Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Skylar]

Do you have a rebuttal to why it is legally feasible for the USSC to craft language to protect accused from media trials....or not?

There are no 'media trials'. Thus, there's no 'media trials' for the USSC to protect the accused against.

Remember, the 'trial' gibberish is your imagination. It has no reflection in the actual law.

Well that's funny, because the people on the receiving end of the punishment for those "imaginary trials" sure feel like there's been a trial without fair representation. You work off paper minutia. I'm coming from an angle of real experienced consequences. We'll see which holds more weight in Court. Or are "how the plaintiff feels...etc etc...." only weighty considerations when it's Obergefell?

Alas, 'feeling' like there is a trial isn't actually a legal standard.

And you're just making up quotes for the Obergefell decision now too. Again, Sil......you've got just one trick: ignore the law and replace it with your imagination.

It never works

You see, I keep bringing up Obergefell here because it is the PERFECT example of what YOU are ARGUING AGAINST right now out of convenience. You're saying "we shouldn't bend solid laws and longstanding establishment of rights (you know, like states' rights to determine marriage parameters for the "best interest of children" [direct quote from Obergefell's third tier of rationale]). You're saying we shouldn't rely on the feelings of the experiencees from oppression; you know, like the entire rationale for Obergefell was about.

The court explicitly contradicts you in the obergefell decision, finding that bans on same sex marriage harm and humiliate children. And that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

You ignored the court's explicit findings about same sex marriage bans harming children......and then imagined that EVERY marriage must be conditioned on procreation.

As always, the ruling doesn't change just because you ignore parts or imagine others.

It's almost like in law, you want your cake and want to eat it too? Can't have it both ways Skylar. Know what I think would be fucking hilarious? If a case was decided in favor of the KY Reps widow, citing the points I've made herein and rebutting opposing arguments in one of their tiers of rationale by citing Obergefell's "people's hurt feelings justify brand new retooling of longstanding rights". (by the Judiciary, outside permission of the Legislature or any citation or inference from the US Constitution...)

How about it Skylar? Think we should use Obergefell's precedent of "hurt feelings override Constitutional protections"? Or not?

Your imagination isn't law, Sil. And your imagination is what you're offering us as your legal standards.

Its why you always, always fail in legal debates. Its why your record of predicting the outcome of cases is one of perfect failure.

 

[Silhouette]

No buddy. Read Obergefell. The entire document is about how hurt feelings of gays and lesbians/homsexuals/same sex couples justify their conclusions.

Yet now suddenly a suicide from hurt feelings does not justify a radical change in Constitutional distribution of power to the protected, states, media etc.

Lots of ad hominem there too in your post. It's like a barometer on your "I ain't got shit to refute" M.O.

 

[Skylar]

No buddy. Read Obergefell.

I have. Lets read it together:

"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You pretend this passage doesn't exist. Then laughably imagine that because you pretend it doesn't exist, that its not legally binding. Alas, that's not how the law works. Your imagination and willful ignorance aren't legal standards. And the Obergefell decision explicitly contradicts you.

The Obergefell decision is legally binding. Your imagination is legally irrelevant.

 

[bodecea]

No buddy. Read Obergefell. The entire document is about how hurt feelings of gays and lesbians/homsexuals/same sex couples justify their conclusions.

Yet now suddenly a suicide from hurt feelings does not justify a radical change in Constitutional distribution of power to the protected, states, media etc.

Lots of ad hominem there too in your post. It's like a barometer on your "I ain't got shit to refute" M.O.

Gays! Gays! Gays!

 

[g5000]

How many of you think that the widow of the representative who killed himself this week should sue media outlets who dispense un-tried kangaroo-evidence to produce the effects (suicide) of a guilty verdict without a trial?

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers. Media smear campaigns effectively try and destroy/punish the accused before he ever sees a judge or jury. Regardless of the merits or nonmerits of the accusing woman, should the punishment part (ruination of career & marriage and reputation) begin before a trial is held? Remember, no matter which party you belong to, you could be accused next.

