RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
Conan
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Two miracles
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Author Thread
piln
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK
   

Ah, sorry, looks like I got my wires crossed again, I misunderinterpretated the bit of your post that I quoted. I probably need new glasses and/or brain parts. Okay then... erm... hope you enjoyed your chicken!
Post Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:56 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

Let me clarify some things for you, piln, since you wanted an explaination.

Nov. 9th - Initial machine count shows Bush won.
Nov. 11th - Machine recount shows Bush won again.
Follow several weeks of legal wrangling. On Nov 26th (Florida Supreme Court deadline), Bush is declared the winner. Gore refuses to let three recounts that proved Bush won to stop him from suing to become President. Circuit court rolls it's eyes at Gore. Bush appeals to the Supreme Court to put an end to this. The Supreme Court puts an end to it. Later on, a recount done by several news networks shows that Bush still won. Sorry, but 4/4 times is enough evidence for me to say that Bush won.

As for your accusation concerning the Justices, let's break it down shall we:
Stephen Breyer - appointed by Clinton - Dissent
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - appointed by Clinton - Dissent
John Paul Stevens - appointed by Ford - Dissent
David Hackett Souter - appointed by Bush, Sr - Dissent (So much for the "Daddy got him the job" theory)
Clarence Thomas - appointed by Bush, Sr - Agreed
Anthony M. Kennedy - appointed by Reagan - Agreed
Sandra Day O'Connor - appointed by Reagan - Agreed
Antonin Scalia - Reagan - appointed by Agreed
William Hubbs Rehnquist - appointed by Nixon - Agreed

Concerning the "conflicts of interest", let's put it in context shall we? Read it. The most amusing fact is that one of Scalia's sons hadn't even joined the law firm that one of Bush's lawyers belongs to. Conflict of interest, my eye.

And as for Justice O'Connor's comments. She just said that she wasn't going to retire anytime soon if a Democrat took office. That's hardly a "Good Lord, I hope Gore doesn't win, he's an idiot!" Even with a Republican in office, she hasn't retired yet.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:53 am
 View user's profile
piln
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK
   

quote:
Originally posted by Val
Let me clarify some things for you, piln, since you wanted an explaination.


Thank you.

Regarding the recounts, and the initial count: obviously, none of them address the sizeable number of voters who were unlawfully barred from casting their votes. I'm saying that the election process was perverted by blocking a significant number of votes. Based on all the information I've taken in, my current opinion is that this perversion was intentional - that can be debated, but I don't think there's any doubt that it took place. Therefore, the number of votes cast is a seriously flawed piece of data when trying to assess whether or not fraud took place, is it not? Those votes only give you the result after all those other potential votes have been skimmed off. What we're trying to get to the bottom of here is why they were skimmed off in the first place.

Now onto the Justices. Val, your source, if read with an open mind, is simply a couple of statements from two legal ethics experts - one of my sources has similar, but opposing, statements of opinion from similarly-qualified people (when I get home I'll edit this post and add the appropriate information). So what, does that mean a stalemate ? What we need to do here is not simply rely on others to tell us the answers, but tackle the hard work of thinking for ourselves, using all available sources to inform us. The bottom line is in that CNN article:

Federal law requires "any justice" to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." And it also requires judges to step aside when a close relative "is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding" or "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Now, two of Justice Scalia's sons worked at law firms that represented the Bush administration during the recount process. It doesn't matter that one of them wasn't due to start work until after the whole affair, his job there was already secured. IMO, it is quite ludicrous to reasonably discount the possibility of Scalia's sons being advantaged by a Bush win following a pro-Bush decision from Scalia. Looking at it objectively, how could you reach such a conclusion? If Scalia had no interest, one way or the other, in how the decision went then there's no logical reason for him not to step aside, or at the very least mention it. So the US Supreme Court has logisitical difficulties when judges remove themselves from cases, compared to other courts? Gee, I think this is an important enough matter to warrant the hassle, don't you?

Anyway, Eugene Scalia was, a few months later, nominated by Bush for the position of Solicitor of Labour. Now, for me, this little nugget of information is unnecessary, as the above question ("could a relative be advantaged?") is easy to answer objectively ("yes"). But it does clearly illustrate, with the benefit of hindsight, that such advantage could have resulted, and that any reasonable consideration of the question should have reached the same conclusion.

