#judicial impartiality

[baldwinheights]

the fix is in!!

[tomorrowusa]

Regardless of emoluments, Justice Alito has shown that he's the most fervent MAGA justice on the US Supreme Court. He now even beats out Justice Thomas.

Samuel Alito Can’t Even Lie Properly About That Upside-Down Flag

At the very least, Alito needs to recuse himself from all Trump-related court cases. Though frankly, he should be impeached.

Alito was appointed to SCOTUS by George W. Bush. Bush won the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped vote recounting in Florida as Democrat Al Gore was closing the gap with Bush. And we remember that Alito wrote the majority opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Think of Alito when you're tempted to waste a vote on an impotent third party candidate who has no chance of getting elected president and appointing Supreme Court justices.

[summerhighlandfalls]

And when will they write pop musicals about MY favorite niche American historical figures? I want a musical about Charles Evans Whittaker and Baker v Carr, Mr Miranda.

[julia-keleher]

The Importance of Impartial Juries

I hope most Americans don’t learn about the US Constitution, and its Amendments, the way I did. My crash course in understanding my rights as an American citizen began when I was indicted for the first time in July of 2019. For the next 30 months, I struggled to reconcile what I understood my rights to be and the oppressive machine that is America’s criminal justice system.

During pre-trial my attorneys put forth arguments about my right to free speech (1st Amendment), my right to privacy (4th Amendment), and my right to a trial by an impartial jury (6th Amendment).   All those arguments give rise to additional due process concerns (14th Amendment).

In order to protect my right to a trial by an impartial jury, my attorneys filed a Motion to Change Venue, or a request that the case be heard in another venue. According to the US Department of Justice, change of venue is warranted if it is in the “interest of justice” as long as the move does not unduly inconvenience witnesses who will be called to testify.  In our request to change venue, my attornys argued that, if the trial were held in Puerto Rico, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ensure my right to trial by an impartial jury.

Common Concern Concerns about the ability to seat an impartial jury are common in criminal and civil cases.  Ensuring juror impartiality is even more difficult in high profile cases.

Earlier this month, concerns about seating an impartial jury affected the high profile case of the State of New York v. the Trump Corporation. The New York Times reported both prosecution and the defense struggled to find jurors that did not have disqualifying opinions about Mr. Trump. Reasons for juror disqualification include personal history with any of the parties, personal knowledge relevant to the matter, and personal opinions that engender bias. Albeit for different reasons, both the prosecution and the defense desire jurors capable of objectively evaluating facts presented at trial.

The central issue playing out in jury selection:  the public’s perception of, and feelings toward, Donald Trump. The Times reported that one juror said: “Mr. Trump has no morals. He thinks only of himself. I think he’s a criminal. I think he’s done irreparable damage to this country.” By the end of the first day of juror screening, the court determined more than half of the 130 potential jurors were unable to serve.  The only reason the court could identify and dismiss these jurors: they were honest about their ability to be objective.

Jury Trials Are Important The Founding Fathers designed the jury trial to be fundamental to America’s system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the “check” of a jury trial is not working as intended.  Today, many criminal cases never make it to trial. The trial process has been replaced by plea bargaining and negotiated punishments.  Jury trials are disappearing, and with it, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans’ 6th Amendment protections.

Juries serve as a check on the power of government in several ways. First, they hold the power to convict.  Prosecutors can allege but they cannot render final determinations on citizens’ guilt or innocence. Second, juries engage in an independent assessment of the facts as presented by both sides. Jurors also conduct their own evaluation the parties’ actions in the context of individual rights and legal responsibilities. Finally, they determine if the government met its burden of proof. To convict, no juror can be left with a reasonable doubt.

Equally important to the jury’s role in protecting citizens’ from the unrestrained powers of government, juries also serve as the sole mechanism for ensuring prosecutorial accountability.  Because prosecutors have immunity, prosecutorial error is rarely addressed. Consequentially, there is no negative consequence for prosecutors who bring baseless cases or violate laws during investigations.  If not for juries, citizens would be subject to near tyranny at the hands of all powerful prosecutors. The pervasiveness of the problem is easily seen when data on claims of prosecutorial misconduct are aggregated.