Vote in the poll.

It cracks me up how you pseudocons are suddenly all up in arms about making allegations and innuendo against politicians.

It really does.

 

[Skylar]

No buddy. Read Obergefell. The entire document is about how hurt feelings of gays and lesbians/homsexuals/same sex couples justify their conclusions.

Yet now suddenly a suicide from hurt feelings does not justify a radical change in Constitutional distribution of power to the protected, states, media etc.

Lots of ad hominem there too in your post. It's like a barometer on your "I ain't got shit to refute" M.O.

Gays! Gays! Gays!

Sil keeps citing her feelings and imagination as legal evidence. And the courts have yet to recognize any of her feelings and imagination as having any legal relevance.

Its the same shtick regardless of topic: ignore the actual law and replace it with imagination. That's Sil's MO. That's all she does. And the results are predictably poor; her record on accurately predicting the outcome of actual cases is one of perfect failure. She's literally *never* gotten one case right.

And the reason is simple: rulings are bound to the *actual* law and court rulings. Not Sil's imagination.

 

[Skylar]

How many of you think that the widow of the representative who killed himself this week should sue media outlets who dispense un-tried kangaroo-evidence to produce the effects (suicide) of a guilty verdict without a trial?

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers. Media smear campaigns effectively try and destroy/punish the accused before he ever sees a judge or jury. Regardless of the merits or nonmerits of the accusing woman, should the punishment part (ruination of career & marriage and reputation) begin before a trial is held? Remember, no matter which party you belong to, you could be accused next.

Vote in the poll.

It cracks me up how you pseudocons are suddenly all up in arms about making allegations and innuendo against politicians.

It really does.

"Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!"

Fast forward one year:

"Its really unfair that someone is being accused of something they haven't been convicted of. Innocent until proven guilty!"

 

[g5000]

You had no problem accusing Trump of pedophilia. Didn't bother you at all, kangaroo:

The GOP: the party of child rapists and women psychological abusers. Sweet. When they lose the Senate, now they'll know why. The reason people are disillusioned with the GOP is that they've become so spineless that they don't even know how to clean their own house. Trump should've been booted on a technicality long ago. But they stand there in silent approval of him. Assholes.

 

[Skylar]

You had no problem accusing Trump of pedophilia. Didn't bother you at all, kangaroo:

The GOP: the party of child rapists and women psychological abusers. Sweet. When they lose the Senate, now they'll know why. The reason people are disillusioned with the GOP is that they've become so spineless that they don't even know how to clean their own house. Trump should've been booted on a technicality long ago. But they stand there in silent approval of him. Assholes.

I don't see equal time being given to the denials of the accused there. Let me guess? Sil exempts herself from her own standards.

 

[g5000]

You had no problem accusing Trump of pedophilia. Didn't bother you at all, kangaroo:

The GOP: the party of child rapists and women psychological abusers. Sweet. When they lose the Senate, now they'll know why. The reason people are disillusioned with the GOP is that they've become so spineless that they don't even know how to clean their own house. Trump should've been booted on a technicality long ago. But they stand there in silent approval of him. Assholes.

I don't see equal time being given to the denials of the accused there. Let me guess? Sil exempts herself from her own standards.

But of course.

They all do.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you have a rebuttal to why it is legally feasible for the USSC to craft language to protect accused from media trials....or not?

Silly talking to herself again- asking herself to rebut herself apparently.

 

[Silhouette]

No buddy. Read Obergefell.

I have.

Good, then you already know it was about how "hurt feelings justify radical judicial overreach to squelch the Constitution". And since you're on board with that in Obergefell, you'll no doubt be into the same logic applying to people committing suicide because of real harm being done by de facto mass media trials before the facts are run before judge and jury.

 

[mdk]

All roads lead back to gay marriage with Sil.

