US Politics: The supply chain of hot takes remains robust

[SpaceChampion]

 

[TheLastWolf]

12 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I don't know if the VP can be replaced until the next election. Biden could choose a different running mate at that time. This is definitely a weird story though.

Well Biden is definitely unpopular both in and out of the States, only time will tell what harebrained scheme he has cooking up

[TrueMetis]

11 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Quality member of the judiciary here, jesus christ

 

I like how aside from the obvious racism of calling someone "the black" when trying to defend not using the term victim, it takes him a couple second to figure out a different term cause victim is so obviously the right term to use.

"complaining witness" even though they're not witnesses cause they're dead, and the defendant doesn't deny shooting them so they're victims by definition. Like for fuck sake, no one is disputing there were victims. The defence isn't that there were no victims, because that's obviously stupid.

[sologdin]

it's standard criminal defense to exclude victim from the rhetoric of the trial. complaining witness and prosecuting witness are terms that get used often when the person afflicted by the alleged crime testifies.  i'd've gone for decedent here, maybe.  the trial is attempting to establish the fault, but not the fact, of the deaths, so that term seems to preserve the fact without presuming the fault, which would be unlawful as the presumption goes the other direction.

[Gareth]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

it's standard criminal defense to exclude victim from the rhetoric of the trial.

An impartial judge should not side with standard criminal defense strategy.  I am told by close criminal lawyers (ADAs and defense) that in cases of clear harm (in this case, death and maiming), the usage of victim is appropriate.  In cases of unclear harm (eg rape allegation w/o evidence), the usage of victim is up for debate.  Regardless of whether the killer is apprehended or convicted, a person who died or suffered harm of any action by the said perpetrator is legally defined as a victim.  By criminal defense standard that you are supporting, none of the other 27 women Ted Bundy confessed to raping and killing were victims since he was trialed and convicted for only 3 victims. 

[TrackerNeil]

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Fun test for you at home. There are now 46 US Presidents. I am sure you could name likesay 40 of those without breaking a sweat (yes, I am sure you could name all of them if you put some thought into it but that's not the point). Can you name as many VPs?

Whether or not anyone can name 46 VPs would not affect Harris' ability to sign legislation, direct the executive branch, or replace Supreme Court justices. That's all the mandate she needs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Whether or not anyone can name 46 VPs would not affect Harris' ability to sign legislation, direct the executive branch, or replace Supreme Court justices. That's all the mandate she needs.

Agreed.  Constitutionally if the sitting President dies or resigns the Vice-President becomes President.  Regardless of who people voted for in the most recent election.

To say otherwise is to ignore the clear Constitutional power and responsibility of the US Vice-President.

[sologdin]

By criminal defense standard that you are supporting, none of the other 27 women Ted Bundy confessed to raping and killing were victims since he was tried and convicted for only 3 victims. 

this reductio ad absurdum contains its own refutation to the extent that the trial court must protect the defendant's rights, which under normal rules of evidence and procedure means sheltering the jury from prejudicial influences. one such prejudice is the significance of victim, which carries with it a notion of wrongfulness. in a self-defense case, the issue is precisely whether the killings are wrongful.  with bundy, by contrast, out-of-court proclamations about victims based on the killer's confession don't have any risk of prejudicing a jury, so we needn't insist on a picayune onanarchist pedantry.

 

legally defined as a victim

this may be correct, but we'll need a citation to a case binding on the trial court, considering that basic dictionary definitions aren't consistent with the point.

[Ran]

I'd say that while there may be a strategy from defense lawyers because not all judges view it that way, there's also a line of actual legal argument about what language is appropriate, and a judge settling that he finds himself more in the view that "victim" is prejudicial seems like something he's done because it's what he thinks is fairest.

Schroeder does it in all cases, in any case. If the situation had been precisely reversed -- an armed anti-fascist trying to put out a fire set by alt-right protestors at a minority-owned business ends up being chased and kills and injures several men in claimed self-defense -- he'd do it in that situation as well, whereas I am much less certain most members of this forum would find it objectionable in that case.

Schroeder was an ADA and then DA for Kenosha County for several years before entering private practice, so he has experience on the prosecution side, in any case.

[Gareth]

22 minutes ago, sologdin said:

this may be correct, but we'll need a citation to a case binding on the trial court, considering that basic dictionary definitions aren't consistent with the point.

I'm not a lawyer but aren't there victim's right laws in most states?  Or federal laws?  I would think that if a person can be identified as a victim and given victim's rights by the law, that person should be able to be designated as a victim in a court of law.  Or are you saying since a judge decided that person can't be called a victim, he or she forgoes these rights?

Quote

"Schroeder was an ADA and then DA for Kenosha County for several years before entering private practice, so he has experience on the prosecution side, in any case.

That was like 40-50 years ago, Ran.  Maybe Schroeder is different but I can't tell you anything meaningful from my experience as a lab assistant in a Blattodea lab 20 years ago, except those damn critters are fast.  Just like many pointed out that he was a democrat 40 years ago and must be one today (I can assure that he's not; not that his political affiliation has anything to do with his ruling).

[sologdin]

Quote

(a) “Victim" means any of the following:

1. A person against whom a crime has been committed.

2. If the person specified in subd. 1. is a child, a parent, guardian or legal custodian of the child.

3. If a person specified in subd. 1. is physically or emotionally unable to exercise the rights granted under s. 950.04 or article I, section 9m, of the Wisconsin constitution, a person designated by the person specified in subd. 1. or a family member of the person specified in subd. 1.

