Oh and it would be nice if we had a media that actually functioned to act as a check on these actors. But we don't. Instead we have the propaganda arm of the 2 political parties, which leaves us with the scrappy outsiders and the internet as the great leveller (which is why the censorship moves of the big tech companies are very scary).
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Crush is always here to help where I can. I'm for non violence btw. I have no party affiliation, just American and just me, myself and my constitution. I have no weapons except my mouth, my words and my opinion. My wife and kids can speak for themselves. Man I tell you Grace, some people, when they get caught cheating, they get really defensive or are just flat out living a lie and living in denial.
Yeah, the laws of this country are fairly irrelevant when it comes to a pandemic, WTF. Are we talking about the same pandemic that 99.8% of our population survived and 99.5% were never hospitalized for?
I think your response probably illustrates even better than I could have put it, why we will never agree.
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.
They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.
What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
Just FYI, judges don't determine public health policy, or even the effectiveness of public health policy. They only determine the legality of policies when requested by another party.
Hüsker Dü
DA
I love when you nail them and they start squirming like exposed worms.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Telling who one quotes.
Those who predict the pandemic is going away will eventually be right, and they will hope we forget how many died after they first predicted it.
His downfall makes the quote all the more poignant
Nah....we've just been honest with people that once China did this, a certain amount of death was unavoidable and was always baked in. We've just been arguing about the margins, both in terms of lives and economics.
Why did you think I was referring to you?
You have a tendency to conflate us all in 1 boat (as we do you)
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.
The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
Chelsea dad g09
SILVER
Wow.
I was referring to t and his closest minions, those that supported his covid hoax, over by April, 15 dead, bullshit. I don't think you are in that group. Are you?
The way expert testimony is allowed in our courts is ludicrous. Each side hires a qualified expert whose testimony is rehearsed to support their position. I was a juror in a civil trial where the expert hired by the plaintiff calculated a damage of several hundred thousand dollars. The defense expert calculated a damage of zero. Soon after the trial, we were sharing a table at a country club dinner with a lawyer. After I told him my story about experts, he named both of them.
There are two types of expert witnesses. There are those that are experts at being expert witnesses, and those that are experts in their field that give expert testimony. The former don't typically last very long. Legitimate experts understand that it takes many years to develop your reputation and credibility and one case to destroy it,
Your trial is an example of one and not a very good one at that. In a case where only several hundred thousand dollars is involved, your likely not talking about real reputable experts and instead are getting someone who was paid for a predetermined opinion.
That was more or less what the lawyer at our table said: "It's their business".
I don't think you understand fundamentally how our court system works. Judges typically rule on matters of law. Decisions on the credibility and preponderance of evidence (which is when expert witnesses are typically used) are usually made by juries.
They aren’t ruling on the science. That’s stuff like patent law for which there is a separate bar. This is the implication of rights: what the constitution says. The judges determine the legal principles at stake...if congress doesn’t like it or doesn’t think the science supports a particular ruling they are free to adjust the applicable law or constitutional provision. Judges aren’t supposed to inject their own knowledge into their rulings about things other than the law.