Off Topic - Donald Trump - Forum

" DalaiLama wrote: " Antnee wrote: Edit: And he won't have a Muslim judge either! Exactly how white and Christian does his judge need to be? He has to have a degree from Trump University :-) Maybe TheDonald thinks a "Jury of your Peers" includes a Judge of Your Peers. Then again, maybe he's just trying to jazzercise his constitutional rights under the sixth amendment "Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." "The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . " http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6/annotation04.html Spoiler Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Spoiler Jury Trial By the time the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified, the institution of trial by jury was almost universally revered, so revered that its history had been traced back to Magna Carta. 42 The jury began in the form of a grand or presentment jury with the role of inquest and was started by Frankish conquerors to discover the King's rights. Henry II regularized this type of proceeding to establish royal control over the machinery of justice, first in civil trials and then in criminal trials. Trial by petit jury was not employed at least until the reign of Henry III, in which the jury was first essentially a body of witnesses, called for their knowledge of the case; not until the reign of Henry VI did it become the trier of evidence. It was during the Seventeenth Century that the jury emerged as a safeguard for the criminally accused. 43 Thus, in the Eighteenth Century, Blackstone could commemorate the institution as part of a ''strong and two-fold barrier . . . between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown'' because ''the truth of every accusation . . . . [must] be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.'' 44 The right was guaranteed in the constitutions of the original 13 States, was guaranteed in the body of the Constitu tion 45 and in the Sixth Amendment, and the constitution of every State entering the Union thereafter in one form or another protected the right to jury trial in criminal cases. 46 ''Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege 'as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.''' 47 ''The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . . [T]he jury trial provisions . . . reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power . . . found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.'' 48 Because ''a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,'' the Sixth Amendment provision is binding on the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 49 But inasmuch as it cannot be said that every criminal trial or any particular trial which is held without a jury is unfair, 50 it is possible for a defendant to waive the right and go to trial before a judge alone. 51 [Footnote 48] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391, U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968). At other times the function of accurate factfinding has been emphasized. E.g., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 543 (1971). While federal judges may comment upon the evidence, the right to a jury trial means that the judge must make clear to the jurors that such remarks are advisory only and that the jury is the final determiner of all factual questions. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933). [Footnote 49] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 158 -59 (1968). Interesting that the 6th is about juries, not judges. Case law is also well established in this matter; if a Judge (not a Jury) can't be impartial in any case, then he should oversee no case. Google it. This is only a valid debate in lala-trump-land. Edit: How well do you think this argument plays out for us commoners? A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 Last edited by Antnee#4468 on Jun 7, 2016, 5:26:56 PM	Posted by Antnee#4468 on Jun 7, 2016, 5:25:07 PM Quote this Post
" Antnee wrote: Interesting that the 6th is about juries, not judges. Yup, which is why I mentioned no "judge of peers". The sixth and seventh amendment Spoiler 7th: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[2] are specifically anti- judge in the sense that the framers of the Constitution didn't trust judges to be impartial any further than they could throw them. IIRC - one of the nation's founders explicitly stated something to that effect. " Antnee wrote: Case law is also well established in this matter; if a Judge (not a Jury) can't be impartial in any case, then he should oversee no case. Hmmm, everything I have seen on it has been the opposite. Although not 100% accurate, Ye Olde Wiki has a decent overview of it, with some examples of Supreme Court justices that have voluntarily recused themselves. Spoiler Recusal in the United States In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge. The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States. At times justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal. Generally, each judge is the arbiter of a motion for the judge's recusal, which is addressed to the judge's conscience and discretion. However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a writ of prohibition. In certain special situations, circumstances that would otherwise call for recusal of a judge or group of judges may be disregarded, when otherwise no judge would be available to hear the case. For example, if a case concerns a salary increase payable to a judge, that judge would ordinarily be disqualified from hearing the case. However, if the pay increase is applicable to all of the judges in the court system, the judge will keep the case, because the grounds for recusal would be equally applicable to any other judge. The principle that a judge will not be disqualified when the effect would be that no judge could hear the case is sometimes referred to as the "rule of necessity".