New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[Town Heretic]

What a partisan tool...

What's with you emotional, hyper-sensitive types. You insist on taking offense at being told you don't know something but aren't remotely squeamish about name calling.

Odd.

you have been accusing, and pontificating your version of "I know you are but what am I?"

No I haven't. Quote me illustrating your complaint. Now I'd be happy to go back to that post and underline precisely where you did it. In fact, when I made the point it was right there.

and you have yet to prove that there is not a double standard.

You're the fellow making the claim that there is. The burden of proof remains with you. But even so, I've set out why the only examples you've offered weren't illustrations of that. And I've noted the comments of Comey and others in noting why the particular facts led to a particular outcome.

Your response is unnamed authority and appeals to numbers of people no more versed (and understandably so) than yourself.

That, as you would say, is weak stuff.

You accuse me of being partisan

No, I note it. I don't think being a right wing conservative is an insult, but it is a reality that impacts.

yet you regurgitate every weak liberal viewpoint that have been rejected wholly by legal experts and the American people alike

I don't subscribe to or follow liberal thinking any more than I subscribe to or follow conservative thinking on the whole. There was a time when I paid more attention to it, read The New Republic and the National Review. Then I got tired of the increasing hostility of each and settled on the Wall Street Journal, until it became so increasingly partisan that I gave up entirely...okay, I do still enjoy The Christian Science Monitor, but its a hit and miss use.

I've already invited you to present your authority. I've clearly presented a few in support of the actual position of the head of the FBI.

, yet you assert you cannot be wrong,

Quote me.

& everyone that rejects the two political hacks Lynch & Comey

I don't have an opinion on Lynch, but again, Comey sailed through with conservative blessing and I literally can't find anyone in your camp criticizing his leaning before this opinion. What was that confirmation vote...93 to 1. Three Democrats and three Republicans failed to cast an affirmative or negative vote, choosing present or abstaining. All others present (1 wasn't) voted yea. Two fairly conservative senators from my state, Shelby and Sessions, voted yea. Everyone but Rand who voted said yea. They looked at him, at his past service to their own party and understood what political hacks are seeking to reinvent and alter now, that agree or disagree with him, he's not in anyone's pocket...though if you'd asked most would have said the former Republican leaned, as most in his position have, toward the right of the column.

are somehow just not enlightened enough.

You keep using that word because you're apparently determined to put a wrong-headed light on a simpler, less charged statement. Most people don't know the law well, or the process beyond movies and television. That's just the reality of it.

..Very weak counselor or should I say it is a bunch of Bullcrap, either makes my point.

It makes a point you don't mean to about your method and foundation, but it's your dime.

 

[CherubRam]

Don't have to, you proved it yourself when you posted moron.

So says the boob.

 

[Stripe]

That's an outburst, not an argument or counter.

You call people ignorant on no evidence and then mock them when they retort?

What next?

You never lose sight of the present facts by virtue of applying precedent to how you approach them.

Never?

Sounds unlikely.

Precedent doesn't increase the likelihood of ignoring evidence.

It certainly doesn't reduce the likelihood.

That's a statement that tells anyone with a legal education that you don't understand the process. Simple as that.

Only if we assume the truth of your position.

When you disagree, you have to provide reasons that don't rely on the adoption of your opinion.

Simple as that.

That's not a particular case.

Sure, it is.

You'd have to be as offended each time anyone knew something you didn't and shared it with you.

Who's offended? :idunno:

If you want a discussion, you have to respect the stance of the guy you don't agree with.

Declaring them ignorant shows that you do not want to engage on the ideas from the other side.

You're not offensive, you're annoying.

That's a bit on the unproductive side of things.

I never called you ignorant.

No, I'm noting that while you're busy inventing a reason to be offended you're indifferent to offering insult and offense to others.

It's peculiar.

You're utterly out of touch.

 

[Town Heretic]

You call people ignorant on no evidence and then mock them when they retort?'

Quote me doing that with "people". And I always use logic and, where applicable, cite and/or quote from authority.

