I wonder how much switching judges would delay the trial.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Mandamus: A writ issued by a superior court and directed to some inferior tribunal, or to some corporation or person exercising authority, commanding the performance of some specified duty.
Noice.
Won't she just pull the trump strategy of delay delay delay until the election comes around?
See now this is a good article about these legal proceedings. It actually explains the detail that isn't apparent to non-lawyers and gives an overview of the potential outcomes, rather than a retired lawyer just speculating and jerking themselves off over what might happen.
Yeah, the LA Times has some pretty good writers. They consistently impress me with the thoroughness and (real) fairness of their pieces.
Writ of mandamus from Wikipedia
A writ of mandamus (/mænˈdeɪməs/; lit. ''we command'') is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action.[1] They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
Apropos, since presiding judge seems to be invoking Writ of Douchebaggery
I DECLARE MANDAMUS ON ALL OF CONGRESS. EXPECTO MANDAMUS.
Appreciate the info...it's funny they have a special way to officially say "nah, fuck you, do your job."
She probably won't know what means and to stupid to look it up. Or she will ignore it.
Until AI is smart enough to preside over our courtrooms in a purely unbiased fashion (ha!), we’ll be stuck with shitty humans running our shitty legal systems.
AI would work along the parameters that are set by the biased humans that programmed it, so it would just be another layer of abstraction continuing the same systemic issues.
Yes obviously, which is why I laughed immediately after saying it.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Even if humans build a computer smarter than we are, the machines will still be a product of human minds.
Of course but the next generation will be of the computer’s minds. Evolution will continue long into the machine age.
Intelligent and moral are too separate things. Henry Kissinger was objectively intelligent He spoke several languages and conducted high level negotiations with world leaders. He also made the decision to bomb civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
I thought we were talking about AI judges. They should be impartial and consider the facts, what has morals got to do with it?
You should read some of Kissinger's writings. He didn't kill all those people because he wanted to be a monster; he had a rational belief that killing millions in Asia would lead to long term peace. He was impartial and considered the facts.
Judges have to interpret the law and apply it. AI executive branch / military would apply to what you’re saying however.
That question is exactly why we shouldn't try this