Tweet
On the subject of whether or not it is appropriate for judges and indeed the entire legal system to apply previous civil case outcomes, with their lower standards of "proof", as unchallengeable facts what leads you to think that approval for doing so correlates with intelligence? You obviously approve of the practice. Do you generally ascribe the basis of any disagreement you have as resulting from the stupidity of the whomever you disagree with, call them out on it and move on smugly self assured?
-
-
When someone makes an egregiously stupid argument I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt to their moral character by calling them stupid rather than ascribing to them more nefarious motives for their faulty reasoning. You should be thanking me."Comment
-
I suppose I should call you stupid and high for calling a finding of liability in a lawsuit as "just convicted of the exact same crime.". Instead I'll point out that while I have many grevious flaws "blinded by partisanship" is not one I am often accused of. The verdict should carry over, at best, as delivered with the same standard of "proof" as was used in the prior case. In other words instead of plainly instructing the jury that they must treat Trump as guilty they should be instructed that a previous trial determined him to be more likely than not to have injured the plaintiff as accused.Originally posted by EPW View Post
I'm painfully aware that the legal system is allowed to work the way it did.Comment
-
What is my "stupid argument"? Let's check your reading comprehension (and my lousy prose tbh) before trading more insults.Originally posted by EPW View PostComment
-
:yawn: Goodnight."Comment
-
Apparently, some people cannot distinguish between civil law and criminal law.“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of ManComment
-
When I say "guilt" I'm generally using it in the general sense of actually performed the misdeed. I realize the Trump's "guilt" in the legal technical sense of the term was not considered in these lawsuits. I still think it's an appropriate term, however, when the alleged injury would constitute a criminal act.Comment
-
Overall, I think it's outrageous that someone is allowed to sue for additional damages if someone they already won damages from continues to assert their innocence of the accusations. How does that not violate freedom of speech? We can't publicly assert accusations against us are false after someone is awarded damages from the alleged accusation? How do people not find problems with that?Comment
-
We call that defamation or libel. And of course he can continue to do it if he's willing to keep paying."Comment
-
Even if we grant that journalist, author, advice columnist and tv show host (2 years) Carroll is somehow *not* a public figure the standard for defamation requires negligence by the defendent. It is patently absurd that the system was able to somehow construe someone never convicted of a criminal activity asserting their innocence of said criminal activity as somehow constituting "negligence".Originally posted by EPW View Post
Of course if Carroll is recognized as a public figure then the standard rises to having to establish actual malice and intentional lying to qualify which is even more absurd to apply to protestations of innocence by anyone, let alone someone never convicted of the criminal activity alleged by the plaintiff to have incurred the injury.
Can you imagine If OJ had been slapped with new damages Everytime he spouted off about the real killers? And he was actually prosecuted for the crime.
Bottom line is if defamation law can allow someone to incurr heavy penalties every time they protest their innocence, especially someone never convicted of the alleged criminal injuries, that is seriously broken and effed up.Comment
-
As JR says, he is not being prevented from protesting innocence. He is not paying out because of his claims of innocence, but because of the attacks on Carroll's character that are malicious. The jury verdict explicitly stated Trumps statements were false, and were actual malice. The verdict form answers yes to the question:
In making the statements, Mr Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill-will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another?
-
His instructions included a clear explanation of the meaning of preponderance of evidence. So I do not think this framing is accurate.Originally posted by Geronimo View PostOne day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Texas
Add Topic
POLITICS 25 states with Republican governors sign letter supporting Texas in border control fight: What to know
Through the border security initiative Operation Lone Star, Texas has implemented physical barriers barring both immigrants and federal agents from accessing the border, raising legal disputes.
Kinsey CrowleyHogan Gore
USA TODAY NETWORK
Almost all of the U.S. Republican governors have signed on a statement backing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in his bitter fight against the federal government over border control.
The statement released Thursday on the Republican Governors Association website criticized the Biden Administration and said the state of Texas has the constitutional right to defend itself. This week, Texas officials and the Department of Homeland Security sparred over barbed wire along the Rio Grande. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal agents can cut through the razor wire the state installed to deter people from crossing.
“We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border," the letter, signed by 25 Republican governors. "Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation.”
The White House addressed the governors' statement at a press briefing Friday.
“I would say to them that if they truly want to help with the issue at the border, with the immigration system, that they need to talk to the congressional members, the senators in their state," said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. "They need to ask them to make sure that they have the resources they need within their respective states to take action to actually deal with a broken system."
Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide
More:Texas gov transforms immigration from a border issue to a backyard one. Dems aren't happy. What states are supporting Texas?
Governors from the following states signed the statement supporting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott:- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
I have to agree with the states. The feds wont do their job so Texas is next in line. If the state wont act border counties and cities have jurisdiction over illegal entry. Actually they dont need to wait, they dont need my permission to protect themselves. The border states should be in charge with federal funding.Comment
-
-
"Let’s clear this E Jean Carroll situation up for everyone who doesn’t understand how things work:
- Trump has never been convicted or even investigated for what she accused him of.
- She doesn’t know what year it happened, and has even been caught in a few lies.
- She brought the dress forward, but the dress didn’t even exist in the years she claimed it happened.
- Trump was not on trial for this. He was on trial for calling her a liar and other names.
- The Jury is from a far left district, so Trump had no shot at a fair hearing.
- She didn’t make these accusations until 20 years later. She even said she fantasizes about it happening before.
- The only reason she could even sue was because democrats changed the laws for 1 year in New York. The law was changed the day Trump got out of office.
- She wasn’t going to sue until anti Trump people talked her into it and offered to pay."
from Travis on X
and she just loved his show The ApprenticeLast edited by Berzerker; January 28, 2024, 00:35.Comment
Comment