politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No, that is not what I am saying at all. The importance her decisions have in this case as well as to the public interest are self-evident, and therefore should be reported. What I am suggesting is that there is very dangerous subtext surrounding framing her as an incompetent hack if it pre-emptively undermines the validity of her rulings both for or against the defendant. Both sides are looking to throw her under the bus at a moments notice no matter what she does, and threading that needle would be a challenge for someone with ten times her experience or tenure. The narrative foreshadowing has been quite clear in this regard, and I think we all ignore that to our own peril regardless of what side of the issue you fall on.
Let me put it to you this way: she already knows that when she rules against Trump she will be met with very real threats of violence, conversely Trump's opposition will attempt to paint her as a traitor or patsy when she rules in his favor. It is a lose/lose proposition being reinforced by a zero sum game.
Again, this is a human being, and human beings are fallible. While it is easy or convenient to suggest that every single person who accepts a legal appointment should act as the perfect visage for the judicial system by being totally dispassionate, acting with complete impunity in upholding the letter of the law, and separating themselves from their humanity in the process that just isn't realistic. Therefore, a better framework would be to attempt to influence or taint the outcome of this proceeding as little as possible while allowing the legal system to function without also combating the court of public opinion. This is also not realistic, I grant you that, but adding fuel to the fire doesn't help.
Instead, I believe the ethically justifiable position is not to feed into the media sophistry, and instead to engage with the decisions in this case solely based on their merits. This is admittedly difficult to accomplish considering most of us are not legal scholars, but it should be the goal. In doing so we can continue to bring awareness to the fact that in the real world, even in the legal arena, there are rarely issues that can be perfectly distilled down into the kind of binary black & white positions that are attractive to our evolutionary programming.
Did you read the article?
These were very basic mistakes that she made and despite your essay the article just pointed them out.
Like the media should. It’s not like they drew devil horns on her picture or are saying she’s an activist judge or anything.
Yes, I did read the article. I am speaking more generally regarding the circulating media narratives I have seen regarding her being an activist judge. That may well be the case, and I am willing to accept that if and when the evidence warrants it. I also wrote my initial "essay" as you put it in support of the OP who I believe was engaging in good faith, and therefore wished to support. After that I admit to being verbose in my responses to you, and I understand if that is not your preferred method of discourse.
Wait, so you’re just generally criticizing the media?
This isn’t to do with this article?
I subscribe to a clear and concise form of communication.
‘I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.’
Again, my initiation into this discussion was originally directed towards supporting the OP of this comment thread.
I'm going to leave it here. Thanks for being reasonable, and not antagonistic. I appreciated the discussion. Hope to see you around ✌️
Interesting point to end the conversation.