2 ms·

Ofc the tone is aggressive. You want a judge to just say 'oh well' when their orders are not followed?

by tokai 1y ago

SilverElfin 1y ago
A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.
- nekusar 1y ago
  Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances. I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances. No true Scotsman > Tells me what I need to know about you. Ad hominem - But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again. The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election. But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
    - blooalien 1y ago
      > ... because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. fascism /făsh′ĭz″əm/ noun A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. ^^^ Sorry, but The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition (and just about every other English language dictionary, I suspect) begs to differ. There is indeed a very clear definition for that word.
- jcranmer 1y ago
  The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order. Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Agree.

Ofc the tone is aggressive. You want a judge to just say 'oh well' when their orders are not followed?

by tokai 1y ago

Ofc the tone is aggressive. You want a judge to just say 'oh well' when their orders are not followed?

A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.

nekusar 1y ago
Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances. I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  > Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances. No true Scotsman > Tells me what I need to know about you. Ad hominem - But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again. The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election. But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > ... because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. fascism /făsh′ĭz″əm/ noun A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. ^^^ Sorry, but The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition (and just about every other English language dictionary, I suspect) begs to differ. There is indeed a very clear definition for that word.
jcranmer 1y ago
The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order. Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
mcphage 1y ago
> A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Agree.