The Duty of Serving on a Jury Despite serving these critical functions, not all Americans agree that serving on a jury is part of being a good citizen. A Pew Research study found that only two-thirds of Americans feel jury duty is a civic responsibility.  The other one-third of respondents said there was little connection between jury duty and good citizenship.

For some Americans, the first question they ask when they receive a jury summons is “How can I get out of it?”.  The most common justifications for not engaging in jury duty: financial inconvenience, disability or medical condition, religious obligation, or caregiver responsibilities. The court often excuses jurors for these reasons. But these justifications do not always apply to every person.  In those instances, data suggest some are willing to lie to get out of jury duty.

Potential jurors go through an initial screening to “qualify” for jury duty.  Attorneys conduct voir dire with the qualified jurors. This process is intended to identify individuals who are unlikely to be able to decide the case fairly. According to expert Jeffery Frederick,  voir dire evaluations of jurors should focus on jurors’ backgrounds, experiences, opinions, beliefs, and values. These five elements define the mental framework through which the juror will interpret the case.

Not surprisingly, there is little agreement about what constitutes an “impartial jury”.  In addition to the five elements Frederick highlights, unconscious bias and privilege can also influence jurors objectivity. To further complicate matters, some experts assert  that inherent bias and the media’s ability to shape public opinion make it impossible to for people to really be objective.

Difficulties of Creating an Impartial Jury The consequences of not seating an impartial jury are significant. First, they may lead to an erroneous conviction and send an innocent person to prison. Unfortunately, this happens all too often. The National Registry of Exonerations includes thousands of individuals who were convicted but later proven innocent.

Convicted defendants can appeal their convictions based on partiality of the jury but success rates are mixed.  In Washington state, a convicted defendant appealed his guilty verdict but the appeals court rejected his assertions. The Appeals Court found that the defendant was “not deprived of her right to an impartial jury even [though] the court’s failed to excuse a juror who may have known the testifying victim”.   Appeals based on allegations that jurors’ racial bias led to an unjustified guilty verdict have been more successful.  In 2016 the Supreme Court held that the trial court must protect defendants from juries that include individuals who rely on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant.

Why Does it Matter Strengthening America’s system of jury trials is one way to protect citizens, restrain the power of the prosecutor, and increase citizens confidence in America’s criminal justice system.

Ensuring Americans have a criminal justice system that they can believe in requires greater understanding of the importance of the jury system, the important roles jurors play and the dangers inherent in failing to safeguard citizens’ right to a trial by an impartial jury.

[studylaws]

Article 121 of the Indian Constitution: Restrictions on Discussion in Parliament

The Indian Constitution is a comprehensive document that lays down the fundamental principles and framework for governance in the country. Among its many provisions, Article 121 addresses the restrictions on the discussion of certain matters in the Parliament. This article focuses on a specific aspect of Article 121, which pertains to the discussion regarding the conduct of judges in the…

[liberalsarecool]

Clarence Thomas categorically destroys judicial impartiality. A society can't function with this conservative orchestrated corruption.

[neurotic-sinkhole]

oh boy another hermitcraft court case. watched it and my brain exploded like a cuboom firework. the things i've seen as a real life judicial aid and law school student will never compare to the trial.

so here is my analysis of said case:

- glad the judge kept the plaintiff going first! he is right, the defense doesnt know what case to argue against without knowing the case to begin with

- while i love the addition of a jury, typically juries are selected before either side makes a single argument. theres also a whole jury selection process that takes a while, but seeing how one side chose to not prepare anything (which is a real defense i've seen used in a real case before) maybe this was for the better lol

- also, to my knowledge most of the jury (in some way) was a part of the case - i mean the defense even brought this up. the jury was never going to be impartial. however, what confused me more was the usage of "hermitcraft" in the overarching hermitcraft v mumbo case. this verbiage implies not just beef or xb, but the whole server are claiming harm from mumbo's actions.

- furthermore, outside the courthouse there was a banner boasting "xb vs mumbo" but bdubs said "hermitcraft vs mumbo" so i'm going with the words of the judge and what would be on the theoretical court record. this continues to make me wonder what "hermitcraft" classifies as. is it a sovereign nation? is it a state? is it a confederacy of hermits? if hermitcraft, in this specific case, entailed the server as a nation then this should have been a criminal case.

