They would prefer to do a convoy into Mariupol instead, to grease the wheels of their trucks with the mangled flesh of dead Ukrainians.
MTG is leading a revolt within the GOP to support Putin.
Tamara Lich has been denied bail
- Thread starter fall
- Start date
MTG is leading a revolt within the GOP to support Putin.
Well, she's finally been granted bail. Of course, the court didn't acknowledge that the lower court judge's decision was the result of political bias, but at least they corrected her biased decision.
The Superior Court judge explicitly slapped down the argument that the lower court judge was biased and said it was improper to have even raised it. The Superior Court judge was himself a former CPC candidate.
Lich had improved her release plan between the 2 hearings and the SCJ judge accepted that Lich had mitigated the risk factor. Standard decision. Nothing to do with your bias argument.
Now that was truly funny! Thanks for the laugh!
I think the world is running out of people who are simple minded enough to swallow that sort of nothing-to-see-here "lawsplainin'"!
You conveniently left out any mention of the errors of law found by the appeal court! LOL!
Anyone with an ounce of common sense understood that the original decision could only be as wrong as it was if it was motivated by political bias. You won't convince a reasonable person otherwise!
However, it's frowned upon in the Judge Club to openly admit that another Club member allowed their biases to show. Always deny flaws in the legal process. It's the first rule of the club! Really just an application of "there but for the Grace of God go I"!
Last edited:
We believe different things about judges and how they operate.
Some of us just have better track records than others.
It's just Dutch's daily troll.
He actually has little idea of what he's talking about.
We could compare track records, if you could agree where the track is. I perpetually read claims here on TERB about predictions and analysis I never actually made. Whether those claims are just trolling, or some form of self delusion, it's hard to tell. It's for this reason that claims about track records mean as much to me as puerile posters claiming that they "owned" another poster.
As to who judges are, their professional and personal backgrounds, what motivates them, and the artifices the legal system attempts to erect to pretend that judges are immune from the motivations of other humans, or that the system constrains their ability to act on those motivations, I'm entirely confident that I've got my thinking in good order. You and Mandrill, as lawyers are trained to do, are here to perpetuate a mythology that is the foundation for public trust in the legal system. The myth protects both the business interests of the legal profession as well as its continuing claim to self regulation. Lawyers want the public to forget that the court only exists to do the bidding of the King so that the King need not take all his time settling disputes, not because the King/court/law/lawyers possess any special wisdom.
The legal system is letting the public down, and it's time to quit pretending it isn't. Not just in some "needs a bit of tinkering" kind of way, but fundamentally. Lawyers aren't supposed to admit that. Thus, the problem in self-identifying as a lawyer. To "prove" your online claim, you have to play by the lawyer handbook. Unfortunatately, once anyone realizes that, it undermines the sincerity of anything you post about the legal system. That's a problem you've created for yourself.
Last edited:
Linch,King et al. should be tried for treason with no bail before trial. They are disgruntled and dangerous losers who propagate hate crimes under the pretence of “peaceful protest” and they have delusions of grandeur that they are fit to over through the democratically elected Government of Canada and form their own unelected government. It is highly unfortunate that their energies could not have been put towards something more positive. Hopefully they stay in their hole in Alberta and decide to keep the peace.
I shouldn't even ask, but why link me to the twitter account of an Ottawa lawyer who practices criminal law and civil litigation, votes Liberal, and thinks he looks cool in a hard hat? Lich was represented by Diane Magas on appeal. Did you mean to link a specific tweet?
Even then I'd doubt you would be able to analyze what was on the track in a coherent way.
Rigor isn't your strong suit from what I've seen.
You'd be wrong, though.
I'm not a lawyer and have never pretended to be. I'm quite outrageously critical of the legal system and its internal mythology.
Are you not aware that the monarchy has no actual power of note in Canada, let alone the United States (which is the other legal system we have discussed more than once here)?
The legal system in both countries has serious, serious problems, I agree.
No, it's a problem you've created in your own mind, since I've never claimed to be a lawyer here.
Good to see that your keen sense of analysis is as on the ball as ever.
I'll let my posts speak for themselves. Your idea of rigor is other people doing work for you.
You are positively stating you are not a lawyer, but also claiming you have a superior understanding of the backgrounds and motivations of judges. Interesting combo. I won't seek the answer to the question which is implicit, but there is certainly a difference between identifying that you are not a lawyer, and declining to identify your field of expertise in any way (my own approach).
You are wise to question the mythology. I, however, wonder why a non-lawyer would ever make reference to the concept of "assuming facts not in evidence". Curious.
I assumed you were smart enough to know I was referring to the origins and "raison d'etre" of our judicial system. Was I wrong to make such an assumption?
They do.
Superior to yours. Not an interesting combo. Probably very commonplace.
Because lawyers don't have a monopoly on arguments and reason.
Why would you ever expect only lawyers to be allowed to use certain phrases.
You were wrong to assume it was relevant.
And so do yours.
Delusional.
Because people without legal training are usually not even aware of concepts and phrases used exclusively in legal proceedings, and usually have the good sense not to try to use them without that training, nor do they have any interest in communicating in a language exclusive to a particular work setting.
It's highly relevant for people to understand the origins of the court system, and its role, so that they can comprehend that legal principles are not the embodiment of any particular "wisdom", but rather are just another vehicle for the enforcement of political will. Once you realize that, you will also understand that bad legal decisions are not entitled to deference, but, rather, are in need of political correction.