As for O'Connor, that's not all she said. When informed that early exit polls indicated a Gore victory in Florida, she said that was "terrible" (according to Newsweek among others).

Federal law requires "any justice" to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."


--------------

[edit] OK, here's all that stuff I meant to add about a week ago :

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law."
--John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Dissent Opinion on Florida Vote Recount.

"The Supreme Court decision effectively handing the presidency to George W. Bush reveals the intensely partisan nature of the Court's current majority. The Court, to be sure, has always been political, but rarely as blatantly as today. Nor are there many precedents for Justices trampling on their own previous convictions to reach a predetermined conclusion."
–Prof. Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University


"By stopping the vote count in Florida, the United States Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not just judges of a court of law. We are professors at 137 American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges."

-Statement of 637 Law Professors lawprofs@the-rule-of-law.com

"[The Supreme Court majority in Bush v. Gore has] made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor."

-Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School

and some other folks I don't have quotes for:

Vincent Bugliosi, author and former LA District Attorney
Jamin Raskin, law professor, American University
Ed Baker, law professor, University of Pennsylvania

[/edit]


Last edited by piln on Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:14 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

Until someone actually comes up with a list of all the people who were disenfranchised, the vast majority of people aren't going to care.

quote:
Originally posted by piln
Federal law requires "any justice" to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." And it also requires judges to step aside when a close relative "is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding" or "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

And you left this part out:

The policy states they will step aside from cases when a relative is a partner in a firm handling that case, unless the firm has provided to the court "written assurances that income from Supreme Court litigation is, on a permanent basis, excluded from our relatives' partnership shares."

Those assurances were provided. Just like they have been for the six other justices who have spouses, children or other close relatives who are lawyers. His sons were not working on the case and would recieve no benefits from their firm. Therefore, since his sons were not involved in the case and would not recieve any benefit from their firm which had lawyers working on the case, there is no conflict of interest.

There is a good reason for him to not step aside. Two come to mind, deadlock and the fact that he didn't have a conflict of interest. Deadlock doesn't do anyone any good. And the fact that he had no conflict of interest means that he was qualified to participate in the case.

quote:
Originally posted by piln
Anyway, Eugene Scalia was, a few months later, nominated by Bush for the position of Solicitor of Labour.

So what? Ever consider the fact that he's qualified for the job?


quote:
Originally posted by piln
As for O'Connor, that's not all she said. When informed that early exit polls indicated a Gore victory in Florida, she said that was "terrible" (according to Newsweek among others).

People love to take things out of context. Newsweek not excluded. She had a little "woe is me" moment and was probably being sarcastic. The bare bones of what she said is that she wasn't going to retire anytime soon. Boo hoo.
You're blowing it out of proportion. It wouldn't surprise me if all of the justices had similar reactions when they heard that Bush or Gore had won. "Shoot, I have to stay alive for 4 more years! So much for retiring!"
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:24 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

quote:
Originally by Val
Until someone actually comes up with a list of all the people who were disenfranchised, the vast majority of people aren't going to care.
They could have a list of each individual who has been disenfranchised, and no one would still care. All that matters is who has the power to make the decision. Besides, there has been another election since then and George Bush clearly won that one.
quote:
Originally by Val
His sons were not working on the case and would recieve no benefits from their firm. Therefore, since his sons were not involved in the case and would not recieve any benefit from their firm which had lawyers working on the case, there is no conflict of interest.
Val, you know better than that. I am not trying to say that the Justices had their integrity compromised, but there were some comflicts there. If a person works in a firm there are a thousand ways to compensate them for an off-the-record favor. So, to say that there will be no compensation is wishful thinking unless you have proof that there is not. (The burden being on you to prove that there is not.)At the very least he will likely get the benefit of a doubt because of who he is.
quote:
Originally by Val
People love to take things out of context. Newsweek not excluded. She had a little "woe is me" moment and was probably being sarcastic.
You can't know that unless you were there and heard it. I don't care who she wanted to win. She had power to make a decision for whatever reason she wanted. That is all that matters. But you can't assume she is being sarcastic without reason. She either said it was terrible or she did not. If we like what she said, fine; If we don't like what she said, tough.

