3 ms·

If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you d

by Kranar 4y ago

If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of the institution they serve, but you should not be so certain of it without being able to present some kind of evidence. Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with conviction, but it's a further indication that your speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than there is a successful trial, they are both processes rather than outcomes.

Dylan16807 4y ago
"Successful trial" is a normal phrase and you're trying too hard to be dismissive.
- Kranar 4y ago
  Yes it's a common term when discussing clinical/medical trials, for example when testing a new drug, but it's not a common term used to describe a legal trial and a simple Google search confirms this, feel free to conduct the search yourself. A party can be successful at trial, but note here that in any given trial at least one of the two parties will be successful so it makes no sense to use "successful trial" to describe the trial itself, it only makes sense to describe one of the two parties as being successful, which is not how OP used that term. The closest thing OP could mean by "successful impeachment" is that the judge would be convicted. I am dismissive of OP's use of this word because it's a common misunderstanding of what an impeachment is. An impeachment is not a conviction and I am not claiming that a conviction would be the outcome of an impeachment. That misunderstanding is materially important to the point being made as well as an indication that OP is likely misinformed on this subject (especially when combined with the fact that he has stated he has no evidence to support to his assertion and has no desire to seek any evidence). I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone out on a statement they are sure of when they have no evidence for that assertion and make mistakes of this kind.

by Kranar 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago

"Successful trial" is a normal phrase and you're trying too hard to be dismissive.

Kranar 4y ago
Yes it's a common term when discussing clinical/medical trials, for example when testing a new drug, but it's not a common term used to describe a legal trial and a simple Google search confirms this, feel free to conduct the search yourself. A party can be successful at trial, but note here that in any given trial at least one of the two parties will be successful so it makes no sense to use "successful trial" to describe the trial itself, it only makes sense to describe one of the two parties as being successful, which is not how OP used that term. The closest thing OP could mean by "successful impeachment" is that the judge would be convicted. I am dismissive of OP's use of this word because it's a common misunderstanding of what an impeachment is. An impeachment is not a conviction and I am not claiming that a conviction would be the outcome of an impeachment. That misunderstanding is materially important to the point being made as well as an indication that OP is likely misinformed on this subject (especially when combined with the fact that he has stated he has no evidence to support to his assertion and has no desire to seek any evidence). I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone out on a statement they are sure of when they have no evidence for that assertion and make mistakes of this kind.