3 ms·

That's all well and good procedually. I think the objection is not about the technicalities of the due process but the manner in which it seems to currently be

That's all well and good procedually. I think the objection is not about the technicalities of the due process but the manner in which it seems to currently be optimized - results wise. It is very true as you say that it was easier to prosecute for wire fraud with evidence available so that's what they did. Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think?

CoastalCoder 4y ago
> Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? I like the sentiment, but my impression is that an entrenched legal system like the U.S.'s is neigh impossible to rework shy of a major revolution. But I'm certainly no student of history or law. Can someone who is weigh in?
- recuter 4y ago
  To me it seems that the practical application of the US legal system appears to be wildly evolving in all manner of directions lately rather than ossifying. But I am also not a law student. The populace certainly appears to be preoccupied with other areas of focus than what is discussed here I'll grant you that. Otherwise I don't really get why things couldn't be different. Perhaps that's what you mean. Bummer.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Ultimately, courts follow the laws as written by Congress or the relevant legislative bodies. The recent decades of partisan gridlock are putting judges in uncomfortable positions.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    IMO that is part of the problem. The courts often even bend backwards to follow the laws as written by the legislature rather than follow the constitution. You end up with insane interpretations, such as a federal law allowing prosecution of someone growing locally sourced pot seeds and smoking the product somehow being interpreted as interstate commerce. Another utterly bizarre one is merely the act of walking within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in hand is considered interstate commerce under the gun free school zone act. No matter if the act of was completely devoid of commercial nature.
zeruch 4y ago
"That's all well and good procedually." Which is all I was referring to. "Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? " Doesn't matter what I think at this juncture. The lawyers did what they could effectively do. You can be 'right' at some normative level, you can be effective at a practical one. Rarely in life do you get both with any consistency.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? I like the sentiment, but my impression is that an entrenched legal system like the U.S.'s is neigh impossible to rework shy of a major revolution. But I'm certainly no student of history or law. Can someone who is weigh in?

recuter 4y ago
To me it seems that the practical application of the US legal system appears to be wildly evolving in all manner of directions lately rather than ossifying. But I am also not a law student. The populace certainly appears to be preoccupied with other areas of focus than what is discussed here I'll grant you that. Otherwise I don't really get why things couldn't be different. Perhaps that's what you mean. Bummer.
bobthepanda 4y ago
Ultimately, courts follow the laws as written by Congress or the relevant legislative bodies. The recent decades of partisan gridlock are putting judges in uncomfortable positions.
- notch656a 4y ago
  IMO that is part of the problem. The courts often even bend backwards to follow the laws as written by the legislature rather than follow the constitution. You end up with insane interpretations, such as a federal law allowing prosecution of someone growing locally sourced pot seeds and smoking the product somehow being interpreted as interstate commerce. Another utterly bizarre one is merely the act of walking within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in hand is considered interstate commerce under the gun free school zone act. No matter if the act of was completely devoid of commercial nature.

zeruch 4y ago

"That's all well and good procedually." Which is all I was referring to. "Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? " Doesn't matter what I think at this juncture. The lawyers did what they could effectively do. You can be 'right' at some normative level, you can be effective at a practical one. Rarely in life do you get both with any consistency.