Here are some additional helpful citations when considering precedent:

The Sources of Law and the Value of Precedent: A Comparative and Empirical Study of a Civil Law State in a Common Law Nation (LSU Law Review)

"The Article examines the doctrines of "stare decisis " and'jurisprudence constante" and the value of precedent in select common law and civil law jurisdictions, then focuses on Louisiana as an example of a jurisdiction which, like many jurisdictions worldwide, has valued precedent in such a way that it is extremely influential, but not always binding on the courts."​

The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision making and Theory (William and Mary)

The University of Chicago Law Review: Following Lower Court Precedent

"This Article...analyzes a variety of potential reasons to give weight to lower-court precedent, including reasons related to stability, constraint, and the wisdom of crowds. To address the descriptive question, this Article examines the current justices’ voting behavior and reasoning, over a period of several recent years, in cases in which the Court resolved splits in the lower courts. The Article’s conclusions shed light on broader debates over interpretive methodology and the Supreme Court’s role as the manager of a large judicial system."​

Precedence and Judgment (Valparaiso)

"Precedent is the cornerstone of common law method...This essay argues that the practice of issuing non-precedential opinions does more than offend constitutional dictates and present pragmatic problems to the appellate system; abandoning precedent undermines justice itself. "​

Never? Sounds unlikely.

That's because you don't understand (or appear to want to understand) how the judicial consideration actually works. Precedent doesn't alter the facts or distract from their consideration. It's not built into the process that way. Rather, it frames the approach to dealing with the adjudication on them.

It certainly doesn't reduce the likelihood.

If it doesn't reasonably give rise to your concern then it doesn't need to reduce it. lain:

Only if we assume the truth of your position.

When you disagree, you have to provide reasons that don't rely on the adoption of your opinion.

Simple as that.

I set out reasons, what precedent is for and even quoted a dean of Harvard law on the point. You've just regurgitated a concern that my answer should have dissipated absent some compelling evidence to confound it, which you've never indicated.

Simple as that.

Sure, it is.

Offer proof. How is illustrating a principle tying a thing to a case? Or, more pointedly, given you made that claim prior to my illustration, what case did you see me tying it to prior? You never said (a curious habit of yours).

Who's offended? :idunno:

Anyone who calls a thing an insult.

Insult: to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone) (Merriam - Webster)

If you want a discussion, you have to respect the stance of the guy you don't agree with.

No, you don't. I can have a disagreement or debate with a racist. I don't have to respect their position at all. In fact, I don't. I think they're irrational and contemptible.

Declaring them ignorant shows that you do not want to engage on the ideas from the other side.

First, you haven't actually quoted me doing that, supra. I've said you don't understand precedent. Ignorant is typically used as an insult. I don't see why not knowing something should be construed as that, unless the person is overly sensitive or inordinately proud.

You're not offensive, you're annoying.

I frequently annoy people who don't appear to know what they're talking about.

There's a difference between noting that someone doesn't appear to understand a thing and offering an insult. It's the difference between saying that and you saying "you're a pansy" for believing in democracy. I made a statement of fact that should no more offend you than a teacher correcting your grammar. The second, your actual practice, is an insult.

You're utterly out of touch.

Not objectively, but then the objective doesn't appear to have much to do with your approach. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

That's because you don't understand (or appear to want to understand) how the judicial consideration actually works.

:yawn:

Precedent doesn't alter the facts or distract from their consideration. It's not built into the process that way. Rather, it frames the approach to dealing with the adjudication on them.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with people, not processes.

If it doesn't reasonably give rise to your concern then it doesn't need to reduce it.

Assuming the truth of your opinion doesn't help the discussion.

I set out reasons, what precedent is for and even quoted a dean of Harvard law on the point. You've just regurgitated a concern that my answer should have dissipated absent some compelling evidence to confound it, which you've never indicated.

You've assumed the truth of your opinion and asserted your superiority. Nothing substantive.

Simple as that.

A curious habit of yours.

No, you don't. I can have a disagreement or debate with a racist. I don't have to respect their position at all. In fact, I don't. I think they're irrational and contemptible.

Is reading your second language?

If you want to have a discussion with that man, you cannot blithely rant on as if your opinions have been established and that he should agree with you. You have to respect the fact that he has a different stance and radically different biases and motivations.