[1] Supreme Court cases In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in these firms, and Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. Even if the family member is connected to one of the parties but is not directly involved in the case, justices may recuse themselves - for instance Clarence Thomas recused himself in United States v. Virginia because his son was attending Virginia Military Institute, whose policies were the subject of the case. On occasion, recusal occurs under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." It's also an issue that the Supreme Court is currently looking at (Not this particular case, but recusement in general) When Should A Judge Recuse Himself? Supreme Court Weighs The Question http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468496581/when-should-a-judge-recuse-himself-supreme-court-weighs-the-question " Antnee wrote: Edit: How well do you think this argument plays out for us commoners? The average voter think they are well informed because they have eaten their daily sound bites of news from popular media, but instead of a meaty chunk of truth, they have been fed a chunk of soy protein that has been battered and deep fried to disguise it and make it more appealing. The unvarnished truth is a live chicken with feathers, and we consumer rat commoners are expected to be grateful for the cold dried out, chicken mcnuggets that get tossed in the dumpster. I don't think the average person - even the average elected leaders sees Trump's comments as anything but detestable. That said, If Trump had said the judge was "white" would he have been called racist? Further, if Trump was the democratic candidate for president, was African American and had complaine about not getting a fair trial because the judge was Caucasian, the media would have been supporting him, and there would be protests and possibly riots. The 19 Yazidi teenage girls who ISIS burned alive recently because they weren't willing to be sex slaves? Not-real-news, apparently. Trump says something offensive? Now, that's discrimination we can all stand against!. This is symptomatic of the idea that injustice only matters when its a group that a person has personal ties to, or is part of the current popular mindset. "Hundreds watch as Isis burns caged sex slaves to death" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hundreds-watch-as-isis-burns-caged-sex-slaves-jlptfm7bn Hillary will do nothing to stop ISIS. If some information is correct, she had a large hand in fanning the flames, or in the groundwork that allowed ISIS to form. IMO - if she doesn't get elected, there's a decent chance she will be indited and tried for war crimes. The question isn't really was she involved, the question is whether the U.S. is willing to admit it's actions in the process. Back to the important stuff - On how the average skate punk, Walmart shopper, academic beatnik, hardworking every day Joe or Jill takes it? The common voter takes their dose of information exactly as the spin shamans intend. Those that support a candidate ignore it and try to blame the source, and those that dislike the candidate, use it as further proof that their thinking is correct. Taken out of context, Trump's comment looks racist and highly inflammatory. Taken in context, the remark seems to be another verbal blunder from someone who makes a lot of them. Some of that is learned behavior - what consequences did Trump really face for speaking his mind before this? Some of what we are seeing is because he is a non politician. Very few seasoned politicians would make these kind of verbal blunders no matter what their internal thinking was. We don't see HIllary Clinton swearing and screaming, smashing vases and beating her husband do we? Yet, apparently, there are former secret service members who say that HIllary's emotional lability is "volcanic". That politicians say one thing when they mean another is almost a priori. That a politican might actually be saying what they mean is. sadly, something we have to analyze. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 7, 2016, 10:51:15 PM	Posted by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 7, 2016, 10:49:02 PM Quote this Post
