Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   BlueDouche 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 (bluedouche@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2023 09:41:40 JST BlueDouche 🇺🇸 🇨🇦

   Are the Trump Case Judges objective; or in the bag?

   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2023 09:41:39 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     While she has 1A rights, I'd still move to depose her for the purposes of determining whether her husband has the same opinion or whether he's discussed the case with her. This would have to be heard by a different judge. If she hides behind the marital-communication privilege, I'd move to disqualify the husband-judge and use the invocation of the privilege as a ground for disqualification in this sense.... by allowing the privilege, the state has deprived the defendant of his right to due process. The privilege is legal, but the defendant is similarly entitled to rely upon the deprivation of his right to due process and the judge must be disqualified.
     
     Here in California, such a theory is applied in the case where an attorney is sued for malpractice arising from acts that occurred at mediation. Because mediation communications and acts are competely privileged, the attorney is derived of a defense because he can't talk about what happened at mediation. Thus, his right to due process is compromised due to state policy and the case must be dismissed.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2023 11:02:31 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Dr. Btc
     I agree. I'm living it first hand. California appellate courts have tended to make conclusion based decisions in recent times because there's no conservative judges who can write a dissent. The threat of an embarrassing dissenting opinion can force the majority to change position or to not take a position or to clarify their position to match existing jurisprudence.
     
     Unfortunately, jurisprudence gets fucked by the lack of split courts. The corpus of opinions in general ends up containing contradictory rules and eventually the entire system becomes unstable. Throwing stare decisis out the window is the gateway to the banana republic.
   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Btc (drbtc@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2023 11:02:32 JST Dr. Btc

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     My non legal viewpoint is that generations of legal precedent is being thrown out to make it clear that no one better get any ideas about populism. So the system looking obviously rigged serves a purpose to send that message across the political spectrum.