- i need to stop thinking about this aspect of the case or else my brain will explode but i desperately hope for some case law defining this in the future.

- similar to the zombiecleo v docm77 case, defense's lack of witnessess was alarming. defense having only one witness in comparison to the plaintiff's three is severely unbalanced, it only gave the defense a third of the oppurtunity to prove mumbo's innocence (not that they were claiming mumbo didn't commit the actions accused of him)

- i appreciate the judge not allowing for party reps/witnesses to act as agents of the case (objecting, arguing, ect). when bdubs asked jevin where his bar card was i actually felt tears welling in my eyes from laughter.

- the plaintiff's case did a good job in throwing a lot of stuff at the defense. however, i feel they spread themselves too thin with having so many elements to the case (vandalism, noise pollution, enviromental pollution, lost wages, ect), and if they had focused on one or two aspects their case would have been much stronger

- specifically i think they should have focused on the enviromental damage perspective. the other "charges" focused too much on the social ramifications of actions taken by both mumbo and "hermitcraft"

- as for the defense, i think they could have completely gone with the defense of "freedom of expression".

- every single charge could have been easily knocked aside with this defense. it would play to bdubs' (american) brain's inherent obsession with freedom of speech, protest, assembly- just the first amendment overall. oh, the bricks? that was a protest. it is mumbo's right to protest against actions he does not agree with. the noise? the "toxic" enviroment? that's mumbo's expressed creative thoughts. it's his own individual style. he's expressing his own thoughts.

- i think the defense was right on about the train of the food prices too high, but they focused on it too much.

- i also appreciated their use of their singular witness in cub- it is absolutely right to point out there are no written peramiters for zones of builds and such.

overall i think this trial was slightly more on par with a traditional american trial than previous tall claims court cases!! i think bdubs' judgement was just. and most importantly, i can't wait for more cases to analyse (:

[i-was-today-years-old-when]

i learned what is the most bizarre government in world history?

A bit strange that no one speaks of Italian city-states here.

I think they tried just every conceivable form of government. I will tell a bit about my dearest Florentine Republic.

In 13th century, Italian city-states witnessed an intense fight between pro-Emperor and pro-Pope factions. Most nobles were pro-Emperor. Florence was one of the places where they lost the battle, which led to the establishment of democracy.

Of course, this democracy was very different from what we call democracy today. Modern Western countries are representative democracies where people only vote in the elections and countries are governed by professional politicians. A medieval Italian would call such system aristocratic.

Of course, Florentine democracy was also exclusive. Wage labourers, people in debt and women were excluded. But all others could directly participate in government of their country: 5,000–8,000 people out of 25,000–50,000 adult citizens.

Political parties were forbidden (actually, the word party was invented as a slur, something that people do not remember now). Elections were seen as aristocratic mechanism because the rich and the educated would be capable to convince or bribe others to vote for them. So the main mechanism of democracy was casting lots.

Florence was subdivided into four quarters, sixteen neighborhoods and twenty-one corporations��(seven major ones representing rich citizens and fourteen minor ones representing poor citizens): every citizen was a member of one of those. Initially, corporations had something to do with profession. Nobles renounced their nobility and joined corporations to be able to participate in the government. For instance, nobleman Dante Alighieri entered the corporation of Doctors and Apothecaries, and the ancestors of Niccolo Machiavelli registered in the corporation of Winemakers.

The main government body was Signoria. It consisted of eight Priors (two representing every quarter, six representing major corporations and two representing minor corporations) and one Gonfalonier of Justice, the chairman. They ruled the city during the period of two months only and then replaced by others. Signoria was the main legislative and executive authority. However, it could take major decisions only in common with other bodies such as Twelve Good Men (three persons from every quarter, mostly rich people) and Sixteen Gonfaloniers (one from every neighbourhood). These three bodies (Signoria, Twelve Good Men and Sixteen Gonfaloniers) were all chosen by lot: notes with their names were chosen from special leather bags preserved in the sacristy of the Santa Croce cathedral.

The laws were approved by the Council of the Commune (192 people, 48 from every quarter, majority rich) and the Council of the People (160 people, 10 from every neighbourhood, majority poor).