" DalaiLama wrote: The average voter think they are well informed because they have eaten their daily sound bites of news from popular media, but instead of a meaty chunk of truth, they have been fed a chunk of soy protein that has been battered and deep fried to disguise it and make it more appealing. The unvarnished truth is a live chicken with feathers, and we consumer rat commoners are expected to be grateful for the cold dried out, chicken mcnuggets that get tossed in the dumpster. Yeah, but you get your information from the Whole Foods of Truth, so obviously it's not processed garbage, right? Spin is everywhere, my man. Even in the places where people go to get their information without spin. Unless you scienced it yourself, you are putting your trust in someone else, and that trust is just as subject to betrayal as the plebs' trust. Turn down the snobbery just a little, please. " DalaiLama wrote: The 19 Yazidi teenage girls who ISIS burned alive recently because they weren't willing to be sex slaves? Not-real-news, apparently. Trump says something offensive? Now, that's discrimination we can all stand against!. This is symptomatic of the idea that injustice only matters when its a group that a person has personal ties to, or is part of the current popular mindset. "Don't mind the fires behind you, Romans; please redirect your attention to the gladiator match in progress." The omnipresent distractions are not coincidence, they are our call to fiddle as our world burns. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 7, 2016, 11:46:08 PM	Posted by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 7, 2016, 11:41:08 PM Quote this Post
" DalaiLama wrote: The average voter think they are well informed because they have eaten their daily sound bites of news from popular media, but instead of a meaty chunk of truth, they have been fed a chunk of soy protein that has been battered and deep fried to disguise it and make it more appealing. The unvarnished truth is a live chicken with feathers, and we consumer rat commoners are expected to be grateful for the cold dried out, chicken mcnuggets that get tossed in the dumpster. You are putting behind the media a lot of ill intent, which is certainly not the case. Media give their public what they think their public wants, which is fast-food news. So, if they do come across some high-quality ingredients like foie-gras, they turn it into fast-food crap, like their consumers want it. " DalaiLama wrote: I don't think the average person - even the average elected leaders sees Trump's comments as anything but detestable. That said, If Trump had said the judge was "white" would he have been called racist? Further, if Trump was the democratic candidate for president, was African American and had complaine about not getting a fair trial because the judge was Caucasian, the media would have been supporting him, and there would be protests and possibly riots. That's fallacious. For one, a black person accused of fear mongering against white people like Trump is accused of doing against Mexicans and Muslims, wouldn't possibly go that far in a presidential election. Also, you can bet that there would be a lot of media bringing up the fallacy of the "you're doing this because I'm black" argument. " DalaiLama wrote: The 19 Yazidi teenage girls who ISIS burned alive recently because they weren't willing to be sex slaves? Not-real-news, apparently. Trump says something offensive? Now, that's discrimination we can all stand against!. This is symptomatic of the idea that injustice only matters when its a group that a person has personal ties to, or is part of the current popular mindset. Both are important news. The american election is something that is going to impact the whole world, not just the USA, and your information on this election will have a huge impact on its results. " DalaiLama wrote: Hillary will do nothing to stop ISIS. If some information is correct, she had a large hand in fanning the flames, or in the groundwork that allowed ISIS to form. IMO - if she doesn't get elected, there's a decent chance she will be indited and tried for war crimes. The question isn't really was she involved, the question is whether the U.S. is willing to admit it's actions in the process. Ok. Let's say your information is valid (I am not saying it is or isn't, as I have not checked it), you are putting yourselves in a situation where you've got to choose between Hillary, which you state will do nothing, and Donald Trump, which will alienate even more the muslim communities around the world. " DalaiLama wrote: The common voter takes their dose of information exactly as the spin shamans intend. Those that support a candidate ignore it and try to blame the source, and those that dislike the candidate, use it as further proof that their thinking is correct. Yet you are doing exactly the same. " DalaiLama wrote: Taken out of context, Trump's comment looks racist and highly inflammatory. Taken in context, the remark seems to be another verbal blunder from someone who makes a lot of them. Some of that is learned behavior - what consequences did Trump really face for speaking his mind before this? Some of what we are seeing is because he is a non politician. Very few seasoned politicians would make these kind of verbal blunders no matter what their internal thinking was. Ok. I watched this part of the San Diego meeting, and, frankly, the comment is very ambiguous. You could interpret it as just a blunder where he says something without any meaning behind it, or you see it as an insinutation along the lines of "It's because he's Mexican. I'm not racist. But Mexicans have an unjustified grudge against me.". On another note, Trump also says that judge Curiel should have recused himself because he was nominated by Barack Obama. This is completely stupid. All federal judges have been nominated