Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Syriusly]

There's no requirement that 'children collectively' have any representation at any court hearing. You imagined it. Making your claim of an 'illegal hearing' just more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

The Infancy Doctrine is the law, whether you like it or not.

the Infancy Doctrine is part of the law- you just lie about what the Infancy Doctrine is.

 

[Skylar]

We'll see... Who do you think Trump will nominate to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they step down soon?

Sorry Sil.....but we're not remaking defamation to match your imaginary standards. Just as the Infancy Doctrine isn't based in your imagination.

Remember, your record for predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. What's more likely, that the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law.....or that you don't?

 

[Syriusly]

We'll see... Who do you think Trump will nominate to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they step down soon?

Regardless of who steps down we can predict that Trump will nominate some predictably Conservative judge.

That has nothing to do with your idiocy about the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[Syriusly]

We'll see... Who do you think Trump will nominate to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they step down soon?

Sorry Sil.....but we're not remaking defamation to match your imaginary standards. Just as the Infancy Doctrine isn't based in your imagination.

Remember, your record for predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. What's more likely, that the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law.....or that you don't?

Remember- Silhouette has said that someone just needs to instruct the Supreme Court Justices on the Infancy Doctrine- because they don't understand it like she does.

 

[Silhouette]

Regardless of who steps down we can predict that Trump will nominate some predictably Conservative judge.

That has nothing to do with your idiocy about the Infancy Doctrine.

Why would you conclude that? Conservatives believe in the Infancy Doctrine's principles of protecting children so? You may be wrong about that.

 

[Skylar]

Regardless of who steps down we can predict that Trump will nominate some predictably Conservative judge.

That has nothing to do with your idiocy about the Infancy Doctrine.

Why would you conclude that? Conservatives believe in the Infancy Doctrine's principles of protecting children so? You may be wrong about that.

Because there were descending opinions on Obergefell written by some very conservative justices. And not one of them cited your bizarre 'alterative reality' version of the Infancy Doctrine.

Your imagination isn't a legal standard, Sil. No matter how hard you imagine it is.

 

[Silhouette]

In the treatise on the Infancy Doctrine itself it says that it's existence and tons of case law supporting it are suppressed even in attorney/judge circles. But suppression can have a funny way of manifesting if new lawyers cite it, and it's supporting case laws in their briefs.

 

[Syriusly]

Regardless of who steps down we can predict that Trump will nominate some predictably Conservative judge.

That has nothing to do with your idiocy about the Infancy Doctrine.

Why would you conclude that? Conservatives believe in the Infancy Doctrine's principles of protecting children so? You may be wrong about that.

Supreme Court justices understand the Infancy Doctrine- which is why it has never been mentioned in any marriage case before the Supreme Court.

Unless Trump gets Roy Moore as a Justice- who believes Gods law is above the Constitution(and the Infancy Doctrine)- I am hopeful that any other Supreme Court nominee at least will understand the law and put the Constitution ahead of what God tells him to do.

 

[Syriusly]

In the treatise on the Infancy Doctrine itself it says that it's existence and tons of case law supporting it are suppressed even in attorney/judge circles.

No it doesn't. God you will lie about anything.
First of all the infancy doctrine only says that children can get out of contracts- not prevent contracts.

Secondly nowhere does it say it is 'suppressed'- that word is nowhere in the document.

The Conclusion is interesting- noting how the Infancy Doctrine exists as a 'firm protection for minors in the economic marketplace' - and that is what it does- despite your lies about the concept.

 

[Silhouette]

We're getting off topic. Take it to the correct thread.

 

[Silhouette]

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

....If people face real consequences for falsely accusing someone of misdeeds, or accusing them without some standard of evidence as proof, then they will stop coming forward for the sake of politics.

Also, equal weight and consideration of truth from the accused's statements refuting.

 

[jillian]

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.

Soooooo. You should have voted for Hillary because all the BS you made up about her were lies?

 

[Silhouette]

I actually voted for Hillary because I thought Trump was worse....dangerous actually. The clincher for me was that he let trannies use women's bathrooms in Trump tower. I believed and still do that despite pandering, Hillary is actually to the right of Trump privately. Her verbal attack on her gay campaign handlers election night 2016 was proof of her true feelings...and who she knew was to blame for her loss.

Many people who think from the hip revolted from the dems to conservative voting because of your cult going too far. I voted all GOP down ticket though.

 

[Skylar]

In the treatise on the Infancy Doctrine itself it says that it's existence and tons of case law supporting it are suppressed even in attorney/judge circles.

Sigh....no, Sil. Its not that your imaginary version of the Infancy Doctrine is 'suppressed'. Its that your imaginary version is imaginary.

 

[Skylar]

And back to your imaginary version of defamation....its a horrid idea. As it would hold people infinitely liable for any statement. As the standard of evidence of their guilt is subjective feeling on what they *didn't* say.

It would put the press out of business within months, including every conservative source. And since standards of defamation apply to all speech, it would essentially make Free Speech a tortable offense.

 

[evenflow1969]

And back to your imaginary version of defamation....its a horrid idea. As it would hold people infinitely liable for any statement. As the standard of evidence of their guilt is subjective feeling on what they *didn't* say.

It would put the press out of business within months, including every conservative source. And since standards of defamation apply to all speech, it would essentially make Free Speech a tortable offense.

Has the media been the cause of kangaroo justice? Yes, since the beginning of time! Sorry public opinion has an effect on policy and jurys ! That is the way it is! Democracy and free speech is messy.

 

[Skylar]

And back to your imaginary version of defamation....its a horrid idea. As it would hold people infinitely liable for any statement. As the standard of evidence of their guilt is subjective feeling on what they *didn't* say.

It would put the press out of business within months, including every conservative source. And since standards of defamation apply to all speech, it would essentially make Free Speech a tortable offense.

Has the media been the cause of kangaroo justice? Yes, since the beginning of time! Sorry public opinion has an effect on policy and jurys ! That is the way it is! Democracy and free speech is messy.

Sil is taking it many steps farther insisting that media reporting on an accusation is the 'public trial'. And any consequence from that reporting is the 'criminal punishment'.

Spoiler Alert: Sil doesn't know a thing about the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

 

[Skylar]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

Reporting the news accurately isn't 'tyranny', a 'public trial', a 'tribunal' or any of the other pseudo-legal nonsense you've attributed to it.

Your proposal would devastate both the media and free speech. As it makes anyone infinitely liable for any statement they make....as your standard of evidence is subjective feeling about statements that were never made.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

The question isn't about accuracy, it's about fairness in spread.