It's called the fallacy of begging the question; when you run up against someone who disagrees with you, you have to find common ground and build a discussion, not assert your opinions as fact and pretend that everything he says is based on ignorance.

Precedent opens an avenue for the perversion of justice. You even agree with this, which you've implicitly expressed a number of times amid your tu quoque nonsense and explicitly when you said that words can do the same thing.

First, you haven't actually quoted me doing that, supra. I've said you don't understand precedent. Ignorant is typically used as an insult. I don't see why not knowing something should be construed as that, unless the person is overly sensitive or inordinately proud.

How about you keep prattling on about how I do not understand something and I call you an irrational debater in response.

I frequently annoy people who don't appear to know what they're talking about.

That's likely because you haven't spent an iota of effort understanding their stance or motivation; you simply bulldoze your agenda through.

There's a difference between noting that someone doesn't appear to understand a thing and offering an insult. It's the difference between saying that and you saying "you're a pansy" for believing in democracy. I made a statement of fact that should no more offend you than a teacher correcting your grammar. The second, your actual practice, is an insult.

You're not insulting, remember?

 

[Town Heretic]

:yawn:

So you're saying you slept through the explanation and that's why you don't understand how precedent actually works? lain:

Unfortunately, we are dealing with people, not processes.

People apply precedent, along with other considerations. Those people are judges, trained and learned within the context of analyzing law and case. Perfect? Of course not. That's why we have appellate courts, among other reasons.

But, again, that would be a problem with people, on some unspecified occasion and by some unspecified application, and not with precedent itself, which I've supported and explained from authority and foundation prior in this thread.

Assuming the truth of your opinion doesn't help the discussion. You've assumed the truth of your opinion and asserted your superiority. Nothing substantive.

Not true. I've supplied authority, both personal (as relates to my particular education) and beyond that, noting the opinion of authority in concurrence. I dispute your valuation.

Is reading your second language?

No, is English yours? Again, a funny tactic given your complaints about an insult I actually didn't give you. Speaking of which--

If you want to have a discussion with that man, you cannot blithely rant

I'm no more ranting than I called you ignorant, which is why you won't quote me doing either. This is simply part of your offense as defense to avoid the point methodology in full bloom.

You have to respect the fact that he has a different stance and radically different biases and motivations.

That's an unusual use of respect. Better to say I have to understand, which of course I do. This is the other part of your MO, altering your own position subtly enough when it fails in the first incarnation. That's not your original complaint either. Here's what you actually said that I took exception to:

If you want a discussion, you have to respect the stance of the guy you don't agree with.

It almost looks the same, again, but the difference is equally important in alteration. I don't have to respect a bigot's stance to understand he has a different context, which is more in line with your stretched use of "respect" in the alteration you offered in this latest post.

when you run up against someone who disagrees with you, you have to find common ground and build a discussion, not assert your opinions as fact and pretend that everything he says is based on ignorance.

So that's what was behind your entrance into the Democracy discussion where you opened by calling adherents to the proposition "pansies"? Or, goose, take a gander at your actual practice or prepare to be branded a hypocrite.

Rather, when you differ with someone you need only present a reasoned rebuttal of position. I've done precisely that, nothing the problem of misunderstanding, how precedent functions and doing so while citing to disparate authority in support, along with learned treatises directly on the point.

Precedent opens an avenue for the perversion of justice.

That isn't what you said that began our difference. Here's that statement:

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

Not "opens an avenue" which can mean nothing more than the more you consider the greater the chance for error, which isn't particularly meaningful given having an operation to remove a tumor increases the risk of medical error, by way of illustrating why additional risk against a great deal of good is a risk we take in all sorts of situations. You said it was how justice is perverted. That's just wrong. Precedence is actually one way we ensure justice, its reliability in application. I've noted that in the writing of legal scholars. One consideration among a few, but an important one.

I cited to authority in foundation on the point, along with providing you numerous links to additional, serious considerations on the subject. Included among them:

Precedence and Judgment (Valparaiso)"Precedent is the cornerstone of common law method...This essay argues that the practice of issuing non-precedential opinions does more than offend constitutional dictates and present pragmatic problems to the appellate system; abandoning precedent undermines justice itself."