Stub your toe? Gay marriage
Spill coffee on your lap? Gay marriage
Flat tire on the way to work? You guessed it! Gay marriage

 

[Silhouette]

That's not a reply to my points. Mdk, if hurt feelings justify one court case recently retooling the Constitution via the judiciary, why can't it be done with a lawsuit about mass media trying the accused before trial, if doing so hurts his feelings so much he kills himself?

 

[Skylar]

No buddy. Read Obergefell.

I have.

Good, then you already know it was about how "hurt feelings justify radical judicial overreach to squelch the Constitution". And since you're on board with that in Obergefell, you'll no doubt be into the same logic applying to people committing suicide because of real harm being done by de facto mass media trials before the facts are run before judge and jury.

And again, you simply ignore and omit the ruling's obliteration of your point.....and prove my point.

"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

Obergefell v. Hodges

Exactly as I described, you merely ignore the Obergefell ruling and then replace it with your imagination.

Nor does the court say that 'hurt feelings justify radical judicial overreach'. You're citing your imagination, again Sil.....while ignoring what the Supreme Court actually found. Neither your imagination nor your willful ignorance are legal standards. Which is why your record of predicting the outcomes of actual cases is one of perfect failure.

 

[Syriusly]

That's not a reply to my points. Mdk, if hurt feelings justify one court case recently retooling the Constitution via the judiciary, why can't it be done with a lawsuit about mass media trying the accused before trial, if doing so hurts his feelings so much he kills himself?

Certainly you can try to convince the Supreme Court to ignore the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

But of course that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court agreeing that Americans have the constitutional right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

That's not a reply to my points. Mdk, if hurt feelings justify one court case recently retooling the Constitution via the judiciary, why can't it be done with a lawsuit about mass media trying the accused before trial, if doing so hurts his feelings so much he kills himself?

Your 'point' is your imagination. As the courts never say that 'hurt feelings justify radical judicial overreach'. They say, instead, that same sex marriage bans harm and humiliate children.

You can ignore what the court actually finds and imagine whatever you'd like. But the moment you do, you're no longer making a legal argument.

 

[mdk]

That's not a reply to my points. Mdk, if hurt feelings justify one court case recently retooling the Constitution via the judiciary, why can't it be done with a lawsuit about mass media trying the accused before trial, if doing so hurts his feelings so much he kills himself?

You don't have much of a point other than to chip away at our constitutional rights using your imagination and gay marriage as an excuse to do so.

I am not shocked, though. In the past, you stated you are willing to make deals with Muslim terrorists if it means you can roll back gay rights in this nation. That's how sick your obsession has become.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ so the reinforcements are sent in as a diversion from the topic. Way to be the stereotypes of trolling. Group trolling in this case.

Meanwhile your ilk bears the double standard. It's fine & dandy to warp the Constitution when it promotes you dogma of victimhood as force. But when it's to protect a persons right to an unbiased tribunal, suddenenly feelings don't matter and you take a hard line defending media libel.

Why? Because your ilk has a monopoly on mass media & it's your go-to weapon to take down prominent people you know are vocally opposed to your cult & in a position of power to actually do something about it. Like GOP governors *waves to Maddow*. Or ministers, or in this case a GOP Rep.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ so the reinforcements are sent in as a diversion from the topic. Way to be the stereotypes of trolling. Group trolling in this case.

Meanwhile your ilk bears the double standard. It's fine & dandy to warp the Constitution when it promotes you dogma of victimhood as force. But when it's to protect a persons right to an unbiased tribunal, suddenenly feelings don't matter and you take a hard line defending media libel.

Why? Because your ilk has a monopoly on mass media & it's your go-to weapon to take down prominent people you know are vocally opposed to your cult & in a position of power to actually do something about it. Like GOP governors *waves to Maddow*. Or ministers, or in this case a GOP Rep.

Still can't figure out how to use the reply button eh?

You are arguing against Freedom of the Press and the Constitution.

Because you believe the press must be forced to give equal time to the accused- so that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer can have as much space to explain his point of view- as the prosecution does.