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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I heard it from actively practicing lawyers on the Legal AF podcast, and I don't know which episode. I don't have a written source to give you.
I really appreciate this exchange. Someone casually makes a claim, someone else requests sources, and the original poster took the time to respond and detail where they heard the info. Great job on all of you. Now I'll try to add to the conversation.
IANAL but it looks like it's a defendant's right. It's origins seem to be about protecting a defendant from a never-ending or egregiously drawn out prosecution. I think it's fair to say that it gives both sides tools in this case. It seems pretty obvious to me that the defendant here (orange man) wants to delay and would maybe even decline his right to a speedy trial if offered the choice. Meanwhile the prosecution can press the judges to keep things moving by pointing out that they (the prosecutors and judges) are legally obligated to give the defendant a speedy trial.
and sources:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-2-1/ALDE_00012979/
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB4.htm
I appreciate the positive response, but I have to strongly disagree and point out how this is a thing that is so bothersome with lemmy (and reddit as well).
As you said, someone just casually made a claim. If one has anything more than the most basic education about the COTUs, they would know it was intended to put restrictions on the federal government, not restrictions on individuals. So the argument that this was also supposed to restrict the individual doesn't even remotely pass the sniff test.
They were unanimously upvoted. At this point, it's still unanimous. All because it's what people want to be true in this case. Including myself.
A poster asked them to cite the claim that doesn't pass the sniff test. Met with twice as many downvotes as upvotes. A reasonable question, 100% more downvotes than upvotes.
Their response is nothing more than "I heard it somewhere from a source that knows what they are talking about." Almost literally it's that vague.
They were unanimously upvoted. Again. For what is effectively nothing. All because it's what people want to be true.
It was a garbage and (I believe) ignorant claim, which you seem to have figured out, and it was universally accepted. It was a reasonable question, which was punished with downvotes. And their response to the question was absolutely nothing, and it was universally accepted.
This is not how it should work. I would argue it's the exact opposite of how it should work.
Thank you for posting this. These are the kinds of comments that we need more of on the internet. Ones that aren't afraid to push back on the errors of the hivemind, however justified the sentiment may be.
We both know the question was very much in bad faith. Write all the novels you want and that won't change
It's can only be obviously bad faith if you recognize the claim is obviously bs.
But I don't know it was bad faith. It could be, or it could be a genuine question because it clashes with what they believe to be true, or it could be that they know the claim is false and they are trying to let the poster come to the conclusion on their own.
You're confusing your desire for it to be bad faith, justifying your down voting, with knowing it to be.
You're willing to go far on a limb for this unlikely scenario, and I think a lot of people can guess why
What is the unlikely scenario you're referring to? As far as I can tell, his assessment of the situation is correct. I'm not sure why you're so sure that the question was in bad faith.
Can't debate the point, so throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Seems the empty ad hominem is your MO.
I don't argue with morons anymore, just call them
How was it bad faith? The poster I was responding to was simply wrong
Beyond the defendant's right, its more an observation that justice delayed unduly is justice denied
I've only really heard Popok say the common expression
But its more a global and ethical statement that the defendant and the victim and the People deserve to have and see justice be done.
Not sure if there's an actual affirmative right per se but its more a reflection that Trump has used his wealth and threatening tactics to escape every legal issue he's created and so fsr basically gotten away with it all. Any normal person would have long been bankrupted and imprisoned long before he was even starting to be properly investigated abd pursued