You're not insulting, remember?

If you thought that last quoted bit was an insult you might want want to buy a new dictionary.

 

[Stripe]

So you're saying you slept through the explanation and that's why you don't understand how precedent actually works?

:yawn:

People apply precedent, along with other considerations. Those people are judges, trained and learned within the context of analyzing law and case. Perfect? Of course not. That's why we have appellate courts, among other reasons.

Which means you agree with me: Precedent breeds injustice.

That would be a problem with people, on some unspecified occasion and by some unspecified application, and not with precedent itself.

If you want to agree with me, feel free to just say so.

I dispute your valuation.

But you won't do it using a rational discussion. You assume the truth of your opinion, assert ignorance and bigotry in your opponent and use those things to bulldoze your way through without conceding that there exist radically different motivations on the other side.

Discussions don't work that way. If you want a discussion, you have to respect the guy's stance. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you have to maintain its position and background. If you don't want to respect that he has a different means of approach to the subject, you're never going to be in discussion; you're just going to keep talking past him. Which in your case means trying to look like you're talking above his level.

That's an unusual use of respect.

Nope. Respect doesn't mean what you want it to.

Better to say I have to understand, which of course I do.

Of course you don't. You've spent no time trying to understand what I mean. Case in point is this exchange about "respect."

You'll never understand if you refuse to accept that I hold a very different point of view to you.

When you differ with someone you need only present a reasoned rebuttal of position.

Given that you agree with my OP, all the rebuttals were useless.

That isn't what you said that began our difference.

Here's an idea: If you think I've contradicted myself, how about asking for an explanation from me instead of looking for something else to argue about. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

Which means you agree with me: Precedent breeds injustice.

No, it really doesn't and that's not what I'm saying at all. What you're suggesting is as wrong headed as decrying surgery because it increases the chances for a medical error. Well, it does, but that's rather overshadowed by the point and value of the surgery. Adding seatbelts to a car increases the possibility that they'll be used inappropriately, but that's no real argument against them, to double on the point.

Or, at best you can say that any additional element in a consideration increases, incrementally or otherwise, the chance for that element to be utilized errantly, which is no real argument against its use provided the benefit of the rule is greater, as it is here.

But you won't do it using a rational discussion.

You're a potato. There. We've both made statements we can't objectively prove.

You assume the truth of your opinion

Everyone who has reasoned a point believes it to be true. That's a bit different from simply assuming something is true.

assert ignorance and bigotry in your opponent

Rather, in giving a particular illustration I noted a racist, who is by definition a bigot. Stop playing games. And my point was that I don't have to respect his position to differ with him. Now if all you mean by respect is the secondary, an understanding of his position that should go without saying. Else, how could you differ at all, reasonably?

and use those things to bulldoze your way through without conceding that there exist radically different motivations on the other side.

Rather, I take exception where it strikes me exception is warranted and anyone who understands they have a fundamentally different position can only do so if they understand the other position. Also, this remains a peculiarly sensitive complaint from someone as demonstrably comfortable with insult and dismissal as your methodology paints you. Ah, well. More offense in lieu then.

Discussions don't work that way.

Said the fellow who introduced himself to a consideration in a thread with, "Democracy is for pansies." lain: I'd ask who you're trying to fool with any of that, but I still think the real point is only distraction, from things like your moving goal post/offense instead of defense methodology, etc.

If you want a discussion, you have to respect the guy's stance.

You'll have to set out what you mean by that. It appears to be used the way most people would use the word understand. Respect in the sense of recognizing his beliefs as good or valuable, the primary that Webster attaches and which is the primary read-in absent context and qualification, no.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you have to maintain its position and background.

Maintain its position and background sounds like you're using maintain in less than a primary way as well. I don't know what you mean by that so I can't comment on it beyond the note.

If you don't want to respect that he has a different means of approach to the subject, you're never going to be in discussion

Supra. I understand he has a different position. I don't respect it. I don't have to respect a Nazi's views on Jews to take reasoned exception to it.

you're just going to keep talking past him.

So I should respect and engage him instead, by calling him a pansy? Or by playing games with subtext instead of addressing the actual point of dispute? Got it. lain: You're aces at that, by the way.

