READ: Judge Told He Should Sentence Flynn, Deny Request To Dismiss Case | Talking Points Memo

[LeeHarveyGriswold]

If you launch canisters at people that make them have a coughing fit, you get what you get.

[rollinnolan]

Not much is sweeter-- than to see oppressors-- receive their karmic due-- in real time.

Word. It is sweet to watch these criminals get theirs, especially at a point when they are already down and struggling. That is when Karma is at it’s best.

[katex]

But what if Flynn doesn’t get his pardon before he gets imprisoned and he knows things?

He’ll be ‘Epsteined’.

[occamscoin]

By taking a pardon he will be accepting he is guilty… again.

Nope, pardons are involuntary. There is no “accept”. Now, applying for a pardon via the usual DoJ route does require acknowlegement of guilt, but that’s not going to happen here.

[cervantes]

Plenty of good folks are out there that are smart and knowledgeable that will never have a chance to go to one of the big schools.

That grievance is much broader than asking which graduates should be on the Court.

It might be nice to have a truly egalitarian society where everyone always counts the same and even qualifications don’t matter – but be careful what you wish for!

 

And when 9 out of 9 Justices are from the same damned core schools, that says that there’s something wrong with the whole damned process.

You keep asserting this but where’s the actual argument?

As Glickman points out, simply nominating people because they did well at other reputable schools isn’t going to do much.

I’ve already said what I think: If you’re really looking for “diversity of personal experience,” there are direct and meaningful ways to go about it. You can dismiss those as …

just looking at race or gender as a proxy for representation of America

but I’d suggest that you can see the importance if you look – including at what’s happening on American streets as we speak.

[dryheat]

Sounds like [Gleeson] was chosen beforehand because he had this [anti-dismissal] opinion.

That’s probably right … and that’s exactly why he was the correct selection.

Gleeson was not selected to be an impartial referee – that’s Sullivan’s job.

He was chosen to represent the “anti-dismissal” point of view abandoned by the government. The right thing to do in that circumstance was to chose someone who opposes the dismissal. Who better to do the job properly?

[cervantes]

Sounds like he was chosen beforehand because he had this opinion.

No question.

And not a problem: Team Trump is there to “argue” the other side.

[castor_troy]

You keep asserting this but where’s the actual argument?

I’m not asserting anything. That’s simple fact.

I’ve already said what I think: If you’re really looking for “diversity of personal experience,” there are direct and meaningful ways to go about it.

Well, just substituting one person from Yale for a different person from Yale only means that you got a different version of the same education product, the same lines of thinking, the same approaches.

I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of stuff about diversity in the business world. And it’s not just race or gender, it’s diversity of background and therefore thoughts.

Breaks things out of the mold of “we do this because this is the way we’ve always done it”, or “we only consider these options because we’re not even aware of anything else”.

[occamscoin]

He can’t plead the 5th about the cause for which he was pardoned.
He can do so for all other purposes in which he might have guilt.

He can also plead the 5th to avoid the alleged perjury trap that the most recent question represents. Over and over again. Pardons eliminating 5th amendment protections is one of those pernicious myths. The six pardons in the Iran-Contra coverup stopped the investigation cold.

[cervantes]

I’m not asserting anything. That’s simple fact.

The following is an assertion, not a fact:

that says that there’s something wrong with the whole damned process.

Not everyone agrees, you see – and especially not with any proposed “solution.”

But now I’ve got to run.

Have a great rest-of-the-day!

[alyoshakaramazov1]

and he has to do it AFTER he annointed himself the “Law and Order President”

[tena]

I’m still of the opinion that we fucked up when we wouldn’t let W put Harriet Meirs on the SCOTUS.

Not brilliant by any standard but also I believe, not mean.

[mnnmnnm]

But she wasn’t actually qualified. She was just not monstrous.

[occamscoin]

Is it correct, that if Trump pardons him, … he can be prosecuted for his crimes again?

He can be tried for anything he didn’t plead guilty to, but his (and manafort’s and stone’s) pardon will almost certainly be nixonian blanket pardons, covering all federal crimes committed in a date range.

There’s always state criminal liability, though it’s a little hard to figure Flynn’s liability there. Maybe in Pennsylvania for conspiracy to kidnap Gulen and render him to Turkey?

[castor_troy]

Qualifications for jobs like that are over-rated.

All those fancy degrees, and we can still predict almost every major case outcome with 100% accuracy.

If the degrees made a difference, the 5 republicans would spend a lot more time voting on the other side.

[tena]

Beats what we got instead all to hell.

[mnnmnnm]

I don’t disagree, but I think it would still be a mistake to remove it as a major consideration. If you did remove it, all it would do is allow a wider variety of awful people to be considered for the position. I don’t think it would result in the groups who nominated Alito and Kav to nominate anyone better. And I’m not sure the SC is a place where you really want much surprise.

[mnnmnnm]

Beats what we got instead all to hell.

fair enough. But it’s an ends and means thing right?

[tena]

No I don’t see how that is an ends and means thing.

Usually what that entails is some sort of immoral, unethical action in furtherance of some proposed future outcome.

Like torturing a terrorist because it will result in information that will save lives.

I don’t see how Harriet Meirs’ appointment would have risen to the kind of means that is meant there.

[mnnmnnm]

I guess I was thinking of it in terms of getting a result that you liked disregarding what you had to do to get there.

My implicit assumption was that requiring qualification was a ‘good’. (which I can certainly see being argued against).