by a president, so if a judge had to recuse himself based on who nominated him, you wouldn't be able to find anyone able to judge Trump. " DalaiLama wrote: We don't see HIllary Clinton swearing and screaming, smashing vases and beating her husband do we? Yet, apparently, there are former secret service members who say that HIllary's emotional lability is "volcanic". Again, I don't know if Hillary Clinton indeed has these faults (I am willing to look at any sources you provide), but if that is right, you guys are going to get the choice between two terrible persons. " DalaiLama wrote: That politicians say one thing when they mean another is almost a priori. That a politican might actually be saying what they mean is. sadly, something we have to analyze. Analyzing politicians' claims is something we should always do, even if they are being completely honest.	Posted by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016, 5:02:05 AM
It's hilarious Trump brings up Mexican judge's race. Hey Dems identity politics, you started it, deal with it lol. PS while at it Yugoslavia might be interesting lesson whats coming with divisive ways https://20committee.com/2015/03/02/yugoslavias-warning-to-america/ Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 10, 2016, 8:18:36 AM	Posted by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 8, 2016, 8:56:56 PM Quote this Post
DP Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 10, 2016, 8:17:57 AM	Posted by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 8, 2016, 9:46:35 PM Quote this Post
Is there a betting place where you can bet that the next US president will be assasinated? The choice between cancer and Aids lol.	Posted by Hilbert#4232 on Jun 10, 2016, 2:26:59 PM Quote this Post
The last time the US saw this level of politically inspired violence was 64-68. Just sayin.... A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403	Posted by Antnee#4468 on Jun 10, 2016, 4:07:44 PM Quote this Post
" Antnee wrote: The last time the US saw this level of politically inspired violence was 64-68. Just sayin.... 1964? Tie-Dye was invented! Are you suggesting Trump or Bernie or Hillary is going to make tie dye great again? Interesting that the invention of tie dye was actually filmed... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doyPMOYS9eE http://www.worldwidehippies.com/the-actual-invention-of-tie-dye-by-hippies-on-acid-was-actually-caught-on-film-in-1964-video/ PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910	Posted by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 10, 2016, 4:58:29 PM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: Spoiler " DalaiLama wrote: The average voter think they are well informed because they have eaten their daily sound bites of news from popular media, but instead of a meaty chunk of truth, they have been fed a chunk of soy protein that has been battered and deep fried to disguise it and make it more appealing. The unvarnished truth is a live chicken with feathers, and we consumer rat commoners are expected to be grateful for the cold dried out, chicken mcnuggets that get tossed in the dumpster. Yeah, but you get your information from the Whole Foods of Truth, so obviously it's not processed garbage, right? That wasn't my point or intent at all. My point was to say that all information that we wait to receive passively is going to be filtered by the intent of the provider. The "spin is everywhere" is true now, but it wasn't always that way. Journalism used to have more integrity. Anyone can get more accurate information if they are willing to make the effort. Note that I didn't say or allude to complete information or 100% accurate information. It's just a matter of time and importance to the person who gets the information. I don't think the "media" (of either side) is intentionally being evil about this. I think they genuinely believe that they are doing the world a favor by carefully presenting things in the manner that they do. They obviously know what is best for everyone, and we should be grateful for their omniscient shading of the facts so that we can make the kinds of decisions that they know are best for us. That's my point. It certainly isn't that I or anyone else in this thread is better or less informed. People who grew up or are living outside the US, bring a fresh set of eyes to what everyday US citizens might see. That fresh perspective may allow some insights that others miss. To me, this is one of the biggest values of diversity. Differing opinions matter because there isn't just one solution, and we certainly haven't pinned down the exact nature of the problems. Without a variety of perspectives, we might as well be trying to do math with only a handful of the numbers. The media seems content that we only need the odd numbers, or the even numbers, depending on which side someone is listening to. update: and now Google's been caught with their hand in the election jar... If you blinked you have missed half of it. Google is scrubbing away the proof as fast as they can. mene mene tekel upharsin The space above isn't blank. It's a moment of silence for our dearly departed dual party election system. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 10, 2016, 6:31:01 PM	Posted by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 10, 2016, 5:14:44 PM Quote this Post