There was an enormous quantity of other governing bodies that regulated everything that needed to be regulated in the Republic, from quality checks of the bread to the licensing of the sex workers. In most cases, people served from three to six months. It meant that every full-fledged male citizen of the Florentine Republic could hope to be chosen for one of these positions.

The judicial and military power belonged to the podestà, a foreign citizen with good reputation, legal education and a military company or at least a group of armed servants. Florentines believed that a foreigner would be a more impartial judge in Florentine discussions. A podestà was invited to Florence for six months.

Finally, the Medici family managed to circumvent the system and become rulers of Florence but it took time. The system of checks and balances did work.

However, no one was able to circumvent the government system of Venetian Republic. Do you know why?

For more than five centuries (from 1268 to 1797) the procedure to elect the doge (chief of state) did not change.

Choose 30 members of the Great Council by lot.

These 30 people are reduced by lot to 9.

These 9 people choose 40 other people.

These 40 are reduced by lot to 12.

These 12 people choose 25 other people.

These 25 people are reduced by lot to 9.

These 9 people choose 45 other people.

These 45 people are reduced by lot to 11.

These 11 people choose 41 other people.

These 41 people elect the doge.

Funny that many Americans blame their electoral system for being complicated. You may think what you want about the Venetian system but it guaranteed what was probably the most stable government in the history of mankind.

By the way, despite the fact he was elected for life, the power of the chief of state in Venice was very much limited.

He could not appear in public without other officials present (security from populism). He could not meet foreign diplomats or open foreign dispatches without other officials present (security from collusion with foreign governments). He could not possess any property in a foreign land.

However, he had a nice place to live.

[todaysdocument]

Indictment for Sedition

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Criminal Case FilesFile Unit: United States versus Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahustock, #6 October Session 1799

In the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Pennsylvania district of the Middle Circuit

The Grand Inquest of the United States of America for the Pennsylvania District upon their respective oaths and affirmations do present that Benjamin Meyer and Conrad Fahnestock late of the same district Yeoman being ill disposed persons designing and intending to vilify and defame the government of the United States and the administration of justice therein and to cause it to be believed that the Judicial Courts of the said United States was actuated by unlawful motives and not by the duty imposed on them by the Constitution of the United States aforesaid and thereby to weaken and diminish the authority of the said court and excite opposition against the same on the twenty first day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine at the County of Dauphin in the District aforesaid wickedly and maliciously did print and publish and cause to be printed and published in a certain newspaper then and there in the German language and called Unpartheyische Harrisburg Zeitung which German words signify The Impartial Harrisburg Newspaper the false scandalous contemptuous and malicious words matters and things following that is to say Capt. John Fries Die Constitution der Vereinigten Staaten sagt Hochverrath soll nur darein bestehen wenn man krieg gegen dieselben erklaret oder ihren feinden anhanget und sie [complete document and transcription at link]

[infamouslydorky]

Why I think Mael Stronghart can be an interesting character:

Stronghart is often regarded by others, especially in a western audience, to be a boring antagonist. Most often I see aa fandom put his enjoyers in one of two categories:

1. You find him physically attractive or

2. You love to hate him.

I'm here to propose a third option: perhaps he is, in fact, interesting. He isn't necessarily the most openly expressive individual, and that seems to make people inclined to think him boring, but it's more that is his outward presentation to people. Like Damon Gant with his jovial persona, Stronghart wears a veneer to give a sense of invulnerability, a resoluteness, security, and impartiality, which would probably be required in his mind of someone not only a judge in authority but a person who is representative of a larger governmental judicial whole.

Ace attorney is no stranger to the concept of antagonists serving as representative symbols of a larger systemic corruption, Stronghart being part of this lineage, though if discussing what makes him individual, it would be that he needs control. He needs security. He mentions himself that he likes things to run smoothly, like the gears of a clock.

This brings the point of the clock analogy being relevant to his character. If ever encountering a traditional clock, the mechanations operate by an elaborate system of gears. The maintenance of which requires particular maticulousness, the likes of which, if neglected, begin to show wear on the machinery and the clock begins to slow and fall apart. His chronic tardiness is also reflective of this idea, as it shows his negligence. He adds more gears and systems to the elaborate mechanations of his plans that he can not keep up to attend to them all and begins to show signs of deterioration by his delays being unable to keep up with the mess he's made to keep as much in order and control as possible.

