Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Henry Ford

Members
  • Content Count

    66,510
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    347

Everything posted by Henry Ford

  1. Cool story. I’m glad you didn’t take the actual point she actually made in her actual law review article and turn it into something ridiculous instead of just saying “I understand you were making a different point than I was addressing and I see how this would conflict with her previous positions.” That would have been just nutty.
  2. Yeah, he did that despite there being any other mechanism to get nominees confirmed while McConnell et al refused to confirm anyone for anything. One of his ambassadors literally died waiting to be confirmed. At least be intellectually honest there, too. We can take it back as many steps as you want. But the actual mechanism that made it possible wasn’t any of them. It was 2017.
  3. You're a pretty well-read guy and you obviously know that didn't make this possible.
  4. No it isn't. McConnell and the Republicans are the ones who changed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees, in 2017, for Gorsuch.
  5. I think you missed part of the awfulness of the quote. "30% of the people in the suburbs are low income people - 30% of the people in the suburbs are minorities." He even manages to equate "low income" with "minorities."
  6. The Proud Boys were started out of Taki's Magazine by Gavin McInnes. Taki's Magazine is one of the the birthplaces of the term "alt-right," and its former editor is Richard Spencer. It became slightly famous when it was running articles in support of European neo-Nazis. The Proud Boys run Confederate rallies, "alt-right" rallies, espouse views with strong references to "white genocide" and have many members who advocate for a white ethnostate, and they join forces with skinheads, as well as co-opting the same clothing brands as skinheads for their rallies. One of their former members (Jason Kessler) was the organizer who put together Charlottesville. The founder left the organization as a result of its heavy turn toward racism, beyond the Islamophobia and sexism it was actually founded on. There have been a number of discussions about them on this board before.
  7. I take issue with the entire suggestion that an appellate judge or Supreme Court Justice in this country makes a determination about an abstract concept unrelated to a particular case. There is no ivory tower in which the Supreme Court sits and decides on these issues as simple abstractions. They're applied to cases. Yes, in a purely academic context I agree that for some people one question is easier than the other. But not for everyone. And it's a completely irrelevant point because there is no purely academic context in which a judge or justice will sit. If a judge affirms the lower court decision of capital punishment, a person is killed by the state. That's the moral issue she has weighed in on. Affirmation at all is an affirmation of a sentence of death.
  8. Yes, it actually is the issue. That's the whole point of the law review article I posted the abstract from that started the conversation. The issue is that deciding someone will be put to death is, she argues, against the Catholic religion and she argues that it is something a Catholic judge should recuse herself from. So, no, I don't believe they can be rather different in that regard. I'm not sure why you think you think they can.
  9. The question is whether a Supreme Court Justice can be impartial. And I’m asking you when you can decide #1 without deciding whether a particular person can be put to death as a Supreme Court Justice. Because it is relevant to recusal if you’d be deciding whether or not someone can be put to death. That’s my point from the beginning of this conversation in bringing up the “case or controversy” requirement.
  10. Fortunately, ex-members did some of this work for them by previously detailing in exposes the alleged subjugation of women within that group. Like this book detailing one member's description of what she considers to have been escaping from a cult. Or like this book from a Notre Dame philosophy professor who was part of the group. Which are discussed in this article. Which also details the life of some single women inside this religious institution: There's also some discussion in the article of the covenant that's expected to be signed swearing to act always in accordance with the teachings of the church leaders.
  11. I'm curious as to what circumstance you would be deciding #1 without considering whether a particular defendant will be put to death.
  12. What? A member of the grand jury took the extraordinary measure of filing a motion today to release the grand jury proceedings, suggesting the AG has not been truthful with the public. The SWAT force in that city expressed serious misgivings about the actions of the officers. The police department has not been truthful about the state of things that night. Five of the same people executed a similarly disastrous warrant a year and a half before. Many people care about that.
  13. With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion. Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death. Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights. If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.
  14. People have asked me why I expect someone to have spent time in the lower courts prior to being in the circuits and then the Supreme Court. This is my number one reason why. Because years of judicial work will hopefully evidence whether a judge is under undue influence or not. It is my number one concern with the judiciary, its independence. That's what ideally leads to fair application of the laws, if not "fair" outcomes.