Which in your case means trying to look like you're talking above his level.

The "trying to look" business is just you throwing an inferential insult you'd rend garments over if I did it. Or, to quote you, :yawn:

Nope. Respect doesn't mean what you want it to.

That's more your problem. Respect has a primary meaning and requires contextual or other qualification to use in a different fashion. I rejected and reject your claim in the primary. I think it's all a game, a distraction for you to use, again, to avoid speaking to my rebuttal on the actual point.

Though it's entertaining to see how you're going to manage it from post to post. Ignoring my note on two shifts from the last post was disappointing, but unsurprising. Price of talking to you, I suppose.

Of course you don't. You've spent no time trying to understand what I mean. Case in point is this exchange about "respect."

Rather, I've given it more time and attention than it merits...supra and prior.

You'll never understand if you refuse to accept that I hold a very different point of view to you.

If I didn't understand that we held differing perspectives we wouldn't be differing...it would be problematic to try.

 

[patrick jane]

Yes. That makes him a big risk for international trade, particularly after Brexit

:nono:

 

[patrick jane]

...supra and prior.

I knew a guy with a Toyota Supra

 

[Stripe]

What you're suggesting is as wrong headed as decrying surgery because it increases the chances for a medical error.

No. Surgery is an entire body of practice that things relate to, just as precedent relates to justice. Precedent leads to the perversion of justice. There is no need to engage in precedent to achieve justice, while there is a need to use surgery in healthcare.

Your seatbelt analogy is better, but then I would never claim that seatbelts pervert driving. :AMR:

It might pay just to deal with what you're up against. Analogies aren't helpful.

Or, at best you can say that any additional element in a consideration increases, incrementally or otherwise, the chance for that element to be utilized errantly, which is no real argument against its use provided the benefit of the rule is greater, as it is here.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Everyone who has reasoned a point believes it to be true.

Poisoning the well is another logical fallacy.

That should go without saying.

It should go without saying, but you're failing at it.

You'll have to set out what you mean by that.

You'll have to learn to read. It's been set out. You've chopped it to pieces, ignored the spirit of the discussion and are bulldozing on with your agenda.

I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm sure you could figure it out. :thumb:

I don't have to respect a Nazi's views on Jews to take reasoned exception to it.

If you want to have a discussion with that man, you have to address what he believes and why he believes it, not bulldoze your agenda.

So I should respect and engage him instead, by calling him a pansy?

That might be part of the discussion. :idunno:

You're not very good at this, are you?

That's more your problem. Respect has a primary meaning and requires contextual or other qualification to use in a different fashion.

Then take a look at the context I've provided. :up:

If I didn't understand that we held differing perspectives we wouldn't be differing.

Equivocation. A third logical fallacy. Were you aiming for a set?

 

[Town Heretic]

No. Surgery is an entire body of practice that things relate to, just as precedent relates to justice. Precedent leads to the perversion of justice. There is no need to engage in precedent to achieve justice, while there is a need to use surgery in healthcare.

So now you're back to your initial wrong headed statement about precedent.

I'll rest on my initial response.

Your seatbelt analogy is better, but then I would never claim that seatbelts pervert driving.

The principle is the same for both and the underlying the same for precedent.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Declaration isn't proof. So until you demonstrate it, that's just you making sounds at me.

Poisoning the well is another logical fallacy.

Supra. I'm glad you found a list of fallacies, but calling them out isn't the same as making the case.

It should go without saying, but you're failing at it.

Subjective valuations aren't arguments and can't be answered by other than, "Sorry you feel that way about it."

You'll have to learn to read.

Maybe you need to write more clearly. Given I hold an undergraduate degree in English and a doctorate in the law the more reasonable conclusion is that your writing is problematic. I've noted particular examples prior.

It's been set out. You've chopped it to pieces, ignored the spirit of the discussion and are bulldozing on with your agenda.

None of that is demonstrated, only declared. None of it is true.

What's true is that I've set out your habits, subtle alterations of point, claims you won't back by reason or illustration, let alone quote. And, most importantly, all this nonsense in an effort to dodge a rebuttal you can't apparently meet with argument.