Truly, Stronghart's journey as a character is one of obsession with control and by putting all responsibility of everything on himself because he finds difficulty in putting trust in others, he bites off more than he can chew, and Sholmes exploits that to take him down. It certainly doesn't help that "Chunosuke" decides to hickory dickory dock up and down said clock, further throwing a wrench into these unsustainable plans, exacerbating the original issues in the first place.

He serves as a foil to all of the protagonists for this reason. Ryuunosuke is ultimately successful because he relies on others. Likewise with Sholmes, Barok, Susato, Iris, Gina, and others. Stronghart can't do that because he can't trust others for loss of control, and a key component of trust is vulnerability. He will not give his vulnerability. He can't. He can not trust a broken system that allows guilty individuals to get away with their crimes by means of corruption, so he takes matters into his own hands. It's that inability to trust that brings his downfall and allows Ryuunosuke and friends to actually bring about positive change.

The last time we see Stronghart, he is laid bare before all the consequences of his actions and only when he is finally caught, does he display any act of vulnerability, not because of giving trust, but because he's given up on everything and the one person he had any sort of trust in: the queen because, in his mind, she betrayed him. He's a royalist because the Queen represented the ultimate symbol of control and security. "The benevolent force guiding the empire." So when she leaves him to rot for his misdeeds instead of rewarding him for doing what he believed was justified for the betterment of Her Majesty's empire, he dies alone, a broken, lonely man.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." (Article III, Section 1) [emphasis added]

Alexander Hamilton would be outraged to know that the current Supreme Court justices assume the Constitution gives them lifetime appointments — regardless of their behavior. He wouldn’t understand how any justice could overlook Article III, Section I that states that judges and justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

In the above commentary, Jack Jordan makes an excellent case that the Founders' intentions regarding the tenure of federal justices and judges has been grossly misinterpreted--and by justices who claim to be "originalists." Below are some excerpts:

A favorite falsehood by fake originalists (including those on SCOTUS) is that federal judges have “life tenure” or “lifetime appointments” (essentially the right to employment for life). Nothing explicitly or implicitly in our Constitution supports that myth. Often, so-called originalists who assert such falsehoods are lying to us about our Constitution.  [...] Our Constitution (Article III) strongly and clearly emphasized that all federal “Judges,” i.e., “of the supreme [court] and [all] inferior Courts shall” (and may) “hold their Offices” only “during good Behaviour.” This particular principle was discussed repeatedly and in multiple respects during the debates over whether the people should ratify our Constitution. Such discussions are evidence of what the people actually did ratify. Such discussions are evidence of what the people (including Federalists and Antifederalists) understood our Constitution meant. Some of the most obvious and emphatic statements were by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78. Hamilton emphasized that some state “constitutions” already “established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices” and our Constitution “would have been inexcusably defective, if it had [failed to include] this important feature of good government.” “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy” was carefully (and repeatedly) chosen to be “one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.” [color/ emphasis added]

______________ Alexander Hamilton image was AI generated by Shutterstock.

[See more excerpts below the cut.]

[...] Hamilton also emphasized that judges are “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people.” We the People used our Constitution (Article III) to impose the “standard of good behavior” on judges as an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [all our] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by all our public servants. [...] Repeatedly, Hamilton and James Madison emphasized similar principles. Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.”  The Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton).  Having “courts composed of judges holding their offices” only “during good behavior” is a “powerful means” for ensuring “the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.”  The Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton).  “The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.”  The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison).  Only “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”  The Federalist No. 79 (Hamilton). In The Federalist No. 81 (Hamilton) also addressed a particular form of bad judicial behavior that is remarkably common among some SCOTUS justices: “judges” committing “deliberate usurpations” of “authority” that was not delegated to them by our Constitution. Hamilton also emphasized “the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments” (by the House of Representatives) “and of determining upon them” (in a trial by the Senate) “would give to” Congress as “the means of punishing [the] presumption” of judges usurping powers that the Constitution did not give judges or courts (or to Congress, which creates all federal courts below SCOTUS). [color/ emphasis added]

So the Founders expected federal judges and justices who were not showing "good behavior" to be removed.

This also suggests that they would have expected the Supreme Court to develop a code of ethics that had actual teeth, in addition to the institutional check against bad judicial behavior that they put in place by allowing Congress to impeach corrupt justices.