4. If a person specified in subd. 1. is deceased, any of the following:

a. A family member of the person who is deceased.

b. A person who resided with the person who is deceased.

5. If a person specified in subd. 1. has been adjudicated incompetent in this state, the guardian of the person appointed for him or her.

(b) “Victim" does not include the person charged with or alleged to have committed the crime.

 

wis. stat. § 950.02(4). this is the relevant definition from wisconsin victim's rights statute. the notion that the victim is the 'person against whom a crime has been committed' is significant--as opposed to the person against whom a crime is alleged to have been committed.  section 950.04 is the victim's bill of rights. it has some instability to it insofar as there's plenty of pre-conviction rights that accrue to victims, which supports your position. however, i don't actually see a right to be identified as 'victim' in the trial of the defendant's guilt.

[Gareth]

7 minutes ago, sologdin said:

wis. stat. § 950.02(4). this is the relevant definition from wisconsin victim's rights statute. the notion that the victim is the 'person against whom a crime has been committed' is significant--as opposed to the person against whom a crime is alleged to have been committed.  section 950.04 is the victim's bill of rights. it has some instability to it insofar as there's plenty of pre-conviction rights that accrue to victims, which supports your position. however, i don't actually see a right to be identified as 'victim' in the trial of the defendant's guilt.

Hmmm laws can be comical and worthy of a sitcom.  Imagine this doctor and patient conversation:

Patient:  Doctor, since you are seeing me for my diabetes, am I a patient?

Doctor:  No, I don't have to call you that.

Patient:  So I don't have any patient's rights by Wisconsin's laws?

Doctor:  No, you have the right to receive prompt and adequate treatment, participate in their treatment planning, be informed of their treatment and care, etc.  Any rights under the patient's bill of rights, you have and I must obliged by.

Patient:  So I am a patient!

Doctor:  I don't have to call you that.  

Anyhoo, is there provision that a victim can not be called a victim under the Wis. stat?  Or is this Schroeder's personal belief and his court rule?  If it is his court's rule and not based on any wis stat. then certainly it leave a perception that he is pro-defense since this is a strategy used by criminal defense lawyers.  

 

[sologdin]

can be comical

no doubt.

 

am I a patient?

it may amuse you further to know that we actually have law on this question, down my way.

 

can not be called a victim under the Wis. stat?

not that i saw, though maybe.  my bet is that this is something reserved to judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis.

 

a perception that he is pro-defense 

this would be more salient if it were uncontested that a crime had been committed by someone and the defendant presented a beavis & butthead defense--such as if they were trying this kid for JFK's assassination.

[DMC]

So looks like House Dems are primed to pass the reconciliation bill tonight.  Seemed like Dems, and especially the Biden administration, was bracing for a bad CBO report and gearing up to attack their credibility, but so far sounds like the House moderates on the fence are satisfied.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

OK Gov. Stitt has commuted Julius Jones' death sentence set to take place today to life in prison, giving him more time to try and show he was wrongfully convicted. I have to believe the intense social media push helped save his life. Good on Stitt for doing the right thing.

[ThinkerX]

45 minutes ago, DMC said:

So looks like House Dems are primed to pass the reconciliation bill tonight.  Seemed like Dems, and especially the Biden administration, was bracing for a bad CBO report and gearing up to attack their credibility, but so far sounds like the House moderates on the fence are satisfied.

This still leaves the drama queens in the senate to contend with though.  

(I still maintain, that if approached correctly, and offered a giant pile of long sought goodies, it might be possible to get one or two R senators to vote for this thing, especially since its supposed to be so watered down.)

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

This still leaves the drama queens in the senate to contend with though.

Based on comments from Senators the past couple days sounds like we're in for holiday drama - the push to pass it in the Senate will be delayed til around Christmas/New Year's.

[DMC]

May be a little off-topic but not sure where else to put this - anyone else see two men convicted of Malcolm X killing exonerated?

Quote

The investigation found that the FBI and the New York Police Department withheld key evidence that would have likely led to their acquittal, lawyers for the two men and the Innocence Project said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said such an action within the police department is unacceptable and he is troubled by wrongful convictions. "For millions and millions of Americans, we still need to know who killed Malcolm X and who ordered it," he said Thursday.

Aziz was released from prison in 1985; Islam was released in 1987 and died in 2009.

 

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

This still leaves the drama queens in the senate to contend with though.  

(I still maintain, that if approached correctly, and offered a giant pile of long sought goodies, it might be possible to get one or two R senators to vote for this thing, especially since its supposed to be so watered down.)

You can maintain that all you like - Republicans are happy to take credit for bills they didn't pass, but they appear to have zero incentive at all to give the other side any wins whatsoever. Which in a hyperpartisan area where they are more in danger of being primaried than losing general elections is an entirely rational position to have.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Which in a hyperpartisan area where they are more in danger of being primaried than losing general elections is an entirely rational position to have.

I honestly don't think this is why Romney and Murkowski have no chance of supporting the bill (although with Murkowski she certainly has the electoral concern of course).  I think they are just legitimately ideologically against the bill.  Collins?  I could see her being close to Manchin's position privately but the idea that the Dems could just "give her a bunch of goodies" to get her on board belies the fact they don't have much to offer beyond pork.  Plus the cardinal rule for any Republican, even Collins, is to not vote for tax increases - and that's not exactly a new thing at all.