That sort of thing.

 

[Stripe]

So now you're back to your initial wrong headed statement about precedent.

I'll rest on my initial response.

The principle is the same for both and the underlying the same for precedent.

No, it's not.

Declaration isn't proof. So until you demonstrate it, that's just you making sounds at me.

Maybe you need to write more clearly. Given I hold an undergraduate degree in English and a doctorate in the law the more reasonable conclusion is that your writing is problematic. I've noted particular examples prior.

Or perhaps you're just not listening. It happens to the best of us. :idunno:

None of your ideas are demonstrated, only declared. None of them are true.

What's true is that I've set out your habits, subtle alterations of point, claims you won't back by reason or illustration, let alone quote. And, most importantly, all this nonsense in an effort to dodge a point you can't apparently meet with argument.

That sort of thing.

 

[Town Heretic]

So now you're back to your initial wrong headed statement about precedent.

I'll rest on my initial response.

No, it's not.

Declaration isn't proof. So until you demonstrate it, that's just you making sounds at me.


Or perhaps you're just not listening. It happens to the best of us. :idunno:

None of your ideas are demonstrated, only declared. None of them are true.

What's true is that I've set out your habits, subtle alterations of point, claims you won't back by reason or illustration, let alone quote. And, most importantly, all this nonsense in an effort to dodge a point you can't apparently meet with argument.

That sort of thing.

I think nearly all that is you just parroting me without actually making the case for any of it, unlike me.

So...I suppose I should be flattered, but I'd rather you demonstrate an understanding and make an actual argument.

Such is life.

In sum, I've set out the opinion of legal experts on the value of precedent, linked to numerous learned treatises on the subject and noted repeated evasions, alterations of his own points and other attempts by Stripe to do seemingly anything but meet the rebuttal. He remains mistaken.

 

[Stripe]

I'd rather you demonstrate an understanding and make an actual argument.

You could try reading. :idunno:

It's pretty simple.

Precedent opens the door to the perversion of justice. Cases need to be judged according to the facts surrounding that case and a verdict should be in line with what is right, not with what has happened previously.

 

[Town Heretic]

Precedent opens the door to the perversion of justice.

If you want to change your initial declaration

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

to this one you can, but it's still mistaken. Rather, at best you can say that as with any additional consideration it brings with it the potential for additional error. It doesn't inherently do any damage and, to the contrary, as a rule provides any number of important benefits to a system of justice, as argued and cited to in authority prior.

Cases need to be judged according to the facts surrounding that case and a verdict should be in line with what is right, not with what has happened previously.

What's funny about that is that, once again, you demonstrate (and given I've explained it and offered authority and links on how it actually functions that's just...odd) you don't understand how precedent functions.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hillary committed crimes and got away with them. Period.
Aside from the specifics of the FBI investigation, it is an indisputable fact that she destroyed documents while under Congressional subpoena. That is an iron clad crime.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hillary committed crimes and got away with the,m. Period.
Aside from the specifics of the FBI investigation, it is an indisputable fact that she destroyed documents while under Congressional subpoena. That is an iron clad crime.

Not nearly so clear as all that, but I'm weary of the issue. Here is an article in the Washington Examiner that looks at the efforts of all parties.

An excerpt:

"Then there is the question of whether Clinton destroyed the emails after the Benghazi committee specifically asked for them on Nov. 18, 2014. That's not clear, although it seems likely she destroyed them before Gowdy formally subpoenaed them on March 4 of this year.

...The whole convoluted story serves to underscore the limits of congressional investigations when confronted with an executive branch determined to withhold information. Administrations have routinely ignored congressional document requests in the past, in part because when it comes to subpoenas, Congress doesn't have the power of criminal prosecutors."

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Dang! I know Judge Andrew Napolitano proved how she is guilty and now I can't find it anywhere. I will, eventually.

 

[Town Heretic]

Dang! I know Judge Andrew Napolitano proved how she is guilty and now I can't find it anywhere. I will, eventually.

Might as well ask the Chair of the Republican Party for his view, given his penchant for going after Hillary, but if you find it I hope you post it. He's always entertaining.