Unfortunately, the Founders didn't expect that in the future one party in Congress (the Republicans) would be so corrupt that there is no way they would ever impeach the equally corrupt right-wing "politicians in robes" on the current Supreme Court.

Still, anytime a justice asserts that they have tenure for life in an interview, the interviewer might want to remind them about that "good behavior" stipulation in Article III, and ask them how they are making sure they are fulfilling that requirement for their continued tenure.

[didalexiabreakupwitholgaisback]

ver procedimientos judiciales es tan deprimente

pues, claro que sí, por supuesto que lo es. pero todos necesitamos verlos porque no confío en que los periodistas de este país informen con imparcialidad sobre este caso judicial. 😤

yes, she is. but she is being called as a witness for rubiales' defense.

hmm, i think that's a bit of a stretch. only irene and alexia are testifying.

there was a lot more that was happening last week that had more of an effect on the locker room, including the departure of keira, uncertainty around ingrid, and no backup plan in place.

that's good! and hopefully it's fair and impartial coverage. 🙏 so many of us have been through or know someone who has been sexually abused/assaulted and so we can understand how difficult this is but it is such an important day as well!

jenni is being incredibly brave and i hope she has the support system around her she needs!

100%

[spunkykirby]

Uhm...I found another potential flaw mihoyo needs to confront about Neuvillette and his Archon Trials:

...how exactly is he playing both the Plaintiff and the Judge???

This "legal" case would present several significant flaws:

1. Conflict of Interest. Neuvillette would be responsible for both presenting their case and making decisions on the outcome, creating a clear conflict of interest. The archons don't even need to point this out, the jury would be questioning this from the get go (especially when Neuvi has never acted as both before, nor has anyone in all of fontaine's history).

2. Bias: It's likely that Neuvi would be biased in favor of his own interests (he's the one who enforced the "come to trial or there's Violence™ in the first place anyway), leading to potential unfair rulings and potentially denying the opposing party a fair trial.

3. Violation of Due Process: The principles of due process, which ensure fair treatment and impartiality in legal proceedings, would be compromised if one person held BOTH roles. I understand the PO did this but Neuvillette is not the PO and touts a lot about being impartial and true Fairness. He is not embodying that if he projects his grievances with only the PO onto the people who aren't the PO nor did they do the PO's exact crime.

4. Loss of Confidence in the Legal System. Such a setup would undermine public trust and confidence in the legal system, as it goes against fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Once again, highly doubt it has ever happened in all of Fontaine's history.

This scenario would likely be considered a severe violation of judicial ethics. It would be called a conflict of interest, where the individual holding both roles has a personal stake in the outcome of the case (Justice for Dragons™ but then again it's NOT against their actual Perpetrator™ which is THE PO), compromising the integrity of the legal process.

SOLUTION(S):

1. Get someone else to act as the Judge. Would be hilarious for it to be Furina. She'd be familiar with the court and no longer needs to speak in bias since she's not masquerading as the Archon. Additionally she has experience/understanding from both sides. Main issue of course being: topic of gods is an anxiety inducing thing for her...though this time it has nothing to do with her.

2. Someone else to act as the Plaintiff. This is iffy. It'd have to be a person with extensive knowledge on the old world and/or Teyvat's true history while being in agreement with Neuvillette. But this would also potentially spark the conflict of interest thing again, cause they could be said to be put there as an agent for Neuvillette/a slimy way for Neuvi to act in both positions.

They may be archons, but they're far from being fools. They have leagues of experience dealing with these situations; they're not walking into one that's obviously drenched in bias against them and they serve to gain nothing from it (well, nothing but harm/death and potentially affecting their denizens).

Two ways to dodge that would be to put either Furina or maybe some Natlantean on stand.

[wilwheaton]

Under binding 11th Circuit precedents a case should be reassigned to a different judge if, among other reasons, the original judge would have “difficulty” setting aside her previous views and findings and reassignment would not result in a waste of judicial resources. Those factors clearly weigh in favor of reassignment here, due to the difficulties that Judge Cannon will likely face in diverging from her previous unorthodox and wrongful rulings benefiting Trump. This is the path that appears most likely to be pursued if Judge Cannon is to be removed, because her approach thus far suggests that it unlikely that the judge will recuse herself. DOJ might choose to make the case in a recusal motion that it would be better for her and everyone concerned if she stepped aside. In just about any other high-profile criminal case, if a trial judge were to err in the direction of excessive leniency favoring a criminal defendant in a preliminary hearing and were reversed on appeal, law-and-order conservatives would be the first to say that trial judge had a conflict and should be removed. That judge’s reputation would be on trial. Impartiality would be too dubious. The same is true here.

