|
evilweasel posted:yes, how nice, and recognized by the fact i differentiated between actual factual innocence and the procedure by which the claim may be made There is no "actual factual" in law beyond that recognized by incorporation into the legal system, presented in legal outcomes. As DR already noted, the mechanisms for that have to be finite, or the construction of legal fact fails and the ability of legal systems to determine legal outcomes deteriorates. Again, Dead Reckoning posted:The huge thing you're ignoring here is that the only way to legally determine if in fact someone has "rock solid DNA proof" is at trial. As long as exhaustion of appeals continues to be a thing that exists, (and it exists for good reason,) there will always be a point where the defendant has run out of proper venues to hear his case again.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the police obtain bulletproof evidence that someone is a thief, but are unable to introduce that evidence at trial because it was obtained illegally/improperly, it is entirely appropriate that the thief go free, even though this is not the just outcome. Justice demands that the thief be punished, the stolen property recovered, and the victims made whole. But we accept this injustice, because it avoids the greater injustices that would occur if we tore down the system that keeps tainted evidence from being introduced at trial. A great deal of the criminal system is based on the premise that it is a significantly more tolerable injustice if a guilty person goes free than an innocent person is convicted. In particular however the reason we don't introduce tainted evidence is to avoid what we consider a different injustice: violation of people's 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches. It's not a "we simply can't solve this!" it's a "we'd rather guilty people go free than the government able to conduct endless warrantless searches" Dead Reckoning posted:Given that you do not believe that appeals should be finite, but the court system's time and resources are by definition finite, how shall we decide which cases will be heard and in what order? i've literally answered this over and over again, both how it can be done and how it is done, but because it's impossible to argue with you keep pretending it never existed and complaining we have no way to possibly solve this easily solvable problem
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is no "actual factual" in law beyond that recognized by incorporation into the legal system, presented in legal outcomes. As DR already noted, the mechanisms for that have to be finite, or the construction of legal fact fails and the ability of legal systems to determine legal outcomes deteriorates. Again, there are actual facts in reality, a thing we discuss, and if you can't tell the difference between a concept being discussed in its legal sense and its factual sense means you lack common sense and you're just whining over terminology this stupid derail has no relevance to anything and is whining that you dislike the term factual innocence, despite the fact it precisely conveys the exact meaning intended
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, that stupid post relies on a legal error i already identified
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i've literally answered this over and over again, both how it can be done and how it is done, but because it's impossible to argue with you keep pretending it never existed and complaining we have no way to possibly solve this easily solvable problem In Glossip v. Gross, the Supreme Court finally closed off attempts to "throw sand in the gears of executions" (as you put it) by litigating every proposed means of execution as cruel and unusual, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that fact, even in this thread. evilweasel posted:there are actual facts in reality, a thing we discuss, and if you can't tell the difference between a concept being discussed in its legal sense and its factual sense means you lack common sense and you're just whining over terminology evilweasel posted:yes, how nice, and recognized by the fact i differentiated between actual factual innocence and the procedure by which the claim may be made
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
How can convictions be real if our eyes aren't real?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm with Discendo Vox here. The purpose is to produce order, because producing universal justice is impossible with limited knowledge and resources, and order is a necessary prerequisite for fairness, which in turn is necessary for justice. (Also, you are wrong that as system that is not perceived as just cannot create order; look at the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea.) Holy loving yikes, Batman. This is some "Are we the baddies?" poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Now I'm wondering if, statistically speaking, the lack of public funding for legal aid in civil courts (traffic, magistrate's, small claims, etc) does more overall societal harm than errors in death penalty cases. Absolutely, yes. That is the calculus of poverty in America: an infinite number of smaller harms integrates to a larger area under the curve. It's the same issue as institutionalized racism, or sexist undercurrents, really. We may not have slave markets in New Orleans, and we may allow women to vote, but through a huge number of subtler barriers white men ultimately remain ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Well, the forms are in order and procedure was followed. [Horrible Thing] is actually good then, nothing for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there are actual facts in reality, a thing we discuss, and if you can't tell the difference between a concept being discussed in its legal sense and its factual sense means you lack common sense and you're just whining over terminology This is legal semiotics, and it's super important. I've spent a decent amount of time reading in this area, and it's crucial.The distinction between "actual facts in reality", concepts being discussed in their legal sense, and their "factual sense" (to say nothing of Gorsuch's vaunted "common sense"), is the subject of thousands of pages of scholarship over the fundamental role of law in an ordered society, to say nothing of some delightfully timecube-y charts:  Though I think I'm finally starting to close the gap with fishmech if I've got evilweasel complaining that I'm arguing semantics. tetrapyloctomy posted:Absolutely, yes. That is the calculus of poverty in America: an infinite number of smaller harms integrates to a larger area under the curve. It's the same issue as institutionalized racism, or sexist undercurrents, really. We may not have slave markets in New Orleans, and we may allow women to vote, but through a huge number of subtler barriers white men ultimately remain ahead. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Here I thought another Justice died. Ye gods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, you haven't. Your entire argument is that, since it hasn't been a problem yet, the opportunity for abuse is irrelevant. I don't think that, after leaving the barn door open, we should insist on waiting for the horses to bolt before we close it. yes, and despite that well-funded, well-staffed, and well-litigated group litigating every issue they could think of to delay executions the right of convicted prisoners to file a habeas petition that, if sufficiently convincing, entitles then to a hearing, has not been a problem when the barn door has been open for eight years but the horses didn't bolt, it's time to consider that the person telling you a horse can't bolt through a barn door that's an inch by an inch is correct Dead Reckoning posted:Since you're drawing this distinction, if a convicted person is factually innocent, but unable to prove it to the satisfaction of any court, do you think it is still unconstitutional and morally offensive to punish them anyway? of course. i hope i don't need to explain why it's morally offensive. it's unconstitutional as well, though you will have failed to prove it, because by definition an innocent person being punished failed to receive due process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Holy loving yikes, Batman. Rygar201 posted:Well, the forms are in order and procedure was followed. [Horrible Thing] is actually good then, nothing for it. Like my example of a thief going unpunished due to tainted evidence, or that free speech allows Nazis and the KKK to speak as well. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:) In my mind, arguing that the legal system needs to be *seen as* fair and just is buying into the false premise that you have fallen victim to: that universal justice is possible, or even universally agreed upon. I feel like this is the fundamental flaw in the Black Lives Matter and "Killed By Police" protests; looking at a subset of outcomes that "feel" wrong, often caused by different flaws, and treating them as an organic whole while refusing to provide an appropriate remedy for any of them that preserves fairness and order. We can tinker with the system and try to make it better, and I think by and large we get it right, but we are never going to get a system where every outcome is the one that "feels right" or agrees with your "common sense." This seems reductionist to me. The problem is not that our system is not perfect. The problem is that there are clear and obvious fixes we could implement to make the system radically more just -- such as, for example, requiring public defenders be given salaries and caseloads parallel with prosecutors -- but we don't, for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to America's economic and racial stratification. We don't need to redesign all boats to prevent the next Titanic, we just need to make sure incompetent captains stop ramming icebergs. But that's apparently too big an ask. As far as inadequate court resources, I'm a socialist, so, um taxes? Fix the obvious resource shortages first. If it costs more it costs more. If that means the 1% all have to buy smaller boats, I will somehow manage to bear up. Edit: I feel like there is a fundamental divide here in how just and well-ordered people perceive the existing American system to be. This is not a discussion about gilding lilies or perfecting the already nigh-perfect. It is a discussion about making basic course corrections in one of the most unjust legal system in the developed world. Our ludicrous incarceration rate alone is not something that happens in a just system, and that's just one symptom out of many. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
I would not be understood to deny the right of the legislature in any country to enforce its own laws by the death of the transgressor, though persons of some abilities have doubted it; but only to suggest a few hints for the consideration of such as are, or may hereafter become, legislators. When a question arises, whether death may be lawfully inflicted for this or that transgression, the wisdom of the laws must decide it: and to this public judgment or decision all private judgments must submit; else there is an end of the principle of all society and government. The guilt of blood if any, must lie at their doors, who misinterpret the extent of their warrant; and not at the doors of the subject, who is bound to receive the interpretations, that are given by the sovereign power. ... So dreadful a list, instead of diminishing, increases the number of offenders. The injured, through compassion, will often forbear to prosecute: juries, through compassion, will sometimes forget their oaths, and either acquit the guilty or mitigate the nature of the offense: and judges, through compassion, will respite one half of the convicts, and recommend them to the royal mercy. Among so many chances of escaping, the needy or hardened offender overlooks the multitude that suffer; he boldly engages in some desperate attempt, to relieve his wants or supply his vices; and, if unexpectedly the hand of justice overtakes him, he deems himself peculiarly unfortunate, in falling at last a sacrifice to those laws, which long impunity has taught him to contemn. Hieronymous Alloy posted:This seems reductionist to me. The problem is not that our system is not perfect. The problem is that there are clear and obvious fixes we could implement to make the system radically more just -- such as, for example, requiring public defenders be given salaries and caseloads parallel with prosecutors -- but we don't, for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to America's economic and racial stratification. I fully agree here regarding the actions and systems you mention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If we cannot come up with a way to alter the forms and procedures that resulted in [Horrible Thing] without opening the door to [Even More Horrible Thing], then we have to accept [Horrible Thing] as the price we pay for avoiding [Even More Horrible Thing].
