5 ms·

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hurt. If you cannot fight with your head then you really should not fight at all. You will very likely lose. You might get hurt, and you might get hurt badly. Politics ain't beanbag. Three. If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

newbie12 14y ago
Ortiz is an Obama Administration appointee who wants to run for the Massachusetts governorship. She's making this argument to try to salvage her political career...it isn't a courtroom argument and it will be easy for her to trip up, she doesn't understand the dynamics of this firestorm.
- chmike 14y ago
  As a foreigner (French) I'm surprised that Americans apparently don't get that mixing a career in politic with a career in justice is the open door to abuse, demagogy or conflicts of interests. This should not be allowed or even possible.
  - berkay 14y ago
    It is indeed very different than the rest of the world. In US, not only careers in politics and judicial system often mix, but often career in the judicial system IS career in politics directly. Many of the high level positions, district attorneys, judges (not federal) are elected positions, hence by definition political.
  - toyg 14y ago
    Note that the UK government is currently in the process of adopting such policies. If they're successful, look for this sort of arrangement to be proposed in other European countries as "reforms".
    - simonh 14y ago
      I didn't like the sound of that when I first heard about it. Now I am dead set against it. Politics and the justice system have no business being connected like this in any way. The system is so horribly compromised in the US it's hard to see how it can be meaningfully fixed. What a mess.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    We understand it some. It is very, very rare for a judge to join the legislative or executive branches. I can't think of an example at all. However, people moving between legislative and executive branches of the government is pretty common. State legislators become governors, governors become federal legislators, federal legislators run for president. In the US, prosecutors are part of the executive branch. That's because their job is to represent the state. They are supposed to seek justice, but in the context of an adversarial system. Judges are nominally neutral umpires; prosecutors battle with defense attorneys. Both sorts of attorneys are expected to fight vigorously but fairly for their side. So the burden of fairness mainly falls on the system and the judges, not the partisans on either side. But yes, that does produce a conflict of interest when deciding what crimes to prosecute. They have an incentive to pick cases that benefit both the state and themselves.
tptacek 14y ago
So might makes right?
- chernevik 14y ago
  No. You cannot overcome Might by convincing it to be Right. Not reliably. You overcome Might with Might. If you are Right, that actually increases your strength. But you still have to win. You still have to fight. That means strategy and preparation and readiness for loss. Anyone thinking anything else isn't thinking, they're dreaming. They're going lose, and the higher the stakes the more they'll get hurt.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Which brings even more headaches when it comes to US (hegemonic) supremacy. Who would disempower them? What would they replace it with? The sort of people who could responsibly do this are not the sort of people who would push it forward with enough force to do it successfully.
- fleitz 14y ago
  In the philosophic sense, no! In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely. The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along. The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US. Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.
  - argv_empty 14y ago
    In your post, I see a lot of examples of why might makes might, but that's hardly new information.
honzzz 14y ago
> One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. This becomes very tricky when you have the power to enforce your opinions on other people. I think that knowing the letter of the law is not enough and people who work as judges or prosecutors should also have profound sense of justice - without it, any law can be twisted and tortured into unjust persecution when there is a will. Even the best humanly possible law is not immune to that. It's always easy to find a stick when you really want to beat the dog. The way I see it, if Cameron Ortiz were to prosecute herself the same way she apparently prosecuted others, she would be facing death penalty right now. But I'm sure she would be offered some 'acceptable' deal.
- chernevik 14y ago
  I'm making a tricky point. I certainly don't mean we should concede someone's opinion. We can and should disagree and argue and seek to persuade. But there is a huge difference between "you are wrong because x, y and z", and "you simply shouldn't think that in the first place."
jacquesm 14y ago
> If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about. Some choice samples: Nixon: I'm not a crook. Oliver North lying to congress and many many others besides. Officials at all levels make falsifiable claims all the time and sometimes they trip themselves up. Ortiz is under extreme pressure at the moment and very likely to trip herself up.
- mattmaroon 14y ago
  Maybe, but they don't make ones that can be proven via a simple email. They do it when they think there's a very real chance they'll not be caught.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Actually, email was exactly what tripped up Oliver North. Even getting rid of incriminating emails is worse than keeping them for inspection. North and John Poindexter (sp?) exchanged emails, deleted them when they realized they were in hot water and those emails were subsequently recovered.
    - mattmaroon 14y ago
      Well, people treat email a little differently now than in 1986.
    - woah 14y ago
      Wow, didn't know they had that back then. I thought everyone was still on text messages.

