If those voters want a President you can safely ignore, Biden is an A+ choice. 

[Kalbear]

Also:

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Quit bringing your ethics into this. The topic is will a judge be dishonest to obtain a lifetime appointment. Barrett is very clearly lying. You're defending her rational for lying. I'm saying it proves the whole process is a farce.

Try arguing against that. 

I don’t want her confirmed.  And I believe in Judicial canons that limit Judges ability to answer questions speculating on how they will rule.  That’s perfectly consistent and it is a matter of legal and judicial ethics.

If you want to change those rules that’s your call.

(eta: You brought up my personal legal ethics.)

[Fragile Bird]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You know what It’s entirely possible I lost the best paying job I ever had back in February because of another attorney who is willing to lie.  

I still will not lie for my client.

Well that sucks. 
 

But, not worth your soul. My condolences.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t want her confirmed.  And I believe in Judicial canons that limit Judges ability to answer questions speculating on how they will rule.  That’s perfectly consistent and it is a matter of legal and judicial ethics.

If you want to change those rules that’s your call.

So you think they haven't already been changed? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

So you think they haven't already been changed? 

Not the Judical canons, no.  

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

We only have a week of early voting in Maryland, and just one polling place in our county for early voting. On election day we will have just 13 polling places instead of the usual 36.  I expect there to be a lot of long lines.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not the Judical canons, no.  

With a Republican hatchet man on the bench now? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On topic I had to wait in line for two hours at the county office complex to vote absentee on Friday last.  The absentee rules in SC are very loose if you vote “in person” absentee.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

With a Republican hatchet man on the bench now? 

The Judicial canons have not changed.  That is a fact.  Whether you want them to change or not.  They are still in place regardless of the bullshit of pushing Barrett through on the fly.

I can and do disagree with Barrett being nominated without wanting Judical canons to be set aside.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Judicial canons have not changed.  That is a fact.  Whether you want them to change or not.  They are still in place regardless of the bullshit of pushing Barrett through on the fly.

I can and do disagree with Barrett being nominated without wanting Judical canons to be set aside.

Why can't you see the lie staring you in the face?