What difference does it make now. George has 4 more years, in spite of me and others, so we should just accept it and deal.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:47 am
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
They could have a list of each individual who has been disenfranchised, and no one would still care.

I would.
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Val, you know better than that. I am not trying to say that the Justices had their integrity compromised, but there were some comflicts there. If a person works in a firm there are a thousand ways to compensate them for an off-the-record favor. So, to say that there will be no compensation is wishful thinking unless you have proof that there is not. (The burden being on you to prove that there is not.)At the very least he will likely get the benefit of a doubt because of who he is.

No, Darrius, you're the one who should know better. Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of it? From the way you're acting, you apparently haven't. It's the way our justice system works. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulders of the accuser. If you accuse someone of wrong doing, then you're the one who has to prove it.
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
You can't know that unless you were there and heard it.

Then you can't know it either.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:58 pm
 View user's profile
piln
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK
   

I'm finally getting round to adding those references to my last post... a few problems accessing the Dot from home

quote:
Originally posted by Val
Until someone actually comes up with a list of all the people who were disenfranchised, the vast majority of people aren't going to care.


OK... that's an unusual point, and I believe you're probably right, but it has no bearing on the right or wrong of the situation. Just out of interest, do you believe that this disenfranchisement took place (due to the botched voter purge, whatever the motivation)?

quote:
And you left this part out:

The policy states they will step aside from cases when a relative is a partner in a firm handling that case, unless the firm has provided to the court "written assurances that income from Supreme Court litigation is, on a permanent basis, excluded from our relatives' partnership shares."


I left it out because that policy only addresses a small part of what is asked by the US Supreme Court's rules. Examine the careful wording of the CNN article which says this policy is "aimed at meeting the high court's written conflict of interest standards" and understand that the policy addresses only "income from Supreme Court litigation." Does that address everything required by the judicial code of conduct? The answer is clearly "no," and the fact that this policy has been signed by Scalia et al proves or disproves nothing that's being questioned here. This issue:

"C. Disqualification.

(1) Disqualification must be entered in a proceeding by any judge whose impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(d) The judge or spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding . . . ."


...is not addressed by the above policy, and again, if you are to honestly answer the question "did Scalia know that one/both of his sons had an interest that could be substantially afftected by the outcome of the proceeding?" it is impossible to answer "no." The fact that Eugene Scalia's interests were substantially afftected after the ruling (regardless of the reason) is undeniable proof that his interests could have been affected! Therefore, according to the wording of the code of conduct that justices of the US Supreme Court are expected to follow, and not a seperate declaration, he clearly was conflicted. [edit: er, that's "he" meaning Justice Antonin Scalia, not son Eugene... obviously ]

And to answer your other question, yes I did consider the possibility that Eugene Scalia was nominated purely on merit, as I considered the possibility that his nomination was a "returned favour." Both are plausible. Unfortunately, it's only the second possibility (and it only needs to be a possibility, not a proven fact) that affects this discussion.

Right, onto O' Connor. You say she was probably being sarcastic and that her comment was taken out of context... pretty speculative, no? There's absolutely nothing in any of the accounts I've read that indiciates she was not serious, and I don't see how she's being quoted out of context here. All we know for sure is what she said, and what her husband said about her retirement plans to quailfy her comment. Here's how I see it: given her position, she surely knows the impartiality expected of her, so to allow herself to make such a comment in public, I'd guess she feels pretty strongly about it. Remember, at this point she actually thinks Gore's won, so I have no reason to doubt this is her heartfelt reaction. Then her husband points out that she will not retire unless a Republican can name her successor... OK, my confidence in her impartiality was already shaky, but now with this new piece of information, how can I trust her to make an objective decision when I know that decision will be bound up with her career choices for the next 4-8 years? Is it reasonable for me to question her impartiality? Of course it is, and that is exactly the criteria that states she should have recused herself.