  15. I'm not sure where you get .02% from, but the Yale Law Journal review of corruption in the courts ten years ago or so suggests much higher than that. I would imagine only .02% get caught, if that's a statistic somewhere. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5179&context=ylj
  16. I haven't referred to this as a cult. Would you like to frame the discussion as though it definitely is?
  17. I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law. Consider this statement from her own work: No one put words in her mouth. This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases." Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law? Are we okay with that? And what changed her mind? By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment. Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion? Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.
  18. And as for Biden being a sock puppet for AOC, I can give better reasons for not believing that than “I know how the world works.” I’ve met Joe Biden, but beyond that I can see that his actions and statements sharply divide from those of AOC regularly, he’s had a long and followable public life where his positions and statements make sense based on his journey as a human being, and he’s made some great moves and terrible ones in decades of public service. For good or ill, he has a record that makes it pretty clear he isn’t AOC’s sock puppet. If you can point to some similar explanation about Barrett and the religious leaders (and to my knowledge we don’t even know who they are) of this 3,000 person sect, I would agree. Otherwise, that’s what years of district court judicial record are for, in part. To find out if a judge is above influence. She didn’t get those. Barring that, it’s legitimate to question her regarding the influence any organization she happens to belong to - be it the PTA, the Communist Party of America, the Trial Lawyer’s Association, MENSA, or yes, even her religious organization - has over her.
  19. I appreciate that this seems like a foolish question to you - why would she defer to a religious body for her rulings? - but it isn't. Judges and justices are subject to advise and consent clause because of qualification issues, but also to root out undue influences. Some judges will potentially defer to the wishes of those with financial power over them, or who offer financial opportunity, and some will defer to those with emotional power over them. If someone believes that another person or entity has power over the disposition of her or her families' immortal souls, I would consider that a fairly strong potential influence if it isn't separated from her work. I would say that the builders of youth detention facilities have very little understanding of the work of a court other than outcome-derived understanding. And yet they certainly influenced two judges in Pennsylvania. Because those two valued the money they would get from the interaction over their judicial independence. I'm not sure what part of your understanding about how the world works is in play here, but it appears different from my understanding about how the world works. Do I think it likely that she would be influenced on every case? Of course not. But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say. And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.) I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.
  20. Thanks. I still don't follow. Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case?
  21. Five officers involved in this raid were also involved in a botched raid in 2018. In that case, again resulting in zero charges and a lawsuit against the city, those officers have learned how body cam footage could be used against them because it shows they executed a warrant by using a battering ram to knock in a door on a family without identifying themselves beforehand (only calling "Police" while knocking in the door with the battering ram.) https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3zkax/5-cops-involved-in-breonna-taylors-case-were-also-part-of-a-botched-raid-in-2018
  22. If it would, it dies anyway unless some existing Supreme Court justices change their minds. A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court ruling, and the appeal is of a ruling against the ACA. And no, there's no hope here.
  23. Here are the questions that I'd like answered before we "back the badge" on this one: 1. Why don't we have footage from the body camera that one officer who was involved in serving the warrant was wearing at the time (to say nothing of the officer who was wearing a body cam mount without a camera in the photograph taken after the incident)? 2. Why weren't the officers separated and removed from the scene once support officers arrived as required by department policy, and instead allowed to take part in questioning witnesses? 3. Why did the police department falsely claim that no officers were wearing body cameras? .4. Why did the police department claim that the shot that hit an officer must have come from Taylor's boyfriend because all officers only carried .40 cal, when one of the officers (the one who has since been charged with recklessness) also carried a 9mm and ballistics have not matched with the boyfriend's weapon? 5. Why did the only witness (of more than ten) who claims the officers identified themselves change his story 2 months after his initial interview, in which he said they did not identify themselves, after at least one untaped interview of him by a police officer happened without being noted in official logs or files? I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that stick out at me.