newbie12 14y ago

Ortiz is an Obama Administration appointee who wants to run for the Massachusetts governorship. She's making this argument to try to salvage her political career...it isn't a courtroom argument and it will be easy for her to trip up, she doesn't understand the dynamics of this firestorm.

chmike 14y ago
As a foreigner (French) I'm surprised that Americans apparently don't get that mixing a career in politic with a career in justice is the open door to abuse, demagogy or conflicts of interests. This should not be allowed or even possible.
- berkay 14y ago
  It is indeed very different than the rest of the world. In US, not only careers in politics and judicial system often mix, but often career in the judicial system IS career in politics directly. Many of the high level positions, district attorneys, judges (not federal) are elected positions, hence by definition political.
- toyg 14y ago
  Note that the UK government is currently in the process of adopting such policies. If they're successful, look for this sort of arrangement to be proposed in other European countries as "reforms".
  - simonh 14y ago
    I didn't like the sound of that when I first heard about it. Now I am dead set against it. Politics and the justice system have no business being connected like this in any way. The system is so horribly compromised in the US it's hard to see how it can be meaningfully fixed. What a mess.
- wpietri 14y ago
  We understand it some. It is very, very rare for a judge to join the legislative or executive branches. I can't think of an example at all. However, people moving between legislative and executive branches of the government is pretty common. State legislators become governors, governors become federal legislators, federal legislators run for president. In the US, prosecutors are part of the executive branch. That's because their job is to represent the state. They are supposed to seek justice, but in the context of an adversarial system. Judges are nominally neutral umpires; prosecutors battle with defense attorneys. Both sorts of attorneys are expected to fight vigorously but fairly for their side. So the burden of fairness mainly falls on the system and the judges, not the partisans on either side. But yes, that does produce a conflict of interest when deciding what crimes to prosecute. They have an incentive to pick cases that benefit both the state and themselves.

tptacek 14y ago

So might makes right?

chernevik 14y ago
No. You cannot overcome Might by convincing it to be Right. Not reliably. You overcome Might with Might. If you are Right, that actually increases your strength. But you still have to win. You still have to fight. That means strategy and preparation and readiness for loss. Anyone thinking anything else isn't thinking, they're dreaming. They're going lose, and the higher the stakes the more they'll get hurt.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Which brings even more headaches when it comes to US (hegemonic) supremacy. Who would disempower them? What would they replace it with? The sort of people who could responsibly do this are not the sort of people who would push it forward with enough force to do it successfully.
fleitz 14y ago
In the philosophic sense, no! In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely. The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along. The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US. Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.
- argv_empty 14y ago
  In your post, I see a lot of examples of why might makes might, but that's hardly new information.

honzzz 14y ago

> One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. This becomes very tricky when you have the power to enforce your opinions on other people. I think that knowing the letter of the law is not enough and people who work as judges or prosecutors should also have profound sense of justice - without it, any law can be twisted and tortured into unjust persecution when there is a will. Even the best humanly possible law is not immune to that. It's always easy to find a stick when you really want to beat the dog. The way I see it, if Cameron Ortiz were to prosecute herself the same way she apparently prosecuted others, she would be facing death penalty right now. But I'm sure she would be offered some 'acceptable' deal.

chernevik 14y ago
I'm making a tricky point. I certainly don't mean we should concede someone's opinion. We can and should disagree and argue and seek to persuade. But there is a huge difference between "you are wrong because x, y and z", and "you simply shouldn't think that in the first place."

jacquesm 14y ago

> If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about. Some choice samples: Nixon: I'm not a crook. Oliver North lying to congress and many many others besides. Officials at all levels make falsifiable claims all the time and sometimes they trip themselves up. Ortiz is under extreme pressure at the moment and very likely to trip herself up.

mattmaroon 14y ago
Maybe, but they don't make ones that can be proven via a simple email. They do it when they think there's a very real chance they'll not be caught.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Actually, email was exactly what tripped up Oliver North. Even getting rid of incriminating emails is worse than keeping them for inspection. North and John Poindexter (sp?) exchanged emails, deleted them when they realized they were in hot water and those emails were subsequently recovered.
  - mattmaroon 14y ago
    Well, people treat email a little differently now than in 1986.
  - woah 14y ago
    Wow, didn't know they had that back then. I thought everyone was still on text messages.