Trump indictment: How to force Judge Aileen Cannon off the case.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Access Now condemns the suspension of X in Brazil

On August 30, 2024, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the suspension of X, following a months-long legal confrontation. The conflict began in April when the court mandated the suspension of several X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation and attacking democracy. X’s failure to comply with this order led to the court imposing fines and threatening to imprison company representatives in the country. In response to these measures, the company decided not to pay the fines and instead closed their offices in the country which eventually resulted in the suspension of the entire platform in Brazil. On September 2, First Chamber Justices unanimously endorsed Moraes’ ruling. We note that the text of the proceedings remain sealed and more information is needed for a comprehensive analysis.

Access Now opposes the suspension of X in Brazil and is concerned by the growing trend of blocking of entire online platforms and applications as a response to systemic non-compliance. Such extreme actions are rarely proportionate as they violate people’s fundamental human rights and negatively impact the most marginalized communities instead of ensuring meaningful accountability from the platforms and mitigating their negative impact on human rights.

The recent block on X—formerly Twitter —in Brazil is a clear example of this trend, where approximately 22 million users are caught in the crossfire of platforms and judicial decisions. Moreover, the platform has had a big influence on political affairs and information sharing in Brazil. Blocking a platform does not solve the underlying issues of disinformation and hate speech. Instead, it limits access to information and stifles free expression, broadly, and in particular here, will have major implications for democracy as Brazil prepares to hold local elections in October.

International human rights law considers blocking online platforms a last resort measure if backed by significant procedural safeguards. They include providing advance notification of the blocking measures to affected parties and conducting an impact assessment of the measures to avoid their arbitrary or excessive effects. In addition, a blocking order has to be issued by an independent and impartial judicial body, and the legal basis for ordering platforms’ blocking must, among other things, be clear and predictable. 

Continue reading.

[democracyunderground]

Washington, D.C. (January 31, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, issued the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s latest assault on the nonpartisan federal workforce, this time taking aim at qualified, expert Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents and DOJ prosecutors who worked on the investigations into the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and Trump’s mishandling of classified documents:

“In another repulsive affront to the rule of law and our nation’s law enforcement officers, the Trump Administration today moved to fire scores of FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors simply for enforcing the law and impartially carrying out the largest criminal investigation in American history which they had been assigned to work on. On Day One, the unpopular President Trump pardoned the members of violent militias and street gangs who beat police officers to a pulp with pipes, flagpoles and broken furniture when they attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 to overturn the presidential election Trump had lost by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college.

“Today, shockingly but not surprisingly, Trump takes aim at the career FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors who investigated and prosecuted the violent insurrectionary assault on our police officers to block the peaceful transfer of power, as well as those FBI agents who were assigned to investigate Trump’s efforts to illegally retain classified records at his Mar-a-Lago club, defy judicial subpoenas, obstruct justice, conceal evidence, and lie to law enforcement.

“Trump’s outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law. Trump wants to send the message to the police and federal officers that the law doesn’t apply to Trump and his enablers. It’s also part of his campaign to replace nonpartisan career civil servants with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants. Trump’s moves have already left the Justice Department and the FBI rudderless and adrift by ousting their career senior ranks. Now, these unprecedented purges of hundreds of prosecutors, staff and experienced law enforcement agents will undermine the government’s power to protect our country against national security, cyber, and criminal threats.

“The loyal friend of autocrats, kleptocrats, oligarchs and broligarchs, Trump doesn’t care about the requirements of democracy, national security and public safety. His agenda is vengeance and retribution. If allowed to proceed, Trump’s purge of our federal law enforcement workforce will expose America to authoritarianism and dictatorship.

“Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this lawless and dangerous purge. We’ll stand with the dedicated FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors who have been targeted simply for doing their jobs and upholding their oaths.”