Categories Law
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
Thread on the #keirabell judgement and sorry state of evidence-lead health policy in New Zealand.
We have further confirmation that there is no good evidence of benefit from puberty blockers, and significant risks.
1/11
The judges heard evidence for and against, and testimony from former patients. They ruled that puberty blocking is "experimental", with "very limited evidence as to its efficacy"
An unsurprising finding if you're familiar with the literature.
2/11
This is a continuation of the findings from the national health body reviews from Sweden and Finland. Both find that evidence is insufficient.
A review by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University highlighted the "profound scientific ignorance" on the the use of puberty
A 2018 review by an Australian expert group finds that all studies on the psych effects of puberty blockers have a medium or high risk of bias.
5/11
https://t.co/7L5dLrr5Zo
We have further confirmation that there is no good evidence of benefit from puberty blockers, and significant risks.
1/11
The judges heard evidence for and against, and testimony from former patients. They ruled that puberty blocking is "experimental", with "very limited evidence as to its efficacy"
An unsurprising finding if you're familiar with the literature.
2/11
This is a continuation of the findings from the national health body reviews from Sweden and Finland. Both find that evidence is insufficient.
A review by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University highlighted the "profound scientific ignorance" on the the use of puberty
A 2018 review by an Australian expert group finds that all studies on the psych effects of puberty blockers have a medium or high risk of bias.
5/11
https://t.co/7L5dLrr5Zo
Why Secession Won't Work - A Thread:
1. It's an outdated idea from a time when the country didn't have every square inch occupied with entrenched infrastructure.
2. Every angry person who wants to secede is surrounded by millions of others that don't.
3. There is no separate area of America for the angry minority to move to alone, because #2. You can't force millions out of their jobs and lives to claim a geographical area.
4. People screaming for secession don't understand the umbrella of comforts and protections they live
under. Infrastructure, healthcare, military treaties, all of which will have to be restarted and renegotiated from a position of weakness, with a fraction of our country's population. Wide open to attack, invasion, and denial of service by surrounding countries.
5. The logistical nightmare of filling the needed job roles that make a society function. Like your job in America? Have fun taking a job you hate because Secessionland needs menial laborers more than you need to be happy.
6. And speaking of creature comforts -
Better hope that Starbucks, restaurants, auto manufacturers, internet providers, and other modern services are willing to do business with a struggling, impoverished new nation - again, bargaining from a position of weakness. They don't just magically exist in your new country.
1. It's an outdated idea from a time when the country didn't have every square inch occupied with entrenched infrastructure.
2. Every angry person who wants to secede is surrounded by millions of others that don't.
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession:
— Adam Kelsey (@adamkelsey) December 12, 2020
\u201cPerhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.\u201d pic.twitter.com/4bB3gk88t4
3. There is no separate area of America for the angry minority to move to alone, because #2. You can't force millions out of their jobs and lives to claim a geographical area.
4. People screaming for secession don't understand the umbrella of comforts and protections they live
under. Infrastructure, healthcare, military treaties, all of which will have to be restarted and renegotiated from a position of weakness, with a fraction of our country's population. Wide open to attack, invasion, and denial of service by surrounding countries.
5. The logistical nightmare of filling the needed job roles that make a society function. Like your job in America? Have fun taking a job you hate because Secessionland needs menial laborers more than you need to be happy.
6. And speaking of creature comforts -
Better hope that Starbucks, restaurants, auto manufacturers, internet providers, and other modern services are willing to do business with a struggling, impoverished new nation - again, bargaining from a position of weakness. They don't just magically exist in your new country.
Much to say about yesterday’s pardons and commutations. Before getting to the updated chart, some general reflections.
Trump has upended the traditional criteria for clemency: https://t.co/HkOXJwY4G7. The traditional guiding principle: “a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.”
Request for pardon presumptively must wait 5 years after conviction or release. Traditional criteria include superlative post-conviction conduct & character; acceptance of responsibility & remorse; and hesitation to pardon serious offenses (violent crime, white collar fraud, etc)
V few of Trump’s clemency decisions meet these criteria. His pardons usually based on insider contacts, & are for v serious crimes that often dont satisfy 5-year rule, usually for people who do not express remorse. They almost always serve Trump’s personal or political interests.
As I told WP: “Other presidents have occasionally issued abusive, self-serving pardons based on insider connections. Almost all of Trump’s pardons fit that pattern. What other presidents did exceptionally, Trump does as a matter of course.”
Trump has upended the traditional criteria for clemency: https://t.co/HkOXJwY4G7. The traditional guiding principle: “a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.”
Request for pardon presumptively must wait 5 years after conviction or release. Traditional criteria include superlative post-conviction conduct & character; acceptance of responsibility & remorse; and hesitation to pardon serious offenses (violent crime, white collar fraud, etc)
V few of Trump’s clemency decisions meet these criteria. His pardons usually based on insider contacts, & are for v serious crimes that often dont satisfy 5-year rule, usually for people who do not express remorse. They almost always serve Trump’s personal or political interests.
As I told WP: “Other presidents have occasionally issued abusive, self-serving pardons based on insider connections. Almost all of Trump’s pardons fit that pattern. What other presidents did exceptionally, Trump does as a matter of course.”