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Discendo Vox posted:I would not be understood to deny the right of the legislature in any country to enforce its own laws by the death of the transgressor, though persons of some abilities have doubted it; but only to suggest a few hints for the consideration of such as are, or may hereafter become, legislators. When a question arises, whether death may be lawfully inflicted for this or that transgression, the wisdom of the laws must decide it: and to this public judgment or decision all private judgments must submit; else there is an end of the principle of all society and government. The guilt of blood if any, must lie at their doors, who misinterpret the extent of their warrant; and not at the doors of the subject, who is bound to receive the interpretations, that are given by the sovereign power. blackstone lived in a country where parliament, with the royal assent, has no theoretical check on its authority: in the united states the court system is a co-equal branch rather than subservient to the legislature and certain principles are placed beyond the reach of the legislature to alter blackstone's legislature has the legal power to declare a man innocent of all crimes, then execute him for being innocent. i mean they rarely, if ever, did that, but parliament has the power to pass a law sentencing someone to death without trial evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Seeing like a hundred new posts in this thread I was worried RBG dropped dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:blackstone lived in a country where parliament, with the royal assent, has no theoretical check on its authority: in the united states the court system is a co-equal branch rather than subservient to the legislature and certain principles are placed beyond the reach of the legislature to alter I know! Great, isn't it? The premise that it is a significantly more tolerable injustice if a guilty person goes free than an innocent person is convicted largely comes from him. It's also finite- he sets the ratio at >ten, iirc. There's an earlier biblical history, but the ratio's harder to trace, plus then the executor has the advantage of perfect knowledge. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
The problem is I could sit here for hours doing nothing but listing obvious flaws in our justice system that pretty much everyone agrees are obvious flaws, but that we refuse to fix (a few more: excessive mandatory minimum sentences. Overuse of plea bargaining.) If you'll notice, in each recent post I've been careful to use a *different* example of obvious injustices in the American legal system, because there are so many of them, the remedies are often obvious and in most cases universally agreed upon by almost all attorneys (does anyone support asset forfeiture who is not literally a police department accountant?), but the problems remain intractable because the American public and those in control of American politics are not interested in fixing them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem is I could sit here for hours doing nothing but listing obvious flaws in our justice system that pretty much everyone agrees are obvious flaws, but that we refuse to fix (a few more: excessive mandatory minimum sentences. Overuse of plea bargaining.) It's probably useful to trace the root causes of legal injustice more specifically, and that can help identify targets for traction. For instance, almost all of the problems you mention are infinitely worse (or solely exist) at the state level due to devolution of police powers. There are specific policy methods to circumvent that, which can be a focus of agitation. Alternately (as is happening w/r/t environmental law), NGO state governor's associations are a good target-the feds can't really touch them and they're a good way to get information to circulate among nonpolitical state level civil servants. But that's probably better suited to another thread. edit: note to self add legal semiotics to keywords Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:But in this case the [Horrible Thing] is someone getting killed for something they did not do, and the [Even More Horrible Thing] is that killing someone for something they may or may not have done takes more effort. As evilweasel has repeatedly pointed out, it has not become so burdensome as to make it impossible. Your slippery slope is flat ground. evilweasel posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's probably useful to trace the root causes of legal injustice more specifically, and that can help identify targets for traction. For instance, almost all of the problems you mention are infinitely worse (or solely exist) at the state level due to devolution of police powers. There are specific policy methods to circumvent that, which can be a focus of agitation. Alternately (as is happening w/r/t environmental law), NGO state governor's associations are a good target-the feds can't really touch them and they're a good way to get information to circulate among nonpolitical state level civil servants. But that's probably better suited to another thread. Oh, a lot of it's federal too. Asset forfeiture and mandatory minimums are not purely state level issues. Still, though, to bring this back around: complaining about death penalty defendants getting too many appeals seems analogous to charging into an American ER and complaining that a heart attack patient is getting too much health care, don't they realize defibrillators cost money? The problem isn't ER costs, the problem is the hundreds of people dying outside that ER because America lacks universal health care. Similarly, the problem with American justice isn't some people getting too much, it's that most people don't get enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, a lot of it's federal too. Asset forfeiture and mandatory minimums are not purely state level issues. Whether it's law or healthcare, both overprovision and underprovision are problems, and they're based in related issues having to do with the power relationships involved. per DR's post above, though, the infinite appeals bit also confuses two conceptualizations of "fact" in a way that's particularly noxious to the underlying reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, the consequence here is kicking out one of the cornerstones of an ordered, formal legal system and then pretending we haven't in the hopes that the Right Sort of People will use Common Sense in deciding who does and doesn't get infinity appeals. Because we find that a preferable way of papering over the cognitive dissonance of participating in a system that inevitably kills people who didn't "deserve" it. Also lmao at deserve in scare quotes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Whether it's law or healthcare, both overprovision and underprovision are problems, Are they, though? This sounds more like a facile assertion than an actual fact. I'm on my phone and can't look up the numbers, but they don't seem like problems on the same order, at all. There just aren't that many death penalty cases, total; I'd be surprised if the total amount spent on death penalty cases compared to even just the amount misappropriated by "rocket docket" mortgage foreclosures cases (at least if you compared similar time periods) and that's just one type of injustice caused by inadequate access to justice. Hell, many death penalty exonerations are in the end reversals of problems caused by inadequate initial representation. I don't really see any justification for the premise that "over representation" is an actual problem in the real world that exists on any scale worth caring about. Maybe it does in the case of criminal defendants with massive private resources, but even there, it's often just that the wealthy defendant is capable of demonstrating a systemic injustice that others lack the resources to assert (hence my OJ example above -- again, all Cochran did was show that the LAPD was racist, which seems more like minimal competence than an unfair advantage).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Are they, though? This sounds more like a facile assertion than an actual fact. I'm on my phone and can't look up the numbers, but they don't seem like problems on the same order, at all. There just aren't that many death penalty cases, total; I'd be surprised if the total amount spent on death penalty cases compared to even just the amount misappropriated by "rocket docket" mortgage foreclosures cases (at least if you compared similar time periods) and that's just one type of injustice caused by inadequate access to justice. Hell, many death penalty exonerations are in the end reversals of problems caused by inadequate initial representation. I didn't say they were equal, just that they both exist and have the same root causes. If I were trying to equate their impact, I'd look more to the effects of "overrepresentation" in white collar and administrative law, or in other such suits (defense of white male rapists, e.g.). The different outcomes become hard to measure against each other. The one we're discussing here is something of a special case due to a problem with the assertion of "facts" underlying it that puts a hole in the conventional purpose and underlying logic of legal fact-making in a way that doesn't ordinarily happen. ...that and it gets relitigated here routinely because it's a seemingly simple quotable attack on Scalia that contains multitudes. edit: I don't think this is what you're going for, but overprovision of care is a genuine problem in healthcare. It's also a bit different because the overprovision can itself often directly harm the subject, which is rare in law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How the hell are you a lawyer then? Should the justice system be forever paralyzed because it is impossible to guarantee that every defendant receives a trial wherein the facts considered will perfectly match empirical reality? If any error against the defendant is unconstitutional and a moral affront, no matter how diligently due process was followed, how can we have a court system at all absent infinite resources and an all-knowing God? we do the best we can, when we realize a better way to do things we agree to do it that way, and we don't say that our errors are actually good things we are happy with Executing Innocent People is Cool and Good is not a premise we need to agree with to have a justice system: that the best we can do will not fully implement the ideal does not mean the ideal is not worth striving for
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, a lot of it's federal too. Asset forfeiture and mandatory minimums are not purely state level issues. This is a really stupid comparison because health professionals "play God" all the loving time because guess what : scarcity exists. Do you think there's an infinite supply of organs? Of judges? Even in your pie in sky never going to happen utopia this would still be an issue. You don't operate in reality if you think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is a really stupid comparison because health professionals "play God" all the loving time because guess what : scarcity exists. Do you think there's an infinite supply of organs? Of judges? you only need infinite judges if you have infinite prisoners
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I didn't say they were equal, just that they both exist and have the same root causes. If I were trying to equate their impact, I'd look more to the effects of "overrepresentation" in white collar and administrative law, or in other such suits (defense of white male rapists, e.g.). The different outcomes become hard to measure against each other. The one we're discussing here is something of a special case due to a problem with the assertion of "facts" underlying it that puts a hole in the conventional purpose and underlying logic of legal fact-making in a way that doesn't ordinarily happen. Right, that's where my analogy breaks down, but the breakdown demonstrates my point -- the potential downside from "overrepresentation" seems negligible. I suppose you could make an argument that very wealthy or very privileged clients can often break, rig, or avoid the system, and that is a real harm. And there's some merit to that -- every breath Jon Corzine takes outside a jail cell is a travesty of justice -- but if you'll allow me a semantic point, I'd argue the problem in those cases is not overprovision -- the State public defense system is not providing those individuals with their advantages, they have them for other reasons. Maybe it's overprovision from a Marxist systemic viewpoint in that capitalism has rewarded them too richly, but they aren't using public defenders. As to the specific case here, yeah, i'm not really speaking to the fact assertion part -- I'm challenging the premise that someone having too many appeals is a problem. We have too many unemployed lawyers anyway. Why not let people file all the appeals they want? The courts can always reject them. We probably would need some kind of restriction to prevent court-spamming, but it might prove that the court's power to restrict repeated meritless pro se filings, coupled with Rule 11 ethical restrictions on meritless filings, would be perfectly adequate restrictions. Think of it as a WPA for unemployed lawyers! (To be clear, I know I'm being a little ridiculous here, but I do think the premise of limited appeals is worth debating. Why do we set the limits where we do? If there's a new issue, why not let someone file it? Why does the justice system need finality?) evilweasel posted:you only need infinite judges if you have infinite prisoners Yup. We waaaaaay over-incarcerate, and we way under-fund criminal defense. If anything, increased investment in public defense would likely *save* the state money, because it would reduce incarceration costs. From a quick google, "The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2015 was $31,977.65 ($87.61 per day)". Average annual salary for a federal public defender is slightly over 100k per year. So if you hire an additional federal public defender, and that attorney exonerates only four individuals who would otherwise have been incarcerated, he's saved the public approximately twenty grand; each additional exoneration past that point is gravy. Even those numbers drastically under-tally the savings because they presume the exonerated individual would only have been incarcerated for one year. In reality given federal sentencing that might be lowballing by a factor of ten, if not much more. In reality, if a public defender exonerates even one defendant per year, or even just manages to significantly reduce a few sentences, he's probably saved the government his own salary many times over. And even that's just the federal system, and just the direct costs! Imagine if those innocent prisoners were out in the community, working jobs, paying taxes . . . The idea that I'm being "pie in the sky" ridiculous, is ridiculous. It's our current expenditures on incarceration that are insane. Adequately funding public defenders instead would be a return to sanity, budget-wise. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.a37f4dfb0eb2 I've never read this before, but it's pretty neat, and mostly on topic. quote:Hale County, Tex., jail officer sexually abuses detainee, resigns. Six months later, another officer rapes another detainee. Can she sue jail officials for failing to train and supervise their employees? Fifth Circuit: No. After the first rape, they put up a poster and told officers not to assault detainees, which was sufficient to get them qualified immunity. Jesus christ 5th circuit
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.a37f4dfb0eb2 Not a big fan of the 5th circuits opinion bc i think it makes an unreasonable assumption on the negligent training / supervision part but that blurb really misrepresents the case (which features 2 Obama appointees)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/888237971278888960 most of you have probably already seen this, and I have a technical question: how would this even end up before SCOTUS? what's the mechanism here? does the DNC bring suit against Trump? but he's a sitting president, wouldn't precedent mean that SCOTUS turns that down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
I mean he probably has that power. If congress thinks it's an abuse then they can impeach him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
botany posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/888237971278888960 The only way it ends up before SCOTUS is a future presidential administration prosecuting Trump and associates for crimes Trump pardoned before leaving office. In such a scenario Trump is no longer sitting president so yeah then he's right. This guy is addressing theoretical reality, not what would actually happen, though. In a world where an actual prosecution is allowed to go forward, we are already post Trump and the problem he's writing about is already solved. The actual threshold question that needs answering is "what happens if Mueller provides evidence of crimes and recommends prosecution, Trump fires everyone who would prosecute, and Congress refuses to impeach."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only way it ends up before SCOTUS is a future presidential administration prosecuting Trump and associates for crimes Trump pardoned before leaving office. In such a scenario Trump is no longer sitting president so yeah then he's right. ok, that was my understanding of the situation, just checking to make sure i'm not misunderstanding anything. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
From what I've been reading on lawfare the last couple days, the president can't be prosecuted until he is out of office. He's basically immune to everything until congress decides to impeach him, because who knows, maybe shooting someone on fifth avenue was essential for national security; only congress can decide if that's over the line or not. However, the statute of limitations don't start counting until the president is out of office. So he can be charged with violating all those laws once he loses an election or is removed from office by congress. And at that point he would not have presidential pardon powers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
I strongly doubt in any case that there will be the political will to prosecute Trump after he's out of office in any case, simply because the Dems know that it would open them up to routine prosecutions by the GOP for the future. Prosecuting a US president is probably not going to happen in our lifetime I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 17:48
|
|