Now onto the decision itself. All of this polite to-and-fro about whether or not certain justices were conflicted would really mean nothing if the ruling was fair and just. But it wasn't. It simply defies common sense and established legal practise. The majority hung their argument on the equal protection clause, stating that it was violated by the lack of a uniform standard for the Florida counties' recounts. You and I both know there is only one logical path to take from there... yet they didn't take it. They acknowledged doubt in the entire vote-counting process in the state of Florida... then rather than address it in any way, they froze the recount and handed the election to one candidate. Now, as far as I can see, opinions don't come into this - there is no logic behind this course of action. It's a contradiction in terms. Then there's the decision to only apply this ruling to this case, something the US Supreme Court had never done before - if the majority were happy with their ruling and believed it sound and just, then why on earth didn't they set a precedent, as in every other case in US Supreme Court history? Then there's the total failure to address the botched voter purge - how could they believe that justice was served when they sidestepped this whole issue? Again, correcting this would have taken time, but I think the cirumstances warranted it, don't you?

And, of course, the US Supreme Court's decision isn't the most important part of this argument either, IMO; I believe the voter purge is of more importance. Everything I've read, heard and seen on this subject tells me that this was a deliberate and successful effort to pervert the course and outcome of the election, and I find it absolutely staggering that nothing was done about it (barring the case the NAACP won against Harris and DBT).

Now, looking at your exchange with Darrius, Val, I think it's interesting that you bring up the "innocent til proven guilty" argument. This is the ideal we expect to be adhered to in your country and mine, but Darrius was correct in this particular case: the US Supreme Court's rules clearly indicate that the possibility of a conflict of interest is all that's needed for a justice to stand down. Such doubts undeniably existed, yet the judges in question neither recused themselves, nor even mentioned the circumstances so that those doubts could be proven groundless; I honestly can't see how this is proper conduct. It's also interesting because it's the exact opposite of what happened to those illegally-purged voters - they were told they could not vote, and if they wanted that right returned, they had to prove they were not felons. No law in your country justifies this treatment.

Oh, and I agree with Darrius' view (which he's stated a few times) that there's probably very little that can be done about it. I just find it rather bewildering that there's still debate over whether it happened or not. And anyway, given my recent overdosing on GTA3, the mental exercise is welcome.
Post Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:55 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

Before I go any further into the preceeding arguments, I need to address one tangent point.
quote:
By Val
No, Darrius, you're the one who should know better. Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of it? From the way you're acting, you apparently haven't. It's the way our justice system works. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulders of the accuser. If you accuse someone of wrong doing, then you're the one who has to prove it.
Val, I am sure you have sparkling moral character, and unshakeable integrity by your definition and even by my definition, which is much more stringent. I am also sure that most people are not like that. You can not go through life avoiding common sense and ignoring obvious alliances waiting on unassailable evidence. In the long run people do what is in their own best interest, provided they are aware of what that action is. I have seen enough lies, broken promises, ridiculous positions, and double-talk to prove that.

Sure I have heard of innocent until proven guilty. It is a wonderful ideal that we strive for in the justice system of our counry. However, it is not, repeat, IS NOT, the way it really is. In reality, by the time you are charged with a crime the burden is on you to prove you are innocent.

By the way, who do you think is more likely to escape jail time, 1) A poor, innocent man, or 2) A rich, guilty one.

Back to the point, I am not talking about what can be proven in court. I have already said that can not be proven. I am talking about using your common sense to figure out what is really going on. If a man's employers is about to get a big favor from a man's father, the man is going to get a benefit from that. In the least case he will get an auidence from bosses that otherwise would not listen to him. He could also get other more profitable assignments that he would not have gotten, or any number of other, perfectly untraceable benefits.

About the conflict of interest.
What is a conflict of interest? When one party in a case has and interest that runs contrary to the interest that he gets from his job. In the case of Scalia, there were two interests.
1. He has an interest as Supreme Court Justice to see that he makes an impartial decision based on the facts at hand.
2. As a father he has an interest in the welfare and success of his children.

I know why don't we have a trial to prove guilt or innocence once and for all. What, It's up to the accused conflicted parties to grant a trial. Oh well, I guess that must mean they are innocent then.


quote:
By Val
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
You can't know that unless you were there and heard it.
Then you can't know it either.
Right, I can't know it. What I can do though is take it to mean what it says. It is not wise for me to interpret the meaning of what people actually say in order to fit my view of them. Unless I have reason to believe they are being sarcastic, I have to assume they mean what they say and say what they mean...

...Even if they mean to lie.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:25 am
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:59 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.