6 ms·

> You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead support

> You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. No I'm not. I'm taking the facts as they're presented by the AP (which is famously not sympathetic to this administration) and saying that nothing in the facts that I'm seeing here in this specific case serves as evidence of a constitutional crisis. This is a straightforward case of obstruction: either she did the things that are alleged or she didn't. If she did, it's obstruction regardless of who is in the White House, and we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't! We have better litmus tests, better evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, and better cases to get up in arms about. If we choose our martyrs carelessly we're wasting political capital that could be spent showing those still on the fence the many actual, straightforward cases of overreach.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daseiner1 1y ago
> we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't! this is not the standard of guilt and i think you know that i also think you know that this is merely the latest incident in an extended, obvious campaign to override the judiciary.
- lolinder 1y ago
  It's not about the standard of guilt in court, it's about political capital and effective rhetoric. There are so many cases where the Trump administration has flagrantly violated rule of law. Why would we waste time fighting them in the court of public opinion on a case where things currently appear to be open and shut in the other direction? When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out. In ux design this is called alert fatigue, and it matters in politics too.
  - daseiner1 1y ago
    > When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out. those cases are the least important to the defense of due process rights. but i'll concede that you're likely correct at the level of the broader populace given that our civic education is an embarrassment and has been for decades.
frognumber 1y ago
The truth is somewhere in the middle. There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways. The bargain struct was it would go into secretive judicial oversight channels. There is a strong case to be made for obstruction of justice, and an equally strong case to be made about her making an error in her professional capacity as a judge and a government employee (which grants a level of immunity). Police officers, judges, soldiers, etc. make mistakes, but they generally don't go to jail for them because (even corruption aside) everyone makes mistakes. In some jobs, mistakes can and do have severe consequences up to and including people dying. If that led to prison, no one sane would take those jobs. In any sane universe, it'd be fair to say she screwed up, and then the FBI also screwed up arresting her. I think the FBI screwed up more, since their mistake was premeditated, whereas she was put on the spot. I do agree with your fundamental point of fatigue. This is not something anyone has a moral high ground to hang their flag on without looking bad.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  What was the honest mistake the judge made?
  - frognumber 1y ago
    I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times. Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents. Prior cases seem to support that: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-officer-charged-obstructing-ice-arrest https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-... Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line. Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases. One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.
pyuser583 1y ago
Is the AP just reciting facts from the FBI. Anytime the “fact” ends with “said John Doe,” the “fact” is merely a claim by John Doe. Verification of claims is extremely rare. Especially for breaking news like this. I haven’t gone down this rabbit hole. But reporters mostly just recite interviews.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daseiner1 1y ago

> we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't! this is not the standard of guilt and i think you know that i also think you know that this is merely the latest incident in an extended, obvious campaign to override the judiciary.

lolinder 1y ago
It's not about the standard of guilt in court, it's about political capital and effective rhetoric. There are so many cases where the Trump administration has flagrantly violated rule of law. Why would we waste time fighting them in the court of public opinion on a case where things currently appear to be open and shut in the other direction? When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out. In ux design this is called alert fatigue, and it matters in politics too.
- daseiner1 1y ago
  > When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out. those cases are the least important to the defense of due process rights. but i'll concede that you're likely correct at the level of the broader populace given that our civic education is an embarrassment and has been for decades.

frognumber 1y ago

The truth is somewhere in the middle. There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways. The bargain struct was it would go into secretive judicial oversight channels. There is a strong case to be made for obstruction of justice, and an equally strong case to be made about her making an error in her professional capacity as a judge and a government employee (which grants a level of immunity). Police officers, judges, soldiers, etc. make mistakes, but they generally don't go to jail for them because (even corruption aside) everyone makes mistakes. In some jobs, mistakes can and do have severe consequences up to and including people dying. If that led to prison, no one sane would take those jobs. In any sane universe, it'd be fair to say she screwed up, and then the FBI also screwed up arresting her. I think the FBI screwed up more, since their mistake was premeditated, whereas she was put on the spot. I do agree with your fundamental point of fatigue. This is not something anyone has a moral high ground to hang their flag on without looking bad.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
What was the honest mistake the judge made?
- frognumber 1y ago
  I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times. Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents. Prior cases seem to support that: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-officer-charged-obstructing-ice-arrest https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-... Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line. Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases. One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.

pyuser583 1y ago

Is the AP just reciting facts from the FBI. Anytime the “fact” ends with “said John Doe,” the “fact” is merely a claim by John Doe. Verification of claims is extremely rare. Especially for breaking news like this. I haven’t gone down this rabbit hole. But reporters mostly just recite interviews.