6 ms·

Sigh. This woman just doesn't get it, does she? You'd think that the public taking to pitchforks for her job would have led to some serious introspection on her

Sigh. This woman just doesn't get it, does she? You'd think that the public taking to pitchforks for her job would have led to some serious introspection on her part.

tokenizer 14y ago
If she keeps it up, she'll definitely lose any political future, as we usually don't forget things here on the web.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I've heard rumors that Massachusetts is considering allowing people who don't read HN to vote...
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    Snark aside, Aron Swartz, and in his shadow, Carmen Ortiz, have had substantial mainstream media play. The geeks are pretty connected, and while we're not the ruling oligarchy, we (to the extent this herd of cats can be labeled "we") are a significant and growing power bloc.
- manicdee 14y ago
  This will actually solidify her political future, showing that she is willing to make "the hard decisions" and pursue "what is right" in the face of harsh opposition from people demonising her and attempting to sully her name in public. Remember that most of the people who have any voice in these matters make decisions by reputation, not merit.
emkemp 14y ago
Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks she's doing the right thing?
- stfu 14y ago
  Exactly. Some people see it as confirmation of their "mission" when they face criticism.
- spigoteater 14y ago
  Like Göring?
- mpyne 14y ago
  I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic then it shouldn't be unusual to "weigh an appeal" as the logic was supposed to have been sound enough to warrant the case in the first place.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." The war on drugs is not a war between nation states. This hotel owner is a civilian and a citizen of the United States, not an enemy soldier. >Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic ... Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. > Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case? Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. E.g. "the prosecutor failed to consider the test used in this Circuit since U.S. v. Foo (2004) and therefore the charges are moot".
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. The context of the case is the war on drugs. That's the pretense for the government trying to steal his hotel, and I get the analogy. The problem is the premise. Even if everything worth trying once is worth trying twice, that doesn't do anything to prove you were right the first time, without which trying again is just compounding the error. >Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. And is that what happened in this case? Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets.
spigoteater 14y ago
She has some of the traits of a malignant narcissist, so no, she'll never get it.

Sigh. This woman just doesn't get it, does she? You'd think that the public taking to pitchforks for her job would have led to some serious introspection on her part.

tokenizer 14y ago

If she keeps it up, she'll definitely lose any political future, as we usually don't forget things here on the web.

tedunangst 14y ago
I've heard rumors that Massachusetts is considering allowing people who don't read HN to vote...
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Snark aside, Aron Swartz, and in his shadow, Carmen Ortiz, have had substantial mainstream media play. The geeks are pretty connected, and while we're not the ruling oligarchy, we (to the extent this herd of cats can be labeled "we") are a significant and growing power bloc.
manicdee 14y ago
This will actually solidify her political future, showing that she is willing to make "the hard decisions" and pursue "what is right" in the face of harsh opposition from people demonising her and attempting to sully her name in public. Remember that most of the people who have any voice in these matters make decisions by reputation, not merit.

emkemp 14y ago

Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks she's doing the right thing?

stfu 14y ago
Exactly. Some people see it as confirmation of their "mission" when they face criticism.
spigoteater 14y ago
Like Göring?
mpyne 14y ago
I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic then it shouldn't be unusual to "weigh an appeal" as the logic was supposed to have been sound enough to warrant the case in the first place.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." The war on drugs is not a war between nation states. This hotel owner is a civilian and a citizen of the United States, not an enemy soldier. >Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic ... Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. > Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case? Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. E.g. "the prosecutor failed to consider the test used in this Circuit since U.S. v. Foo (2004) and therefore the charges are moot".
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. The context of the case is the war on drugs. That's the pretense for the government trying to steal his hotel, and I get the analogy. The problem is the premise. Even if everything worth trying once is worth trying twice, that doesn't do anything to prove you were right the first time, without which trying again is just compounding the error. >Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. And is that what happened in this case? Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets.

spigoteater 14y ago

She has some of the traits of a malignant narcissist, so no, she'll never get it.